Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2010
Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents iii
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
WATERCRESS DARTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Jefferson County, Alabama
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2010
Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 3
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 14
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 14
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14
Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan .................................................................................. 16
Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) ..................................... 16
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 17
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 17
Alterations to Hydrology and Degradation of Aquatic Ecosystems ................................... 18
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 20
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 20
Geology AND Topography ................................................................................................ 21
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 21
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 22
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 23
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 23
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 26
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 26
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 28
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 29
Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 29
Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 32
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 32
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 32
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 32
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 32
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 35
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 35
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 36
ii Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 39
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 39
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 40
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 40
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 41
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 42
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 48
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 49
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 49
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 49
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 49
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 51
Resource protection .......................................................................................................... 51
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 53
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 54
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 54
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 54
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 55
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 55
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 55
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 57
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 67
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 71
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 85
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................... 90
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses .......................................................................... 91
APPENDIX E. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................... 97
APPENDIX F. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 105
APPENDIX G. WILDERNESS REVIEW .......................................................................................... 109
APPENDIX H. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 111
APPENDIX I. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 117
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 119
APPENDIX K. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 121
Alternative A – Maintain Current Management (No Action) ............................................ 121
Alternative B – Refuge Focused Management ............................................................... 121
Alternative C – Integrated Landscape Management (Preferred Alternative) .................. 122
iv Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. General location of Watercress Darter NWR ......................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Black Warrior River Watershed ........................................................................................... 10
Figure 4. Approved acquisition boundary for Watercress Darter NWR – Roebuck Springs ............... 13
Figure 5. Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem ............................................................................................ 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Select data from Alabama’s Draft 2006 303(d) list ............................................................... 25
Table 2. Comparison of geographic and demographic statistics for the city of
Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama, and the USA ......................................................... 30
Table 3. Wildlife-dependent recreation by participants, 16 years old and older,
across Alabama ................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4. Watercress Darter NWR revenue payments in dollars for Jefferson County,
Alabama, for a 10-year period ............................................................................................. 33
Table 5. Watercress Darter NWR step-down management plans and associated
completion dates ................................................................................................................. 56
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), in Jefferson County, Alabama, (Figure 1) was prepared to guide management actions and
direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management;
wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and
does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the refuge
and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This CCP describes the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s plan. The CCP, in draft format, was made available to state and federal government
agencies, non-governmental organizations, conservation partners, and the general public for review and
comment. Comments from each entity were considered in the development of this CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to provide refuge managers with a plan of action to achieve the refuge
purpose; to attain the vision and goals developed for the refuge; to contribute to National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; to address key problems, issues, and relevant mandates;
and one that is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the
Commission of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission
was renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. General location of Watercress Darter NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
4 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges
established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas; i.e., protection of prairie
wetlands in America’s heartland. The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection
of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service began
to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resources heritage and provide them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 34.8 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in Fiscal Year 2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity and
creating almost 27,000 private sector jobs producing about $542.8 million in employment income
(Carver and Caudill 2007). Additionally, recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $185.3
million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). As the
number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local communities. In 2006,
nearly 71 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, spending $45.7
billion and generating $122.6 billion (Leonard 2008).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005,
approximately 38,000 refuge volunteers donated more than 1.4 million hours. The value of their
service was more than $25 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including
Service compatibility standards and other policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Refer to Appendix C for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources, research and recreation on refuge lands, and provide a framework for cooperation
between Watercress Darter NWR and other partners, such as the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) and its Division of Wildlife and Fresh Water Fisheries
(DWFF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS), Alabama Natural
Heritage Program (ANHP), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Wildlife Habitat
Council, and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and associated
ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, managers will use
sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field
experience, knowledge of refuge resources and the refuge’s role within an ecosystem, applicable laws,
and best available science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
6 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP. This CCP supports the following:
Partners in Flight Initiative. Growing concern about declines in many land bird species not covered by
existing conservation initiatives, primarily non-game species, led to the launching of Partners in Flight in
1990. The Partners in Flight Initiative is an international, cooperative effort of government agencies,
philanthropies, professional organizations, conservation groups, industry, academics, and private
individuals. Its initial focus was on neotropical migratory birds – species that breed in North America and
winter in Central and South America – but its emphasis has now expanded to encompass most land birds
and other species requiring terrestrial habitats. The Partners in Flight Initiative has a number of programs
underway, including a North American Landbird Conservation Plan. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most
effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. The Partners in
Flight Initiative’s main premise is that the resources of public and private entities in the Americas, both
North and South, must be combined, coordinated, and increased if success in conserving hemispheric
bird populations is to be achieved (Rich et al. 2004).
Watercress Darter Recovery Plan. Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are
believed to be required to recover and/or protect the listed species. Plans are prepared by the
Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others.
Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and
other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official
positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the Service, involved in the plan
formulation. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by
the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification
as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.
The watercress darter is an endangered species known to occur naturally in habitat associated with
four springs in Jefferson County, Alabama: Glenn, Thomas, Seven, and Roebuck. The watercress
darter also occurs in Tapawingo Springs, Jefferson County, Alabama, where it was successfully
transplanted in January 1988.
Within Roebuck Springs, the watercress darter occurs in approximately 2 acres of spring pool and
3,000 feet of spring run. At Tapawingo Springs, the watercress darter occurs in approximately 2
acres of spring pools and wetlands and 600 feet of spring run. At Glenn Springs, the watercress
darter occurs in approximately 0.1-acre of spring pool and 1,800 feet of both the spring run and parts
of Halls Creek. At Thomas Spring, the watercress darter occurs in approximately 2 acres of spring
pools and 1,000 feet of spring run. At Seven Springs, the watercress darter occurs in approximately
0.2-acre of spring pool and 1,500 feet of spring run and it has also been found in Nabors Creek,
below Seven Springs run, between 31 Street and Jefferson Avenue.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Limited population survey results from the 1980s and 1990s indicated an apparent downward
trend for the three naturally occurring populations that were known to exist at that time (USFWS
1993). Currently, the habitat and the spring ecosystem conditions of the watercress darter
continue to decrease in all five spring sites (USFWS 2009), particularly within the recharge areas
necessary for the spring’s groundwater and outflow (D. Drennen, pers. obs.). Changes in quality
and quantity of groundwater from the recharge area in all the spring sites are associated with the
poor use of best management practices for urbanization, stormwater management, and
sedimentation, which impacts watersheds on adjoining non-protected lands that drain the
immediate areas and impacts aquifer recharge areas on a larger scale.
Recovery objectives, according to the 1992 recovery plan for the watercress darter, are as follows:
 Reclassify the watercress darter from endangered to threatened status;
 Delist;
Recovery Criteria: The criteria for reclassification of the watercress darter from endangered status to
threatened are:
 Long-term protection of the three naturally occurring populations known in 1992 (i.e., those
found in Glenn, Thomas, Seven, and Roebuck Springs);
 Long-term protection of at least one additional population within the historical range (i.e., the
Jefferson County area); and
 Five (5) years of data indicating that a minimum of four populations are viable.
The criteria for delisting the watercress darter from threatened status are:
 Five (5) years of data documenting the existence of six viable populations, each in separate
discrete recharge areas; and
 Long-term protection of the discrete recharge area for each viable population.
Partners for Amphibians and Reptiles Conservation. The Partners for Amphibians and Reptiles
Conservation was founded in 1998 to address the need for conservation of herpetofauna –
amphibians and reptiles – and their habitats (Olson et al. 2009). Its mission is to conserve
amphibians, reptiles, and their habitats as integral parts of the ecosystem and culture through
proactive and coordinated public/private partnerships. The first organizational meeting of this group
was attended by more than 200 individuals from over 170 organizations and agencies, including
representatives from federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, museums, nature
centers, universities, research laboratories, the forest products industry, the pet trade industry, and
environmental consultants and contractors, including participants from 33 states, the District of
Columbia, and Canada and Mexico.
The refuge will contribute to the following goals of the Partners for Amphibians and Reptiles
Conservation:
 Complete a baseline study of refuge amphibian and reptile populations;
 Maintain quality of the springs and ponds (e.g., water quality);
8 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and
wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management
areas, state wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges together provide the foundation for
protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to the overall health and conservation of
fish and wildlife species in Alabama.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) manages and protects the
state’s fish and wildlife resources through conservation enforcement officers in each county statewide and
through fisheries and wildlife biologists (ADCNR 2004). The ADCNR manages 24 state parks, 23 fishing
lakes, 3 fish hatcheries, 2 waterfowl refuges, 2 wildlife sanctuaries, a mariculture center, and 34 wildlife
management areas. The agency has responsibility for more than 645,000 acres of trust lands set aside
for wildlife purposes. Additionally, the ADCNR provides and directs public recreation opportunities,
including an extensive hunting and fishing program on several wildlife management areas and parks
located near the refuge. Other departmental functions include maintenance of a State Land Resource
Information Center and administration of the Forever Wild land acquisition program.
An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate. The state’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process has provided for ongoing opportunities and open
dialogue to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in Alabama.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
The watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale) is endemic to four limestone springs of the Valley and
Ridge Physiographic Province in the Black Warrior River System (Figure 2) in Jefferson County,
Alabama (Boschung and Mayden 2004). Three of the springs where the species naturally occurs
(Glenn, Thomas, and Seven) are tributaries to Valley Creek, while the fourth (Roebuck) is a tributary
to Village Creek, which joins the Locust Fork. The Locust Fork and Valley Creek both join the Black
Warrior River to the west.
The first population of watercress darters was collected at Glenn Springs in 1964. Additional field work
has resulted in the location of three other spring populations: Thomas (1976), Seven (2002), and
Roebuck Spring (1978) (Figure 1). The greater Birmingham metropolitan areas encompass all of these
sites, which are threatened with groundwater pollution and the presence of extensive impervious surfaces
(e.g., roads, parking lots, and roofs), which divert water away from the recharge area of the springs’
aquifers and lessens flows. In 1970, the Service officially recognized the watercress darter as an
endangered species (USFWS 1970). Periodic population monitoring has indicated that the fish continues
to decrease in numbers (Howell 1985; Moss and Haffner 1991; and Moss 1995).
Watercress Darter NWR, located within the city limits of Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama
(Figure 3), was established by the Service in 1980 to provide protection for the watercress darter and
to conserve and restore its crucial habitat. Today, the 25-acre refuge consists of two ponds, several
stands of mixed pine-hardwoods with shrubs, and a single residence. Thomas Spring is a one-quarter-
acre pond where a population of watercress darters was found in 1976. A second pond was
constructed on the refuge in 1983 by the Service to provide additional habitat for the darter.
Currently, Watercress Darter NWR is unstaffed and is administered by personnel from Mountain
Longleaf NWR in Anniston, Alabama, and falls under the administrative umbrella of the Wheeler
NWR Complex headquartered in Decatur, Alabama.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The watercress darter was first discovered at Glenn Springs, a tributary of Valley Creek, in 1964. No
other watercress darter populations were found until 1976, when a population was discovered in
Thomas Spring, a tributary of Halls Creek. Little is known about the history of Thomas Spring,
although it was apparently dammed 20 years prior to the discovery of watercress darters. This action
created excellent habitat for the darters by providing slow-moving backwaters that allowed dense
aquatic vegetation to become established. Thomas Spring was named for the Thomas family that
owned the land in the 1950s. Prior to the Thomas family, there were several landowners, with the
most important or significant being the McAdory family that probably owned the land in the 1880s.
The spring was no doubt important for the stagecoach line running from Tuscaloosa to Pinson,
Alabama. So it does have significant local history importance.
10 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Black Warrior River Watershed
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 3. Approved acquisition boundary for Watercress Darter NWR – Thomas and Glenn
Springs
12 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
In 1977, the former landowner of Thomas Spring introduced grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), to
clear the aquatic vegetation in the spring. By October, the grass carp had removed most of the
spring's vegetation up to the shoreline. Only a single watercress darter was collected during
sampling at that time.
Planning efforts for the establishment of Watercress Darter NWR were completed by the Service in
1979, and included the planned acquisition of 1.5 acres at Thomas Spring and a 1.0-acre tract at
Glenn Springs. On October 1, 1980, the Service purchased 7.1 acres in fee title around Thomas
Spring, naming the property Watercress Darter NWR. This refuge was established by the Service
under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 “…to conserve fish or wildlife which are
listed as endangered species or threatened species” in order to protect Thomas Spring and its
population of watercress darters.
Prior to federal acquisition, Thomas Spring was privately owned and located in rural Jefferson
County, Alabama. Since that time, the city of Bessemer, Alabama, has grown substantially to include
the area containing Thomas Spring. Environmental impacts associated with urban development are
impacting watercress darter populations and their habitats.
After the refuge was established, the carp were removed and the spring was re-vegetated with Chara
sp., Nitella sp., and Spirogyra sp. in early 1981. Soon thereafter, a population of watercress darters
was relocated from Glenn Springs to Thomas Spring. In 1983, the Service constructed a pond just
downstream from Thomas Spring, established aquatic vegetation in the pond, and in January 1988,
relocated 100 watercress darters from Thomas Spring into the newly constructed pond.
In 1988, a new population was established by transplanting watercress darters from Roebuck Springs
to Tapawingo Springs, a tributary of Turkey Creek, in Jefferson County. An expansion of 30
additional acres (2 acres at Thomas Spring and 28 acres at Roebuck Springs) was approved on
March 9, 1995, but only the 2-acre Thomas Spring parcel was purchased.
In 1999, a 16-acre tract of land adjacent to the refuge was proposed for acquisition. This action was
initiated in order to provide a buffer and help protect a portion of the groundwater recharge area for
Thomas Spring. This 18-acre parcel of land was called the McAdory Tract and in February 1999, it
was surveyed for contaminants. Nothing other than household trash was found.
In November 1999, refuge staff met with 10 members of the Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) to
discuss management objectives and current issues facing the refuge and how BAS might be of
assistance in accomplishing refuge goals. Earlier in 1998, BAS adopted the refuge under the
Audubon Refuge Keepers program. The two most important issues that were discussed included
periodic water quality monitoring and annual population surveys of watercress darters.
In 2001, the McAdory Tract was purchased by the Service. Today, the approved acquisition
boundary for the refuge consists of 28 acres at Roebuck Springs, 25 acres at Thomas Spring, and 1
acre at Glenn Springs (Figure 4). Currently, the Service owns, in fee title, a total of 24.52 acres at
Thomas Spring and no property has been acquired at Glenn Springs or Roebuck Springs. Although
no land has been acquired at Glenn Springs, habitat protection efforts were undertaken in
cooperation with the landowner at that site, but these conservation agreements have lapsed with the
death of the landowner.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 4. Approved acquisition boundary for Watercress Darter NWR – Roebuck Springs
14 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Also in 2001, refuge staff coordinated with the Jefferson County Department of Environmental
Services to design and install a new sewer line along Division Street, adjacent to the refuge. Once
this project was completed in early 2002, the refuge staff was able to dismantle the existing septic
tank and hook the residence up to the local sewer system. This effort was initiated to enhance the
water quality in Thomas Spring, thus benefiting the endangered watercress darter.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Watercress Darter NWR does not include any special designation sites such as Research Natural
Areas or Wilderness Areas. However, the area within the approved acquisition boundary near
Roebuck Springs is within the Roebuck Springs Historic District.
Sustainable communities and species conservation and recovery require the joint efforts of private
landowners and local communities, as well as state and federal governments. The synergy of
federal, state, tribal, and private organizations, working together, will ensure that we not only protect
the more important areas, but also reduce redundancy of effort, allowing precious resources to be
directed where they are most needed.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Service
has found it useful to divide the country into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily along watershed
boundaries. Watercress Darter NWR is an active participant of conservation efforts within the Central
Gulf Coast Ecosystem, which spans portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia (Figure 5). As
such, the refuge collaborates in pursuing goals and objectives of the ecosystem as a whole, in
addition to working toward achieving goals and objectives specific to itself.
Much of the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is characterized by a flat to rolling topography broken up
by numerous streams and river bottoms. The uplands are dominated by pines; longleaf and slash in
the south, originally, and shortleaf mixed with hardwoods in the north. These are fire-maintained
systems that give way to loblolly pine and hardwoods in the damper areas, and to bottomland
hardwood forests in the extensive lowland drainages. Within its southernmost reaches, the
ecosystem encompasses estuaries and coastal waters and includes saline, brackish (mixed saline
and fresh) and fresh waters, as well as coastlines and adjacent lands. Coastal dunes, strands,
offshore barrier islands, and tidal marsh, in addition to the freshwater wetlands, pine woodlands, and
live oak forests, are all interrelated parts of the functioning whole. As such, they each figure as
crucial habitat for coastal fish and wildlife. Today, the ecological health of the Central Gulf Coast
Ecosystem is significantly degraded in comparison to its historical baselines. Watercress Darter
NWR is located in the northern portion of the ecosystem.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (ADWFF 2005) assesses the
status of Priority Fish Species as Priority 1, 2, or 3. The watercress darter is assigned the highest
priority, Priority 1. Conservation recommendations include: monitoring water quality and quantity at
all sites and investigating possible gas bubble disease at Roebuck Springs. The Alabama CWCS
also lists Glenn Springs, Thomas Spring, Roebuck Springs, and Tapawingo Springs as Priority Areas
for Conservation of Aquatic Greatest Conservation Need Species. The watercress darter population
at Seven Springs was discovered after publication of the CWCS.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 5. Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem
16 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
CENTRAL GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM PLAN
The restoration, recovery, and protection of pine habitats and associated plant and animal
communities are the goals of the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem Plan. Historically, the longleaf pine
community was the predominant vegetative community of the southeastern coastal plain, with roughly
60 percent coverage in upland areas. Currently, most of the remaining longleaf pine and pine-savanna
habitat is in private ownership. It is highly fragmented and degraded by logging, grazing,
intensive site preparation, and fire suppression.
The regional ecosystem priorities for 2003 were extracted from the ecosystem team activity guidance,
and those that involved the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem included:
 Waterfowl management and resident and neotropical migratory bird monitoring;
 Control of invasive/exotic species;
 Outreach and environmental education;
 Significant decline in longleaf pine ecosystem;
 Fish passage; and
 Fisheries program support.
Restoring the functions and values of wetlands in the Southeast Region is a top priority. The goal is
to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain the ecosystem and possibly restore its
biological diversity. Some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation. It is widely
recognized, however, that most of the forested wetlands acreage that has been cleared and
converted to other uses in the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem will not be reforested. Some areas
would have lower value for reforestation and so are targeted for intensive management for non-forest-
dependent species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through combining efforts, apportioning
resources, and focusing on available programs, the ecosystem’s biological diversity can be restored.
ALABAMA COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY (2005)
The ADCNR’s Division of Wildlife and Fresh Water Fisheries Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (ADWFF 2005) was completed in 2005. The purpose of this document is to provide
direction for and coordination of wildlife conservation efforts in Alabama for the next decade. The
overall goal is to identify and conserve those species in greatest need for conservation action while
also addressing the full array of wildlife and habitats. This publication identifies those wildlife species
of greatest conservation need and actions needed to conserve Alabama’s wildlife and their key
habitats. Information relative to these species and those habitats found on Refuge System lands will
be evaluated for opportunities to foster conservation efforts.
