Reference Document 5-3
Appendix 5
Disruption of streamflow due to changes in precipitation is one of the primary concerns of how climate change may affect stream and river fish (Paukert et al. 2021) . Streamflow regimes are critical to the survival, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species, with directional alterations of the streamflow regime shown to impact local biodiversity and cause extirpation of populations (Bain et al. 1988; Bunn and Arthington 2002; Knouft and Chu 2015; Knouft and Ficklin 2017; Poff and Allan 1995; Poff et al. 1997) . Flooding from extreme precipitation events can disrupt aquatic physical habitat and habitat connectivity, which are key to determining whether and how species will be able to sufficiently track changing climate (Talbot et al. 2018; Paukert et al. 2021) . Physical habitat plays an important role in healthy aquatic ecosystems: providing shelter, spawning sites, nursery areas, foraging areas for fish and other aquatic animals and affecting water quality and energy production (SARP 2008) . When physical habitat is changed by extreme precipitation or flood events, the health of the waterbody may change suddenly, slowly, or sometimes in stages following a ‘domino’ effect (SARP 2008) . The combined effects of warming temperatures and changes in precipitation may alter overall hydrology for the area, including reduced stream base flow and disconnected waters (Frankson et al. 2022) . For example, under future emission scenarios the southern Appalachian Mountains are projected to see a reduction of streamflow in summer at both low and high elevations when considering changes in both precipitation and temperature (Wu et al. 2014) . Adaptation strategies to prepare for and manage climate change effects on American fish and fisheries has been developed by Paukert et al. (2021).
Climate and Risk Assessments
However, species-specific traits of amphibians and their varying adaptive capacity mean that not all species respond the same to these changes in climatic conditions (Davis et al., 2017) . Table 16 lists North Carolina’s revised list of species of greatest conservation concern for mountain habitats and results from available approaches to evaluate species vulnerability to future climate change: climate change vulnerability assessments (Armsworth et al. 2025a) , ecological niche models (Armsworth et al 2025b; Yoon et al. 2025) , and a climate change threat analysis by the NCWRC (see Appendix 3, Reference Document 3-1). The first of these assessment approaches for climate vulnerability are NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) assessments (Lyons et al. 2024) . CCVI assessments combine a worksheet-based exercise informed by expert judgment about species traits and environmental factors with physical climate data. The second set of climate vulnerability assessments comes from ecological niche models, which project whether climatically suitable conditions will become more widespread or more restricted in the future. The niche model results shown in the table are based on the predicted range changes for each SGCN. A number of North Carolina’s SGCNs are also regional species of greatest conservation need (RSGCNs), meaning that other states in the Southeast also consider these species to be a priority, and are indicated as such in Table 4 (Appendix 5, Reference Document 5-2). Finally, the Table also indicates whether the species is listed under the US Endangered Species Act or listed at a state level, reflecting the species overall conservation status.
Table 16 (at the end of this report) provides broad risk measures (e.g., state or federal listing status, NatureServe conservation status ranks for North Carolina) and climate vulnerability
10 of 26
2025 NC Wildlife Action Plan
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator