Easygrants ID: 18868 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF/Legacy Grant Project ID: 0603.09.018868 Small Watershed Grants 2009 - Submit Final Programmatic Report (Activities) Grantee Organization: Trout Unlimited, Inc. Project Title: Eastern Panhandle Brook Trout Reintroduction (WV)

Project Period 10/31/2009 - 12/31/2011 Award Amount $22,309.72 Matching Contributions $22,163.00 Project Location Description (from Proposal) Projects are located in both Districts 1 and 2 in WV.

Project Summary (from Proposal) Work with public and private partners to restore water quality and aquatic habitat in four headwater of the . Project will install livestock exclusion fencing, establish riparian buffers, and perform water quality monitoring to support the goal of reintroducing eastern brook trout to historical coldwater streams in Hampshire and Hardy Counties, West .

Summary of Accomplishments This Project:

a) Restored native vegetation along 3,100 linear feet of streams with an average buffer width of 35 feet (approximately 5 acres);

b) Engaged four landowners and 102 volunteers in tree and shrub plantings, educational activities, water quality monitoring, and conservation planning;

c) Developed detailed temperature profiles of five streams to and a water quality “snapshot” of ; and

d) Piqued WVDNR interest in salmonid restoration or reintroduction in three streams.

Lessons Learned Lessons learned include:

a) Filling vacancies quickly and planning for project coverage during transition can mitigate the loss of key teammates;

b) Tighter oversight of volunteer monitors and interns and regular team meetings would yield more consistent data collection and reporting;

c) It is ambitious to make reintroduction of brook trout to previously unstudied streams a project period outcome;

d) Brook trout continue to be a valuable focus for landowner outreach (i.e. a charismatic species); and

e) Engaging children in land stewardship activities elicits greater willingness to cooperate among landowners

Conservation Activities Engage Burgundy Center in monitoring Progress Measures # of participants/volunteers in project Value at Grant Completion 50 Conservation Activities Engage Burgundy Center in monitoring Progress Measures # of landowners targeted by program Value at Grant Completion 2 Conservation Activities Restore native shrubs and vegetation along 1,500 linear feet of tributaries Progress Measures Linear feet of riparian buffer restored with at least a 35-foot buffer Value at Grant Completion 1500 Conservation Activities Restore native shrubs and vegetation along 1,500 linear feet of Dillons Run tributaries Progress Measures # of landowners targeted by program Value at Grant Completion 2 Conservation Activities Restore native shrubs and vegetation along 1,500 linear feet of Dillons Run tributaries Progress Measures # of farmers adopting BMPs Value at Grant Completion 1 Conservation Activities Restore Eastern brook trout to extirpated streams in Dillons Run subwatershed Progress Measures Other Activity Metric (# of streams where brook trout reintroduced) Value at Grant Completion 0 Conservation Activities Engage landowner Frye to restore riparian vegetation and monitor water quality on 1600 feet of Slate Rock Run Progress Measures # of landowners targeted by program Value at Grant Completion 1 Conservation Activities Engage landowner Frye to restore riparian vegetation and monitor water quality on 1600 feet of Slate Rock Run Progress Measures # of farmers adopting BMPs Value at Grant Completion 1 Conservation Activities Engage landowner Frye to restore riparian vegetation and monitor water quality on 1600 feet of Slate Rock Run Progress Measures Linear feet of riparian buffer restored with at least a 35-foot buffer Value at Grant Completion 1600 Conservation Activities Engage landowner Frye to restore riparian vegetation and monitor water quality on 1600 feet of Slate Rock Run Progress Measures # of participants/volunteers in project Value at Grant Completion 19 Conservation Activities Engage landowner Frye to restore riparian vegetation and monitor water quality on 1600 feet of Slate Rock Run Progress Measures Linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing installed with at least a 35-foot buffer Value at Grant Completion 1600 Conservation Activities Engage Capon Springs Resort and downstream community in brook trout reintroduction/restoration potential on Capon Springs Progress Measures # of landowners targeted by program Value at Grant Completion 1 Conservation Activities Engage Capon Springs Resort and downstream community in brook trout reintroduction/restoration potential on Capon Springs Progress Measures # of participants/volunteers in project Value at Grant Completion 30 Conservation Activities Engage Capon Springs Resort and downstream community in brook trout reintroduction/restoration potential on Capon Springs Progress Measures # of farmers adopting BMPs Value at Grant Completion 0 Conservation Activities Development of a watershed monitoring plan for Meadow Branch within the Wildlife Management Area Progress Measures # of participants/volunteers in project Value at Grant Completion 6 Conservation Activities Research pH, Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC), specific conductivity, water temperature, and water stage/volume at various flow rates and seasons. Progress Measures # of participants/volunteers in project Value at Grant Completion 6 Conservation Activities Restore native shrubs and vegetation along 1,500 linear feet of Dillons Run tributaries Progress Measures Acres of BMPs put into practice on agricultural lands Value at Grant Completion 2.4 Conservation Activities Engage landowner Frye to restore riparian vegetation and monitor water quality on 1600 feet of Slate Rock Run Progress Measures Acres of BMPs put into practice on agricultural lands Value at Grant Completion 2.6

Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund Final Programmatic Report Narrative

Instructions: Save this document on your computer and complete the narrative in the format provided. The final narrative should not exceed ten (10) pages; do not delete the text provided below. Once complete, upload this document into the on-line final programmatic report task as instructed.

1. Project Description. Briefly describe your project, including a description of the problem your project is trying to address, the project’s objectives and strategies, as well as the project location, and a characterization of the watershed and the relevant characteristics of the community’s natural resources, population, and economy.

The Eastern Panhandle Brook Trout Reintroduction Project (“Project”) engaged landowners and other partners in data collection and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to restore water quality and aquatic habitat on four headwater streams in ’s Eastern Panhandle. The Project simultaneously sought to: (1) fill in information gaps regarding water quality and habitat suitability for brook trout, and (2) address water quality degradation from non- point sources of pollution, primarily agriculture. The desired outcome of this Project, and the primary motivator of partner involvement, is restoration and reintroduction of brook trout, which are extirpated or greatly reduced in the Project area. While successful restoration or reintroduction of brook trout is beyond the Project’s timeline and contingent upon West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) action, the intent of this Project was to set a stage for WVDNR action by gathering baseline data and implementing BMPs (primarily riparian forest buffers) that may lead to habitat improvement in the future.

The objectives of the Project, restated from the original proposal, are as follows: a) Trout Unlimited (TU) will partner with the Cacapon & Lost River Land Trust (CLRLT) to engage four separate landowners on best management practices to restore water quality and aquatic habitat on four headwater streams in the Cacapon/Lost River watershed via restoration activities such as livestock exclusion, riparian protection and enhancement and monitoring. b) TU will partner with WVDNR fisheries staff and private landowners to reintroduce Eastern Brook Trout to appropriate private headwater streams if and when conditions are appropriate. c) TU and CLRLT will use partnership projects as a model to engage other private landowners in improving and protecting water quality and aquatic habitat with the long-term objective of reintroducing native brook trout. d) TU staff will work with various partners including WVDNR, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Potomac Headwaters Resource Conservation & Development Council and other local partners to develop a watershed monitoring plan on Meadow Branch in Sleepy Creek Wildlife Management Area, perform research, and develop a watershed restoration plan with the objective of reintroducing native brook trout to 9 miles of protected habitat.

A variety of strategies were employed to achieve these objectives, including: use of brook trout restoration as a means to approach and encourage BMP adoption among landowners; one-on-one technical assistance; volunteer tree and shrub plantings; a public meeting; and development of a collaborative watershed monitoring plan for Meadow Branch.