Upon review of the Alabama CWCS, the Service identified four broad objectives for this CCP to
consider and promote as goals and objectives were established to ensure that the refuge continues
its contribution to Alabama wildlife conservation and habitat integrity. These objectives are:
 Provide habitat and ecosystem functions that support healthy and viable populations of all
species, avoiding the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act;
 Identify, conserve, manage, and restore terrestrial and aquatic habitats which are a priority for
the continued survival of species of conservation concern;
 Support educational efforts to improve the understanding by the general public and
conservation stakeholders regarding species of conservation concern and their related
habitats; and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
 Improve existing partnerships and develop new partnerships between DWFF and state and
federal natural resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and environmental
groups, private industry, and academia.
In addition, the Alabama CWCS identified priority research, survey, and monitoring actions that are
needed to fulfill conservation goals for the watercress darter. These actions are as follows:
 Conduct comprehensive status surveys at 1- to 2-year intervals;
 Determine life history requirements;
 Monitor water quality at all known locations of the watercress darter; and
 Investigate possible gas bubble disease at Roebuck Springs.
The Alabama CWCS also identified the highest priority conservation actions that are needed and key
partnerships that should be developed in order to protect the watercress darter. These actions are as
follows:
 Support full implementation of the Black Warrior River Basin Management Plan;
 Improve water quality and habitat quality throughout the basin;
 Support habitat and riparian restoration;
 Establish partnerships with ADEM, AFC, NRCS, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Clean Water, and
local governments such as the city of Bessemer; and
 Purchase Glenn Springs for inclusion in the refuge.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
As a result of habitat loss and degradation, the Central Gulf Coast Ecosystem is experiencing biotic
extinctions at a rate unparalleled elsewhere in the United States; within the last century, nearly 50
percent of United States’ biotic extinctions have occurred in the region (Mobile River Basin
Coalition 2004). The avian species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are
area-sensitive (i.e., dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend
on forest interiors; those that depend on special habitat requirements like mature forests or a
particular food source; and those that depend on good water quality. Species such as the
prothonotary warbler and cerulean warbler have declined significantly, and will require the benefits
of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable
to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging terrestrial species, re-establishing
travel corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
One the primary threats to fish and wildlife populations in Alabama is the historic and ongoing loss
and degradation of habitat, largely due to development pressures related to the state’s increasing
human population. According to 2000 population estimates, Alabama currently has a population in
18 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
excess of 4,447,100, a 10 percent increase from 1990 to 2000. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates
that by the year 2025, Alabamians will number 5.22 million, a 17 percent increase from 2000. To
make matters worse, the Bessemer/Birmingham area, which surrounds all of the approved acquisition
boundary for Watercress Darter NWR, is one of the most populated areas in the state, with a
combined population in excess of 600,000 (Campbell 1997).
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY AND DEGRADATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. River/stream channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large
populations of native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans.
Barriers to movement prevent anadromous fish, including Gulf Coast strain striped bass, Gulf
sturgeon, and Alabama shad, from reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many other
aquatic species have similarly become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from land
surface pollution runoff are exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural
wetland is complicated by the fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes
to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
This scenario also exists in the Black Warrior River basin, which is impounded throughout its length to
provide barge navigation as far as Birmingham. This action has led to a large loss of river habitat,
fragmentation and isolation of streams, and modification of the natural flow of water. These and other
large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of
flooding throughout the entire basin, in terms of both extent and duration of flooding, in comparison
with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment of the flooding regime has had an enormous
impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In addition, large urban population centers, such as the Bessemer-Birmingham area, use both ground
and surface water for industry, mining, drinking, bathing, and other household uses. This action
reduces water quantities at a rapid pace. Recent droughts in the south have caused groundwater
aquifers to be depleted faster than natural recharge can occur. These factors directly impact natural
limestone springs, such as Thomas, Glenn, Seven, and Roebuck Springs.
Although the relationship between urbanization and water pollution is complex, it is relatively easy to
understand. Urban areas contain many people in relatively small areas, and the activities of these
people produce pollutants and cause pollution. Fortunately, most urban area pollutants are of a point
source nature and are controlled by discharge regulations. However, as an area is urbanized, the
land is altered to meet the needs of the people who live there. This alteration of the land accelerates
nonpoint source pollution because it changes the way water moves, increases surface runoff,
decreases recharge of groundwater (aquifers), and causes erosion.
Moving with the water and eroded soil are other pollutants, which cause numerous water quality
problems downstream. As urbanization increases, the natural hydrology or water movement of an
area changes in response to site clearing, grading, and the addition of impervious areas. Even
natural depressions that once temporarily held water and delayed runoff are graded to a uniform
slope. The cumulative effects of this paving, filling, grading, and compacting of the soil are
enormous. The most common problems are the increased runoff, lack of groundwater recharge, and
associated erosion and sediment loadings to surface waters (ADEM 2006).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Streams experience more rapid flows and greater volumes, and banks erode as channels change
their contours to accommodate the increased flows. In an urbanized watershed, surface runoff is
further magnified after construction is completed. The excessive flow from all the impervious
surfaces, such as rooftops, roads, parking lots, and sidewalks, decreases infiltration. This makes it
necessary to construct other runoff conveyances or modify existing drainage systems to handle all
the extra runoff while avoiding erosion of stream banks and steep slopes.
A potential threat to the Glenn Springs population of watercress darters is the proximity of Route
20. Expansion of the highway could damage the darter’s limestone spring habitat. The proximity
of each of the naturally occurring watercress darter populations to highways increases the risk of
lethal chemical spills. Contamination of the habitat in the Roebuck Springs basin and its run has
been identified along with an alarming apparent decline in the watercress darter population at that
site. Due to concern over the decline, the Service has conducted a contaminant investigation in
the Roebuck Springs basin and its immediate run. Analysis of sediment and snail samples
reported high levels (up to 12.0 parts per million) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This
material is known to be highly toxic to aquatic life even at levels considerably below that found in
Roebuck Springs and its run (USFWS 1991).
Roebuck Springs is located on the campus of the Jefferson County Youth Services Facility and the
spring run flows through Hawkins Municipal Park, in Birmingham (Roebuck), Alabama (Fig. 4). The
spring basin includes approximately 1.5 acres of impounded waters whose source is Roebuck
Springs. The spring run was apparently impounded by a low, earthen dam, resulting in the 1.5-acre
pond (D. Drennen, pers. comm). The springhead, spring pool and spring run are within 200 feet west
and north of Roebuck Boulevard and Roebuck Parkway. The school facility grounds are to the north
with Roebuck Springs Golf Course and Hawkins Municipal Park grounds to the west and southwest.
There are many parking lots and small driveways and connecting streets within the area and one
storm sewer drains directly into the spring pond. Interstate 59 and Highway 11 are less than 0.25-
mile south of the pool and roughly parallel to the spring run. The property line between the state-owned
lands and the city’s park runs across the spring pond a short distance upstream from the
earthen dam location.
The Jefferson County Youth Service’s Facility staff actively protects the water quality of the Roebuck
Springs pool and spring run by maintaining a buffer zone around its portion of the spring pool and by
limiting the use of herbicides and entry into the area. Historically, the spring pool has had high levels
of E. coli bacteria (USDOI 1979) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons levels were high and are
suspected to be potentially harmful to the watercress darter (USFWS 1991). Traffic is dynamic along
all roadways mentioned and is conducive to vehicle accidents and toxic spills.
In the 1970s, construction of Interstate 59, just a 0.25-mile south of the spring pool, destroyed two
spring heads of the Roebuck Springs system (Drennen 2004). The extent of the negative impacts
caused by the destruction to the spring’s hydrology is unknown. Additionally, Magic Screwdriver
Cave, located in a residential area less than 0.5-mile south of Roebuck Springs, is interconnected
hydrologically with the Roebuck Springs system (Hearn 1993). Since 1983, the condition of the
groundwater within the cave has declined (S. Spencer, pers. comm.).
Water level fluctuations in the spring pond and spring run have occurred historically due to beaver
activity and major rain events. According to Birmingham Park and Recreation officials, in the past,
high water levels at Roebuck Springs pool caused by beaver dams, have occasionally led to beaver
dam breaks, resulting in flooding of tennis courts located just downstream from the earthen dam,
resulting in costly maintenance activities to repair damages (Moss 2008).
20 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
On September 19, 2008, while attempting to remove a beaver dam from on top of the earthen dam
at the base of the Roebuck Springs pool, the earthen dam was breached and removed by a city of
Birmingham work crew. Because of this, the water level within the spring basin suddently dropped
approximately one meter and up to 57 percent of the aquatic habitat for the watercress darter was
quickly drained (Moss 2008, Duncan et al. 2008, D. Drennen, pers. obs., Fluker et al. 2009). The
remaining water within the spring pool area was limited to a small channel flowing through the area
and a small, shallow pool located near the breached section of the dam. The sudden dam removal
resulted in the death of an estimated 11,760 watercress darters (Fluker et al. 2009). The city
installed a new water control structure in March 2009, to restore water levels at the earthen dam
and the watercress darter population continues to recover from the fish kill of September 2008.
Data collected in the spring of 2009 indicated depressed reproduction and recruitment in the spring
pond (Fluker et al. 2009; Richardson et al. 2009). Unpublished data collected in September 2009
by biologists under contract with the city of Birmingham allegedly indicated that watercress darter
relative abundance in the spring pond appeared higher than it had been since 1988 and total
population estimates suggested a marked increase in the population size since 1995 (Richardson
et al. 2009). A more recent data collection, on June 8, 2010, funded by the Service, also indicates
that reproduction and recruitment in the spring pond has improved since the spring of 2009
(Spadgenske, pers. comm.). Initial indications of relative abundance suggest that recruitment may
be occurring within different age classes (D. Drennen, pers. comm.). Regardless of the degree to
which the Roebuck Springs population may be recovered, the dam removal, sudden loss of habitat,
and death of 11,760 watercress darters dramatically demonstrates the precarious situation facing
this species in an urban environment.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like alligator weed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding
and reduced water depths, resulting from excessive sedimentation, have created conditions favorable
for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the
introduction of exotic vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of
aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to
aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use. Other
invasive plant species that are specifically problematic on the refuge are kudzu and Chinese privet.
Various species of non-native wildlife and fish also flourish in this humid temperate climate.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate of central Alabama is humid and temperate, with temperatures ranging from -5°F to 110°
F. Summers are long and hot, and generally the winters are mild and pleasant. This means the
summers are warm and humid, due to domination of maritime tropical air from the Gulf of Mexico and
the Atlantic Ocean. The incoming warm, moist air forms convectional storms and thunderstorms.
The winters are relatively mild, with an occasional bout of more extreme weather when continental
polar air masses sweep down from the northwest and collide with the maritime tropical masses to
create frontal storms (NOAA 2006).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
The average summer temperature is 79°F, with an average maximum temperature of 89°F. In winter,
the average temperature is 42°F and the average daily minimum temperature is 32°F. The average
temperature of the area ranges from 60- 64°F depending on altitude and other factors. Temperatures
at higher elevations are generally 5 to 6°F lower. Occasionally, temperatures in the winter will drop
below freezing and will sometimes remain below freezing for 1 to 4 days. Humidity is normally 72
percent or greater in the summer months (NOAA 2006).
Rainfall is approximately 54 inches (1,371.6 mm) per year, and there is seldom extended
accumulations of snow or ice (NOAA 2006). Precipitation is highest during the spring and lowest
during the fall. Rainfall events that produce flooding are most common from the middle of December
to mid-April. However, heavy rainfall can be recorded anytime throughout the year and records show
that the heaviest floods have occurred during summer months. Although prolonged droughts are
rare, excessive dry periods in the late summer have occurred (NOAA 2006).
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Watercress Darter NWR is located in the Tennessee Section of the Valley and Ridge Province of the
Appalachian Highland, which was developed on tightly folded and thrust-faulted Paleozoic
sedimentary rocks, consisting of numerous ridges separated by deep steep-sided valleys. A unique
feature of this valley and ridge province is the “zigzag” nature of the ridges. The area surrounding the
refuge is underlain by 500- to 570-million-year-old Cambrian-aged limestone and shale of the
Conasauga formation. The weathering of the limestone bedrock has given rise to many of the natural
occurring springs in the area.
The Conasauga Formation or Group of northern Alabama consists of a sequence of interbedded
shale and thin-bedded, dark gray, relatively pure limestone 1,000 to 2,000 feet thick. In the
Bessemer-Birmingham area, Jefferson County, Alabama, this formation has been extensively mined
for cement limestone (USDA 1954).
The topology of the area surrounding the refuge is generally flat (0-2 percent) slopes to gently rolling
(3-6 percent slopes), with a few abrupt hills. Land elevations range from 500 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) to around 510 feet MSL at the refuge’s northeastern boundary.
SOILS
The majority of the soils located on lands within Watercress Darter NWR have developed from the
weathering of high-grade limestone. Soils are generally acidic, low in organic matter, and are usually
fertile. Ninety-eight percent of the refuge consists of the Sullivan-Ketona-Urban land complex, 0 to 2
percent slopes. The Sullivan series consists of very deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils
that formed in loamy alluvium (limestone, sandstone, and shale) on flood plains. Most areas are
occasionally flooded and depth to bedrock is more than 5 feet.
The Ketona series consists of deep, poorly drained, slowly permeable soils that formed in alluvium
and residuum from limestone. These soils are on flood plains and depressional areas in limestone
valleys. They are saturated with water in late winter and early spring and are subject to flooding or
ponding. Slopes are dominantly 0 to 2 percent but range to 4 percent. Solum thickness and depth of
limestone bedrock range from 40 to more than 60 inches. Many pedons contain small, round, brown
or black concretions and limestone fragments. These soils are subject to frequent brief flooding due
to stream overflow or ponding due to slow runoff or lack of drainage outlets.
22 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
HYDROLOGY
All lands within the approved acquisition boundary for Watercress Darter NWR are located within the
Black Warrior Watershed, which is comprised of the Black Warrior River and its many tributaries. The
Black Warrior Watershed is divided into five USDA-NRCS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
Cataloging units: the Sipsey Fork, Mulberry Fork, Locust Fork, Upper Black Warrior, and the Lower
Black Warrior (Black Warrior Clean Water Partnership 2003). Roebuck Springs, a tributary of Village
Creek, is located within the Locust Fork. Thomas Spring and Glenn Springs, both tributaries of Halls
Creek, are found within the Upper Black Warrior.
The Black Warrior River is formed by the confluence of the Mulberry, and Locust Forks. It then flows
south to the fall line at Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where it joins the Tombigee River at Demopolis,
Alabama. It is approximately 178 miles (286 km) long and drains an area of 6,275 square miles
(16,250 km²). The river is impounded along nearly its entire course in a chain of narrow reservoirs for
hydroelectricity, drinking water, and as an aid to navigation.
Locust Fork Watershed (HUC 03160111)
The Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River contains fifteen sub-watersheds primarily located within
Jefferson, Blount, Marshall, and Etowah Counties. The entire watershed drains approximately 1,209
square miles of one of the most industrialized and commercialized areas in Alabama. The streams drain
sandstones and shales and occur in steep-sided valleys, creating high gradient, riffle-run streams
characterized by abundant and diverse habitat. Natural vegetation consists of mixed mesophytic forest
restricted mostly to the deeper ravines and escarpment slopes, and an upland forest characterized by
mixed oaks with shortleaf pines (Black Warrior Clean Water Partnership 2003).
Village Creek
Village Creek originates in the vicinity of Roebuck, Jefferson County, Alabama, and travels west
through northern Birmingham. The upper segment of Village Creek drains a major urban area and
has typical stream characteristics of an urbanized area, such as poor habitat, degraded water quality
and quantity, and stressed biological communities. The urbanized landscape creates dynamic flow
events, reduced riparian zones, increased siltation, and other conditions that destroy habitat and
impair water quality, thus making it difficult to sustain a healthy aquatic community (ADEM 2006).
Upper Black Warrior Watershed (HUC 03160112)
The Upper Black Warrior Watershed drains twelve sub-watersheds located within Tuscaloosa,
Fayette, Jefferson, and Walker Counties. The watershed drains approximately 1,255 square miles
and the tributaries located in the Fall Line Hills are generally low gradient, habitat poor, glide/pool
streams. Streams located in the Fall Line Hills flow year-round due to the extensive sand and gravel
aquifers in the region. Riverine wetlands are characteristic habitat of this watershed.
Halls Creek
Halls Creek originates in the vicinity of Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama, and travels northwest
through western Bessemer. The upper segment of Halls Creek drains a major residential/urban area
and has typical stream characteristics of a highly urbanized area, such as poor habitat, degraded
water quality, and stressed biological communities. After crossing under 9th Avenue (Bessemer
Superhighway), Halls Creek drains into Valley Creek.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
AIR QUALITY
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary
and secondary air quality standards to protect public health and public welfare. Primary standards
are designed to prevent the public from dangerous particulates in the air that can cause health-related
problems. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and
animals, from harm, as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops,
vegetation, and buildings. As a result, EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for six principal air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants): Particulate Matter (PM), Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), Ground-Level Ozone (O3), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Lead (Pb).
Areas of the country that are as of yet unable to meet these federal clean air standards are referred
to as “non-attainment” areas (TVA 2003).
The Air Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) monitors all of
these pollutants for counties in the State of Alabama. Currently, there are two monitoring stations
located near Watercress Darter NWR in the cities of McAdory and Fairfield, Jefferson County,
Alabama. Since the late 1970s, Jefferson County has exceeded the national standard for ground-level
ozone, the primary component of urban smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the air but
formed through a series of chemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), in the presence of heat and sunlight. Because heat and sunlight are the
catalysts for ozone formation, ozone is only a problem for Jefferson County in the summer months
(Alabama Partners for Clean Air 2006).
Initial efforts to reduce ozone in Jefferson County focused on industrial sources of pollution. The State of
Alabama submitted plans to EPA in 1979 that required VOC reductions at large industrial facilities.
Similar controls were required at smaller industrial facilities in the mid-1980s. These industrial controls,
combined with new national requirements for less-polluting motor vehicles and gasoline, appeared to
have brought the Birmingham nonattainment area into compliance by the early 1990s.
The State of Alabama requested that EPA redesignate Jefferson County to "attainment" status in
March 1995. However, in August 1995, Jefferson County experienced a new violation for ozone and
as a result EPA disapproved the request (ADEM 2007). In 2005, EPA officially acknowledged that
Jefferson County has met the national air quality standard for ozone, based on monitored data from
the period 2003-2005. The county met the stringent 8-hour standard just 2 years after achieving
compliance with the old 1-hour standard (ADEM 2007).
Unfortunately, the Birmingham area was redesignated to nonattainment effective June 12, 2006.
During the summer of 2006, the Helena monitor violated the standard due to prolonged hot and
stagnant weather. Therefore contingency plans must be initiated. ADEM will evaluate possible
control measures to determine what is needed to help return the area to attainment (ADEM 2006).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY
The Water Division of ADEM is responsible for monitoring and maintaining water quality and
controlling water pollution in the state. Its 2006 Integrated Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring
Report indicated that, overall, Alabama’s surface water is of high quality (ADEM 2006). This report
also stated that water management programs are conducted on a watershed scale.
24 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
The unique feature of the Black Warrior River Watershed is the presence of extensive coal deposits.
In fact, the middle portion of the watershed is the largest coal producing area in southern North
America (AWFFD 2005). The history of mining coal has resulted in an unusually high proportion of
impaired streams in the watershed.
The Clean Water Act requires that each state identify those waters that do not currently support
designated uses, and establish a priority ranking of these waters by taking into account the severity of
the pollution and the designated uses of such waters. The result of this requirement is the
development of Alabama’s 303(d) list, which includes segments of rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs,
and estuaries that do not fully support their currently designated use or uses.
The 2002 ADEM 303(d) list identified 470 miles of streams in the Black Warrior River Watershed with
impaired water quality. About half of these impairments are related to abandoned mines.
Additional sources of impairment include organic enrichment, siltation and pathogens, all from an
agricultural or urban origin (AWFFD 2005).
Two tributaries associated with Glenn Springs, Thomas Spring, and Roebuck Springs are currently
listed on Alabama’s draft 2006 303(d) list; Valley Creek and Village Creek. Thomas Spring and
Glenn Springs are small tributaries of Halls Creek, which drain into Valley Creek and Roebuck
Springs is a small tributary of the upper segment of Village Creek. See Table 1 for a complete
description of causes and sources of impairment.
Factors which are most likely to limit or cause the decline of watercress darter populations are
those that reduce the quantity or quality of its habitat. The recent growth of shopping centers
and apartment complexes in the Birmingham-Bessemer area has included extensive paving.
Rainfall is not available to recharge aquifers that feed local springs at historic levels when the
water is swiftly channeled off parking lots into drains.
The quantity and quality of Glenn Springs aquatic habitat have varied considerably since the
watercress darter was first discovered there in 1964 (Howell 1989). A low, rock dam was removed for
several years which increased the velocity of flow, reduced the water depth, and diminished the
backwater area for vegetative growth upon which the darter depends. Additionally, the quantity of
water has been reduced due to withdrawals from the spring basin by a nearby resident and from the
spring run by Aldridge Nursery. Indications of water quality or quantity problems have been noted at
each of the sites where the watercress darter naturally occurs.
Prior to September 2008, the water quality at Roebuck Springs had been adversely affected at times
by aromatic hydrocarbons and high E. coli concentrations (Moss 2008). Immediately after the
September 2008 dam removal at the Roebuck Springs site, the water level within the spring basin
dropped approximately one meter, and up to 57 percent of the aquatic habitat for the watercress
darter was drained (Moss 2008, Duncan et al. 2008, D. Drennen, pers. obs., Fluker et al. 2009). The
remaining water flow was confined to a small channel flowing through the basin and a small pool area
located near the breached section of the dam. The rapid de-watering killed a large amount of the
vegetation in the former pool area and raised concerns about de-oxygenation and other water quality
problems as the water levels were restored. However, the water levels were restored gradually and
water quality monitoring never demonstrated a problem with oxygen concentrations or contaminant
levels. (E. Spadgenske, pers. comm.).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
In addition, increased shading by trees of the spring runs and the spring pool-bank side and
decreased water flow in Thomas Spring (Watercress Darter NWR) and Seven Springs due to
droughts in 2008 and 2007, may contribute to the loss or reduction of certain aquatic plant species
such as watercress (Nasturtium sp.). Duncan et al. (2010) noticed increased watercress darter
activity in vegetative areas of the Seven Springs spring run where sunlight penetrated and spotlighted
areas of the spring run. This may also be occurring in Glenn Springs and Seven Springs (D.
Drennen, pers. obs.). Before the dam removal at the Roebuck Springs site (September 2009),
reduction of watercress and other aquatic plants in the Roebuck Springs run was associated with use
of herbicides in golf course management.
The aquifers in the Jefferson County area are generally susceptible to contamination from the
surface. Where sinkholes are present, the aquifer may be extremely susceptible to surface
contamination because there is a direct link to the aquifer (Planert and Pritchett 1989). The specific
direct or discreet recharge area for each spring serving as habitat for the watercress darters is
unknown. As long as the discreet recharge area remains unknown and unprotected, the risk is
especially high that one or more of the springs could be contaminated or loose significant flow from
impervious areas.
Water quantity/water rights issues continue to be discussed by local municipalities. Water quality
assessments and monitoring are not conducted on Watercress Darter NWR at this time. Water
quantity measurements for local aquifers have been conducted in the past by other agencies;
however, accurate data are unavailable at this time.
Table 1. Select data from Alabama’s Draft 2006 303(d) list
Assessment
Unit ID
Waterbody
Name County Uses Causes Sources Date
AL03160112
-0101_101
Valley
Creek Jefferson
Limited
Warmwater
Fishery
Metals
Urban
runoff/storm
sewers
Collection
system
failure
2000, 01,
02, 04
AL0316011
1-140_02
Upper
Village
Creek
Jefferson
Limited
Warmwater
Fishery
Pathogens
Pesticides
(Dieldrin)
Urban
runoff/storm
sewers
Collection
system
failure
2000, 01,
02, 04
26 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Vegetation communities on the refuge consist of a mosaic of pine-hardwood forest stands, and
shrubs interspersed with ponds and limestone springs.
Fish and Wildlife
Not only does Watercress Darter NWR provide crucial habitat for the endangered watercress darter
but it hosts a variety of other wildlife. A complete biographical listing of bird species found on the
refuge is documented in Appendix H.
Watercress Darter
The watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale) is a small, very colorful fish that thrives in deep, slow-moving
backwaters of limestone springs that contain areas of thick aquatic vegetation, such as
watercress (Nasturtium), Chara, and Soirocivra. Such conditions allow for large populations of
aquatic insects, crustaceans, and snails, which form this darter’s diet (Howell and Caldwell 1965).
The vegetation also plays an important role as the substrate upon which the darter lays its eggs
(Stiles 2004). They are found mainly in aquatic vegetation in springs and spring runs and are subject
to predation from green sunfish, bluegills, and sculpins.
The watercress darter was first discovered at Glenn Springs in 1964 (Boschung and Mayden 2004).
Additional field work by personnel from Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama, located three
other populations: Thomas Spring (tributary of Halls Creek), Seven Springs (tributary of Nabors
Branch), and Roebuck Springs (tributary of Village Creek). After the initial discovery of watercress
darters in Glenn Springs, collections from 116 springs and spring-creeks in the Jefferson-Tuscaloosa-
Shelby County areas resulted in discovery of two new populations: one at Thomas Spring and the
other at Roebuck Springs (Howell and Zeiger 1978). In June 1986, W.M. Howell was funded by the
State of Alabama’s Non-Game Wildlife Program and the Service to conduct necessary studies and
identify additional springs for potential transplant sites for the watercress darter. His recommended
transplant sites were: Tapawingo Springs, Caldwell Springs, Avondale Springs, Indian Valley Springs,
Prince Springs, and Hawkins Spring (Howell et al. 1986). Attempts to relocate watercress darters in
Avondale Springs failed and transplanting was never attempted at Indian Valley Springs.
In an attempt to establish a new population of watercress darters, R.D. Caldwell and W.M. Howell, in
1965, collected 21 nuptial males and 22 nuptial females from Glenn Springs and transplanted them into
Prince Spring, a tributary to Valley Creek in Jefferson County, Alabama. Subsequent collections in Prince
Spring yielded no watercress darters; however, many redspot darters (Etheostoma artesiae) were
collected. The redspot darter may be a competitor of the watercress darter (Howell and Black 1976). The
redspot darter has also been found in Glenn Springs over the last 1.5 years. Prince Spring has since
been severely impacted by urbanization and man-made changes in the topography.
During January 1988, a transplant of 200 fish each was made from Roebuck Springs to Tapawingo
Springs, a tributary to Turkey Creek and to Avondale Spring, both in Jefferson County, Alabama (Howell
1988). Reproduction has since occurred repeatedly in Tapawingo Springs. No watercress darters have
since been collected from Avondale Spring, and it is unlikely that any exist due to the intensive aquatic
plant control being conducted by the Birmingham Parks and Recreation Department.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
In 1983, the Service constructed a pond just downstream from Thomas Spring and established aquatic
vegetation into the pond. In January 1988, 100 watercress darters were relocated from Thomas Spring
into this newly constructed pond. Prior to federal acquisition, Thomas Spring was privately owned and
located in rural Jefferson County, Alabama. Since that time, the city of Bessemer, Alabama, has grown
substantially to include the area containing Thomas Spring. Environmental impacts associated with urban
development are impacting watercress darter populations.
In 1970, the watercress darter was officially recognized as an endangered species by the Service
(USFWS 1970). This species was first described by Howell and Caldwell in 1965. Howell recognized
the watercress darter was closely related to the Gulf darter, Etheostoma swami, but differed in details
of body proportions, development of lateral line and cephalic sensory canals, certain fin-ray counts,
and habitats (Howell and Caldwell 1965).
The Service’s recovery plan describes the watercress darter as a small, robust species growing to a
maximum size of just over 5 centimeters (2 inches) in total length. Breeding males have red-orange
and blue fins, and red-orange on the lower part of the body. The lateral line contains 35 to 42 scales,
is incomplete, and has 12 to 24 pored scales. The nape is naked. The largest specimen known is a
female 2.5 inches in length (USFWS 1991).
Today, very little life history information is known about the watercress darter. Standardized
population survey results for the watercress darter were conducted annually from 1985 through 1989
(Howell 1989), and during 1991 (Moss and Haffner 1991), indicate an apparent downward trend for
all of the naturally occurring populations that were known at the time. All available information about
the watercress darter was summarized in the species 5-year review (USFWS 2007) and pointed out
that the very limited distribution of the species makes it highly vulnerable to threats that reduce water
quantity or quality. Although not conclusive, limited population survey results indicate an apparent
downward trend for all of the naturally occurring populations. The very limited distribution of the
watercress darter makes it highly vulnerable to threats. Factors which are most likely to limit or cause
the decline of watercress darter populations are those that reduce the quantity or quality of its habitat.
Landbirds
A bird survey of the refuge was started in 2007, with ornithology class field trips from Samford University
and observations made by members of the Birmingham Chapter of the National Audubon Society.
Appendix H is a listing of the bird species noted during these visits followed by a field check list.
Mammals
Due to the urban setting, limited size of the refuge, and impaired habitats, no large mammals, such
as deer, have been documented on the refuge and diversity of other mammals is believed to be low.
Medium-sized mammals occurring on the refuge include opossum, armadillo, eastern cottontail,
raccoon, gray squirrel, and beaver. Surveys for small mammals have not occurred on the refuge but
common species, such as cotton mouse, white-footed mouse, and Hispid cotton rat, are assumed to
occur. Due to the urban setting where the refuge is located, predation from domestic dogs and cats
is assumed to be very high.
28 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Amphibians and Reptiles
Various species of water snakes are common, especially the broad-banded, yellow-bellied, and
midland water snakes. Poisonous snakes include the copperhead and cottonmouth. Rat snakes are
likely the most abundant snake on Watercress Darter NWR. Black racers, corn snakes, eastern
ribbon snakes, and eastern garter snakes are also frequent.
The more common turtle species are the eastern box turtle and the southern painted turtle. The
ground skink, five-lined skink, and common anole are three of the most common lizard species.
Many different species of frogs and toads are found on the refuge. The more common species
include northern leopard frogs, northern spring peepers, gray treefrogs, green treefrogs, upland
chorus frogs, Fowlers toad, and eastern narrow-mouthed toads.
Spotted and marbled salamanders are also common. Little or no formal data are available to provide
population estimates for these species. However, general observations indicate that the number of
amphibians and reptiles have declined in recent years.
Fisheries
Watercress Darter NWR is home to several species of fishes. Some of these species include
largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, and mosquito fish.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act;
cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act;
archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act; sacred sites as
defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access To "Indian Sacred
Sites," to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act; and
collections. As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act, a historic property or historic
resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. These include any artifacts, records, and
remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of
traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as a result of their association with the cultural
practices or beliefs of an American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of
human life or activities that is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.
The refuge follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the cultural legacy
that may potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any
excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment, such as tractors, graders, and bulldozers used in the
development of ponds, a Service archaeologist conducts an archaeological survey of the site. The results
of this survey are submitted to the Service’s Regional Archaeologist, as well as the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), which, in Alabama, is a member of the Alabama Historical Commission.
The SHPO then reviews the surveys and determines whether or not cultural resources will be impacted,
that is, whether any properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be
affected. If cultural resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to
notify the SHPO immediately. To date, no properties on Watercress Darter NWR have been determined
to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. As of this date, no known cultural
resource inventories have been conducted on Watercress Darter NWR.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
According to the Jefferson County Soil Survey (1982), many of the original settlers of Jefferson County
emigrated from Tennessee in 1813, settling in the agricultural land of the Jones Valley (what is currently
the Greater Birmingham Area) (Spivey 1982). A major stagecoach line ran from Tuscaloosa to Huntsville
along the Birmingham Valley, stopping at the major springs to rest and drink clean water. During most of
the 1800s, the county's main industry was agriculture, with cotton serving as the primary cash crop. In the
late 1800s, the mining of coal and iron led to the establishment and rapid growth of the city of
Birmingham. By the early 1900s, most of the agricultural land in the area had been transformed to urban
land, while surface mining remained as a major land use. As the coal sources were depleted, many of the
small towns created by the mining boom disappeared.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
In 2003, the city of Bessemer, Alabama, had an estimated population of 29,108 persons, with the
majority of the population being of African American decent (69.6 percent). Educational levels in the
Bessemer area are moderate, with about three-fourths of the population, age 25 and older, having
received a high school diploma or equivalent (67.4 percent); however, of those with a high school
education, only 9.2 percent have some form of college degree.
In comparison with the State of Alabama and the United States, income levels of persons living in
Bessemer are low. The per capita income of the area, at $12,232, is only 57 percent of that of the United
States, at $21,587, and 67 percent of that of the State of Alabama, at $18,189. Likewise, the median
household income is at $23,066, is 55 percent of that of the nation, at $41,994 and 68 percent of the
state’s, at $34,135. Unemployment is high with 27.2 percent of the population below the poverty level
(U.S. Census Bureau 2000). See Table 2 for a comparison of geographic and demographic statistics for
the city of Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama, and the United States of America.
OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS
The fish and wildlife of Alabama are economically important (Table 3). According to the report,
Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife
Refuge Visitation, approximately 34.8 million people visited national wildlife refuges in fiscal year
2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity and creating almost 27,000 private
sector jobs producing about $542.8 million in employment income (Carver and Caudill 2007).
Additionally, recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $185.3 million in tax revenue at
the local, county, and state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). As the number of
visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local communities. In 2006, nearly
71 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife spending $45.7 billion
and generating $122.6 billion (Leonard 2008).
Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources
combined with wetland clearing and draining, has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning
grounds and the loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to restore and protect
some of these resources, Watercress Darter NWR serves an important role, not only by providing
habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also as a place where people can go to
enjoy these resources.
As land development continues and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, refuge
lands may become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the community directly
by providing recreational and employment opportunities for the local population and indirectly by
attracting tourists from outside the area to generate additional dollars for the local economy.
30 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Table 2. Comparison of geographic and demographic statistics for the city of Bessemer, Jefferson County, Alabama, and
the USA
Area
Land
Area (sq.
miles)
Population
(2005
estimate)
Pop.
Density
(residents
per sq.
mile)
% pop.
change
(2000-
2005)
Per
capita
income
(1999
est.)
% below
poverty
(2003
est.)
%
White
(2005
est.)
%
Black
(2005
est.)
%
Hispani
c (2005
est.)
%
Asian
(2005
est.)
% Native
American
(2005
est.)
City of
Bessemer 41 29,108* 729 -2.0 $12,232 14.4 28.9 69.6 1.1 0.2 0.3
Jefferson
County 1,112 657,229 595 -0.7 $20,892 14.4 54.7 41.2 2.3 1.0 0.2
Alabama 50,744 4,557,808 88 2.5 $18,189 15.2 71.1 26.4 2.3 0.8 0.5
USA 3,537,438 296,410,404 80 5.3 $21,587 12.4 66.9 12.8 14.4 4.3 1.0
*ESTIMATE FOR 2003
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Table 3. Wildlife-dependent recreation by participants, 16 years old and older, across Alabama
Activity # of
Participants
Activity
Days
Average
Days /
participant
Total
Expenditures
($1,000)
Trip-related
Expenditures
($1,000)
Equipment
and Other
(1, 000)
Average
Expenditure
/ participant
($)
Average Trip
Expenditure
/ day ($)
Fishing 1,485,000a 22,116,00
0
17 resident
13 nonres. 1,323,831 629,328 629,503 946 resident
870 nonres.
31 resident
32 nonres.
Hunting 739,000b 14,878,00
0
23 resident
18 nonres. 1,316,421 382,348 934,073 2,069 res.
1,550 non. 26
Wildlife
Observation 1,981,000c N/A N/A 1,288,974 189,457 1,099,517 687 resident
616 nonres. N/A
Source: 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation: Alabama
a634,000 residents, 851,000 nonresidents
b316,000 residents, 423,000 nonresidents
a965,000 residents, 1,016,000 nonresidents
32 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
TOURISM
Tourism is a big business in Alabama, contributing $7.3 billion in revenues in 2004 and 8.3 percent of
all non-agricultural jobs (Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel 2005). It is estimated that over 20.6
million people visited Alabama during 2004. The Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel and many
other public and private agencies promote the state’s attractions.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The refuge was established on October 1, 1980, when 7.1 acres were acquired in fee title at Thomas
Spring. In 1983, a second pond was constructed on the refuge to provide additional habitat for the
watercress darter. Although no land has been acquired at Glenn Springs, habitat protection efforts
were undertaken in cooperation with the previous landowner at that site. The death of the previous
owner and lack of any formal protection agreement has led to Glenn Springs again being
unprotected. An expansion of 30 additional acres (2 acres at Thomas Spring and 28 acres at
Roebuck Springs) was approved on March 9, 1995. In 2001, the refuge was expanded again to
include an additional 16 acres adjacent to Thomas Spring. The approved acquisition boundary
consists of 28 acres at Roebuck Springs, 25 acres at Thomas Spring, and 1 acre at Glenn Springs.
Currently, the Service owns, in fee title, a total of 24.52 acres at Thomas Spring and none at Glenn
Springs or Roebuck Springs.
Land acquisition continues to be a priority as there are still 28 acres of inholdings within the 53-acre
established acquisition boundary for Watercress Darter NWR. Lands will continue to be purchased
when and if there are any willing sellers and funds are available. Priority of acquisition would first be
focused on attempting to acquire the 1-acre Glenn Springs parcel followed by the 27 acres that make
up Roebuck Springs. The refuge staff is currently evaluating the expansion of Watercress Darter
NWR to include recharge areas and sites with new populations.
VISITOR SERVICES
The refuge is open to the public. However, public use opportunities are limited due to the small size of the
refuge and the presence of the federally listed watercress darter. Limited hiking, wildlife observation, and
wildlife photography opportunities are available. The refuge is open daily, dawn to dusk (year-round), and
there are no entrance fees. In 2006, an estimated 3,000 persons visited the refuge.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
The refuge is currently un-staffed but managed from a distance by the staff at Mountain Longleaf NWR.
Biological and public use reviews and the CCP planning team identified the need for additional staff.
Funding
Each year Mountain Longleaf NWR receives its own specific budget. Management actions on
Watercress Darter NWR, except special project-specific monies, are normally funded from within the
Mountain Longleaf NWR budget. No additional monies are directed for use on Watercress Darter NWR.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Facilities
Currently, the only facility located at Watercress Darter NWR is a one-story residence that is currently
occupied by a volunteer to provide oversight and security for the refuge.
Interior Roads, Trails
The refuge has a short hiking trail. Trail facilities include a 6-car parking area, single panel kiosk, a
boardwalk, and overlook near the man-made pond. There are no interior roads.
Refuge Revenue Sharing
By law, Watercress Darter NWR is exempt from paying property taxes, and instead makes in lieu of
payments to Jefferson County through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act established by Congress
(Table 4). This program provides a method of collecting monetary receipts from revenue generating
activities on refuges within the nation, pooling them together, and paying them out to counties
containing refuge lands.
Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever of the following formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths
of one percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; or (2) 25 percent of
the net refuge receipt collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the
county. If the receipts generated on refuges do not meet the entitlement amount, Congress may
approve additional funds to make up the shortfall.
Table 4. Watercress Darter NWR revenue payments in dollars for Jefferson County, Alabama,
for a 10-year period
Fiscal Year Jefferson County
2007 $347
2006 $359
2005 $388
2004 $344
2003 $389
2002 $134
2001 $530
2000 $604
1999 $649
1998 $689
1997 $114
34 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations,
public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of the CCP for Watercress
Darter NWR. This CCP has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens,
conservation organizations, and employees of local, state, and federal agencies. The participation of
these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for
Watercress Darter NWR. The Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful
to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff
remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and waters
administered by the refuge.
The first step in developing a CCP for the refuge was a Biological Review that took place from
September 16-20, 2002. A diverse team of federal, state, and conservation organization personnel
undertook a holistic examination of habitat and wildlife management programs at the refuge. The
team then considered how the refuge might fit into accomplishing a number of relevant system-wide
and landscape conservation needs. The Biological Review team included staff from the refuge as
well as Service biologists from the Division of Ecological Services, Division of Migratory Birds, and
Division of Refuges. In addition, wildlife and fisheries biologists from the ADWFF participated. The
team’s recommendations set forth in its final report, Wildlife and Habitat (Biological) Review for
Wheeler NWR Complex, were instrumental in developing the goals, objectives, and strategies found
in this document.
The next step in the CCP process was a Visitor Services Review in August 2007, carried out by
Service public use and outreach specialists. The review team toured the refuge, identified and
discussed the current status of public use programs, and debated the pros and cons of various
recommendations for enhancing and improving these programs over the coming 10-15 years. These
recommendations were taken into consideration during the development of the CCP.
A Core Planning Team consisting of the refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, refuge biologist,
and a refuge planner was formed to prepare the CCP. This team met in early 2007 for a tour of the
refuge and an overview of its habitat and wildlife resources and public use programs, facilities, and
opportunities. The core team also conducted additional internal scoping and prepared a preliminary
schedule and plans for public involvement.
A multi-agency planning team was formed and met for the first time on March 21, 2007. This team
consisted of personnel from Watercress Darter and Wheeler NWRs, the Service’s Regional Office,
ADWFF, and the University of Alabama.
A notice of intent to prepare the comprehensive conservation plan was published in the Federal
Register on March 6, 2007. Public scoping consisted of a mail-out on April 4, 2007 of summary
sheets and comment forms to over 150 agencies, organizations, and individuals. Recipients had the
opportunity to address concerns about the refuge and offer suggestions for how it should be
managed in the future. Comments could either be mailed or sent via e-mail.
36 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to protection
and management of the refuge and the endangered watercress darter. Additionally, the planning
team considered federal and state mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and
plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining public input through planning team meetings,
comment packets, and personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered;
however, some issues important to the public fell outside the scope of the decision to be made within
the planning process. The team considered all issues which were raised during this planning
process, and developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important
issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are most
significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues follows.
The significant issues are divided into five categories: Fish and Wildlife Population Management;
Habitat Management; Resource Protection; Visitor Services; and Refuge Administration.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
 Make needs of threatened and endangered species top priority.
 Conduct monitoring in a standardized manner that provides for population trend comparisons
and determination of the effectiveness of habitat enhancement measures and the overall
habitat quantity and quality trends.
 Compare population trends.
 Continue to investigate genetic differences between watercress darter populations.
 Restore habitats including streams below spring runs (Halls, Nabors, and Village Creeks).
 Consider habitat manipulation experiments to benefit wildlife.
 Coordinate recovery activities with Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, Ecological Services Office.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
 Conduct a baseline water analysis at Thomas, Glenn, and Roebuck Springs.
 Determine recharge area for Thomas, Glenn, and Roebuck Springs.
 Maintain sufficient water levels at Glenn Springs.
 Establish procedures to measure outflow, establish a baseline, and monitor the results.
 Control invasive exotic plants such as kudzu and Chinese privet.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
 Investigate a refuge boundary expansion to include Seven Springs.
 Investigate a refuge boundary expansion to include recharge areas, spring runs, and stream
reaches adjacent to Thomas and Glenn Springs.
 Protect Glenn Springs and Roebuck Springs through fee title acquisition, easement, or lease.
 Work with conservation partners to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan
that minimizes high flows from storm water runoff and the associated fine sediments and other
pollutants.
 Conserve trees in riparian zones adjacent to watercress darter habitat (springs, spring runs,
and creeks) and plant additional trees where needed.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
VISITOR SERVICES
 Encourage local public use and support for the refuge.
 Increase opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography.
 Increase emphasis on environmental education and interpretation to lead to increased
understanding of the importance of habitat and resources, especially the watercress darter.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
 Add one position at Watercress Darter NWR and four positions to be shared with Cahaba
River NWR.
 Continue and increase volunteer workers to assist with refuge.
Wilderness Review
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix G.
38 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decision-making.
But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management.
A requirement of the Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity,
and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife
and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent public uses
(e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation). All but hunting and fishing are emphasized in this CCP.
Described below is the comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the next
15 years. This management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used
to achieve the refuge vision.
Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered:
ALTERNATIVE A - MAINTAIN CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE)
ALTERNATIVE B - REFUGE FOCUSED MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE C - INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE)
The Service chose Alternative C as the preferred management direction.
Implementing this CCP will result in the refuge lands being protected, maintained, restored, and
enhanced for the endangered watercress darter, migratory birds, and resident wildlife. Extensive
wildlife and plant census and inventory activities would be initiated to develop the baseline biological
information needed to implement management programs on the refuge.
All management actions would be directed towards achieving the refuge’s primary purposes
including: (1) Protection of the watercress darter and its habitat; (2) providing habitat for a natural
diversity of wildlife and plants; and (3) providing opportunity for compatible outdoor recreation,
environmental education, and interpretation.
Threats to the refuge are becoming more prominent as development activities occur in the city of
Bessemer. Watercress Darter NWR is a small system that can be greatly compromised by activities a
distance away from its boundary. The staff will continue current activities and extend beyond the
immediate neighbors to address issues associated with the aquifer and spring recharge area, watershed,
and biota exchange pathways. Extensive resource sharing and networking with other protected areas,
state agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, specialists, researchers, and private
citizens will expand the knowledge base and develop cooperation between interest groups. Restoration
of natural systems, native communities, and healthy environments will be emphasized thus promoting
regionally a high quality of wildlife, fish, and habitats. Monitoring environmental parameters, flora, and
fauna will be incorporated into an integrated study to gain knowledge on the health of the refuge
ecosystem. Education and outreach will be expanded with an emphasis on cultural and historical
resources including groundwater and springs. Staffing will be developed to meet the needs of partners
and the greater number of interest groups, and accommodate data and resource sharing. An increase in
40 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
staff is presented in this alternative so that Watercress Darter NWR can be managed with a greater
emphasis on landscape management. Additional staff members needed to implement this alternative at
the highest quality level include one position at Watercress Darter NWR and four positions shared
between Cahaba River NWR and Watercress Darter NWR.
VISION
The watercress darter is found in only five springs within the Black Warrior River Watershed in
Jefferson County, Alabama. The very limited distribution of this species in freshwater spring habitats
makes it highly vulnerable to threats. In 1980, Watercress Darter NWR was established to provide
protection for the watercress darter and to conserve and restore crucial habitat. The refuge, located
within the city of Bessemer, contains, protects, and manages Thomas Spring, one of the few naturally
occurring springs where the watercress darter occurs. In addition, the approved refuge acquisition
boundary contains Roebuck Springs, owned by the state and city of Birmingham, and Glenn Springs,
privately owned. Refuge staff, working with partners, will focus on efforts to restore, enhance, and
maintain habitat vital to the survival of the watercress darter. Other species, such as migratory birds,
will also benefit from refuge habitat conservation and restoration. The refuge will be managed to be a
true oasis of protected habitat within an urban area of increasing development. When compatible,
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, such as wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, will be provided, while promoting the public’s
understanding of the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns, and
needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public and are presented in
hierarchical format. Projects associated with the various strategies can be found in Chapter V.
These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of
the Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Watercress
Darter NWR. With adequate staffing and funding as outlined in Chapter V, the Service intends to
accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Goal 1. Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore healthy and viable populations of all federal and
state threatened/endangered species and other species of management concern found on the refuge
in a manner that supports national and international treaties, plans, and initiatives.
Discussion: The watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale) is known to occur naturally in habitat
associated with four limestone springs; Glenn, Thomas, Seven, and Roebuck, all of which are located in
Jefferson County, Alabama. The population at Glenn Springs was first collected in 1964. Additional field
work located the remaining three known populations: Thomas, Roebuck, and Seven Springs. In 1970,
the Service officially recognized the watercress darter as an endangered species. Watercress Darter
NWR was established by the Service in 1980, to provide protection for the watercress darter and to
conserve and restore its crucial habitat. Today, the 25-acre refuge consists of two spring-fed ponds,
several stands of mixed pine-hardwoods with shrubs, and a single residence. It also contains Thomas
Spring, a one-quarter-acre pond where a population of watercress darters was found in 1976. A second
pond was constructed on the refuge in 1983 by the Service to provide additional habitat for the darter.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Objective 1.1: Within 3 years, develop and implement a consistent population monitoring plan for the
watercress darter on the refuge based on scientific protocol and the “Action Items” contained in the
Watercress Darter Recovery Plan.
Discussion: The very limited distribution of watercress darters makes them highly vulnerable to
threats. The likelihood of its survival can be enhanced by providing for early detection of threats to
occupied habitat and groundwater and spring recharge areas. Monitoring should be done in a
standardized manner that provides for population trend comparisons and determination of the
effectiveness of habitat enhancement measures and the overall habitat quantity and quality trends.
Strategies:
 Monitor watercress darter populations in conjunction with academic institutions and
other partners consistent with the Recovery Plan.
 Visually inspect watercress darter habitat periodically to detect potential disturbances
from surrounding land uses.
 Monitor invasive aquatic fauna.
 Monitor ground water at spring head yearly for contaminants, bacteria, and flow levels
using an approved protocol.
Objective 1.2: Within 3 years, determine population dynamics of watercress darter at Thomas Spring,
including age and sex structure, recruitment, larval ecology, and other parameters. Determine the
genetic distinctness, similarities, and diversity with watercress darter on the refuge.
Discussion: Natural populations of watercress darter from Glenn and Thomas Springs are divergent
from the populations at Roebuck and Seven Springs. Initial genetic testing indicates that these
populations differ in allele frequency and composition and also suggests that biochemical variation
between these two isolated populations of watercress darter may place them within separate
evolutionary significant units.
Strategies:
 Determine larval ecology in a laboratory setting.
 Seek assistance from academic institutions to conduct seasonal sampling of
watercress darter populations to determine sex ratios, age structure, population
estimates, and other parameters.
 Encourage academic institutions to use the latest genetic technology to determine the
genetic structure of watercress darters at Thomas Spring and explore how this relates
to watercress darter populations at the three other watercress darter springs.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Goal 2: Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore native habitat on the refuge with special emphasis
on habitat for watercress darter.
Discussion: The watercress darter thrives in deeper, slow-moving backwaters of springs that contain
thick aquatic vegetation such as Nasturtium, Chara, Fontinalis, and Spirogyra. Indications of water
quality or quantity problems have been noted on the refuge.
42 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Objective 2.1: In conjunction with partners, over the life of the CCP, monitor contaminants present
and determine ways to reduce the impact of these on the watercress darter habitat.
Discussion: The aquifers in Jefferson County around the refuge are generally susceptible to
contamination from the surface. Where sinkholes are present, the aquifer may be extremely
susceptible to surface contamination because there is a direct link to the aquifer.
Strategies:
 Monitor ground water quality periodically at Thomas Spring.
 If contaminants are present, determine the source.
 Determine if increasing the sunlight to the spring pool will increase desirable aquatic
plants conducive to watercress darters.
Objective 2.2: Determine the recharge area for Thomas Spring.
Discussion: The aquifer recharge area for Thomas Spring is vulnerable to contamination from the
land surface (Kopaska-Merkel, et al. 2005). Specifically, water quality of the aquifer is vulnerable to
point source and non-point source pollution, urbanization, and changes in watershed geomorphology.
Non-point source pollution from land surface runoff can originate from virtually any land use activity
and include sediments, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water
leakage, and petroleum products. These pollutants tend to increase concentrations of nutrients and
toxins in groundwater and alter water quality chemistry. Construction and road maintenance activities
associated with urban development typically involve earth moving activities that increase sediment
loads into nearby streams. These and other sedimentation sources, including timber harvesting,
clearing of riparian vegetation, and mining and agricultural practices, allow exposed earth to enter
streams during or after precipitation events and may enter into the groundwater. Groundwater
quantity can be affected by paving, stormwater systems, rooftops or other impervious surfaces which
cause “hardening” of recharge areas and the loss of this water as a source for groundwater recharge.
Strategy:
 Use dye markers in existing wells or drill into aquifer to allow injection of appropriate
dye tracers
Objective 2.3: Over the life of the CCP, control exotic, invasive flora on the refuge.
Discussion: Invasive plant species that are problematic on Watercress Darter NWR are numerous
and include kudzu and Chinese privet.
Strategies:
 Mow and spot treat kudzu with approved herbicides.
 Hack and spray privet with approved herbicides.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Goal 3: Identify and conserve natural and cultural resources on the refuge and promote conservation
through interagency and private landowner cooperation, partnerships, and land protection programs
in the Black Warrior River Watershed.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Discussion: Resource protection issues include acquiring or otherwise managing inholdings,
identifying and protecting any cultural resource sites, and providing sufficient law enforcement.
Objective: 3.1: Protect recharge areas at Glenn and Thomas Springs.
Discussion: The aquifer recharge area for Glenn and Thomas Springs is vulnerable to contamination
from the land surface. Specifically, the water quality of the aquifer is vulnerable to point source and non-point
source pollution, urbanization, and changes in watershed geomorphology. Non-point source
pollution from land surface runoff can originate from virtually any land use activity and include sediments,
fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water leakage, and petroleum
products. These pollutants tend to increase concentrations of nutrients and toxins in groundwater and
alter water quality chemistry. Construction and road maintenance activities associated with urban
development typically involve earth moving activities that increase sediment loads into nearby streams.
These and other sedimentation sources including timber harvesting, clearing of riparian vegetation, and
mining and agricultural practices allow exposed earth to enter streams during or after precipitation events
and may enter into the groundwater. Groundwater quantity can be affected by paving, storm water
systems, rooftops, or other “hardening” of recharge areas.
Strategies:
 Maximize recharge retention quantities.
 Minimize impervious surface areas.
 Reduce storm water runoff.
Objective 3.2: Over the life of the CCP, protect Glenn and Thomas Springs.
Discussion: Threats from urbanization of the spring recharge areas are severe and escalating.
Widening and maintaining Fourth Avenue and the construction of a stormwater system in 2001, within
50 feet of Glenn Springs, have altered the spring run and spring pool (D. Drennen, pers. obs.). Traffic
is vigorous along Fourth Avenue and is conducive to vehicle accidents and toxic spills. Construction
and urbanization on the hill above the spring head continues, in addition to increased road and
maintenance activities along the west boundary. Because the main microhabitat for the watercress
darter in streams is root masses from trees (mostly Sycamores), the extant riparian zone along the
unnamed tributary to Halls Creek should be conserved and additional trees should be planted in areas
lacking proper riparian zones. Restoration of habitat in the unnamed tributary to Halls Creek and of the
spring runs could eventually restore natural connectivity between watercress darter populations in
Thomas and Glenn Springs (Fluker et al. 2008). At Glenn Springs, the continued ownership and
protection of the spring head, spring run, and immediate recharge area is in jeopardy due to the death
of the landowner and unknown intentions of the heirs. Unsuccessful attempts since 2001 have been
made to purchase the property by the Black Warrior-Cahaba River Land Trust.
Strategies:
 Acquire Glenn Springs or negotiate a long-term easement or lease.
 Construct barriers to direct roadway spills away from spring-heads and ponds.
 Install retention basins to lessen high flows in stream reaches and promote stream bed
stability and growth of aquatic vascular plants.
 Plant trees along the riparian zone between Glenn and Thomas Springs and
downstream of Glenn Spring Run.
 Evaluate the refuge boundary for fire protection.
44 Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge
Objective: 3.3: Continue to encourage and support the protection of Roebuck Springs.
Discussion: Roebuck Springs is located on the campus of the Jefferson County Youth Services
Facility at 8950 Roebuck Boulevard in Birmingham. The spring pool and run is within 200 feet of
Roebuck Boulevard to the south, the school facility grounds is to the north, with Roebuck Springs
Golf Course and park grounds to the west and east. There are many parking lots and small
driveways and connecting streets within the area. Interstate 59 and Highway 11 are less than 0.25-
mile to the south. In the 1970s, construction of Interstate 59, just south of the spring pool, destroyed
two spring heads of the Roebuck Springs system (Drennen, USFWS, unpublished data). The extent
of the negative impacts caused by this destruction to the springs’ hydrology is unknown. Additionally,
Magic Screwdriver Cave, located in a residential area less than 0.5-mile south of Roebuck Springs, is
interconnected hydrologically with the Roebuck Springs system (Hearn 1993), and since 1983, the
condition of the groundwater within the cave has declined (S. Spencer, pers. comm.). The Jefferson
County Youth Services Facility staff actively protects the water quality of the spring pool and spring
run by establishing buffer zones and limiting the use of herbicides and entry into the area. Threats
occur from adjacent private and public areas such as the indiscriminate use of pesticides on the
Roebuck Springs Golf Course, sedimentation caused by construction and maintenance of roadways,
storm water runoff, and other sources. Historically, the spring pool has had high levels of E. coli
bacteria (U.S. Department of the Interior 1979) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons levels were
high and suspected as harmful to the watercress darter (USFWS 1991). Traffic is dynamic along all
roadways mentioned and is conducive to vehicle accidents and toxic spills. Even though the
Jefferson County Youth Services Facility land is well-protected, maintained, and monitored, the spring
head and spring run is threatened by adj