A location map and coordinates for each of the Project sites may be found in the attached Data Supplement. Generally, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan, and Berkeley Counties, where the Project took place, are rural counties where agriculture and forestry are dominant land uses. The vast majority of residents are white (similar to statewide figures—93.9 percent as of 2010). Unemployment rates for each are below those of the state and a greater portion of the Project area’s population works in the construction and manufacturing sectors. While abated by the recent economic downturn, urban sprawl continues to threaten historic land use patterns due to the Project area’s proximity to employment centers. a) Summary of Accomplishments In four to five sentences, provide a brief summary of the project’s key accomplishments and outcomes that were observed or measured. a) Restored native vegetation along 3,100 linear feet of streams with an average buffer width of 35 feet (approximately 5 acres); leveraged $7,804.80 in additional USDA funding for riparian reforestation. b) Engaged four landowners and 102 volunteers in tree and shrub plantings, educational activities, water quality monitoring, and conservation planning; enhanced participant understanding of nonpoint source pollution, BMPs, brook trout life history and habitat requirements; improved landowner relations with TU and CLRLT. c) Developed detailed temperature profiles of five streams to gauge suitability for brook trout; developed a water quality “snapshot” of Meadow Branch (see attached Data Supplement). d) Piqued WVDNR interest in salmonid restoration or reintroduction in three streams (Dry Run, Himmelwright Run, Meadow Branch); brook trout documented for first time in one Project Area surveyed by WVDNR at TU’s encouragement. b) Project Activities & Outcomes

The activities and outcomes proposed in the Project’s proposal (the Evaluation Logic Framework) are recited below, followed by a description, quantification, and analysis of discrepancies between what was proposed and achieved.

Activities a) Engage Burgundy Center for Wildlife Studies in water quality, water temperature, aquatic macroinvertebrate, fish and riparian condition monitoring.

The Burgundy Center was successfully engaged in monitoring related to two streams examined during the course of the Project—Coopers Cove Run, on the Burgundy Center property, and Dry Run, on the nearby Rudolph property. Temperature monitoring was conducted on Coopers Cover Run during year one of the grant by the Burgundy Center, but not year two (see attached Data Supplement). Burgundy Center campers sampled Coopers Cove Run for water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish (minnow traps were purchased for this purpose by TU with the Project grant). Burgundy Center volunteers also monitored the condition of riparian areas following plantings conducted along Coopers Cove Run and Dry Run (see below). b) Restore native shrubs and vegetation to 1,500 linear feet on Dry Run and unnamed tributary

Native trees and shrubs were planted along 1,500 linear feet of tributaries to Dillons Run—Dry Run and Coopers Cove Run. The area planted comprises approximately 2.4 acres. c) Restore Eastern brook trout to extirpated streams in Dillons Run subwatershed

Brook trout were not restored to extirpated streams in the Dillons Run subwatershed, though data has been gathered to support possible reintroduction in Dry Run and shared with WVDNR (see attached Data Supplement). WVDNR has expressed interest in further studying Dillons Run and its tributaries for possible reintroduction. d) Engage Landowner Frye to restore riparian vegetation and monitor water quality on 1600 feet of Slate Rock Run

Trees and shrubs were successfully planted along 1,600 feet of Slate Rock Run. Water temperature was also monitored at the site throughout the course of the Project (see Data Supplement). Frye participated in planting and monitoring. Volunteers from the local county conservation club (18 in total) assisted with planting, as did staff from the Mountain Institute. Water quality and aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling were conducted by the volunteers under the guidance of the Mountain Institute. e) Engage Capon Springs Resort and downstream community in brook trout reintroduction/restoration potential on Capon Springs

A community workshop was held September 22, 2010 at Capon Springs resort which brought together the resort’s owner, staff, and several downstream neighbors (30 attendees in total) to discuss brook trout, including its life history, population status, and ways to protect and restore its habitat. Temperature monitoring was conducted on Capons Springs Run on the resort property and at a downstream site (see Data Supplement). TU arranged meetings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and private consultants to explore replacement of a culvert on the resort property; the Service completed an assessment of the culvert and unsuccessfully pursued grant funding for its replacement. A similar assessment was made of another culvert on a downstream property. TU is currently working with the latter landowner to explore his fish- friendly passage options and is actively supporting permanent protection of the property through conservation easement acquisition with CLRLT and the Pinchot Institute.

At TU’s behest, WVDNR electrofished Capon Springs Run and Himmelwright Run, a tributary of Capon Springs Run. Both pass through the resort property. Brook trout were not found in the portion of Capon Springs Run surveyed but were found in Himmelwright Run. Brook trout had never before been identified by WVDNR in Himmelwright Run. TU anticipates that this discovery will further solidify Capon Springs’ interest in brook trout restoration. f) Development of a watershed monitoring plan for Meadow Branch within the Sleepy Creek Wildlife Management Area

A watershed monitoring plan for Meadow Branch was developed and implemented. See attached Data Supplement. g) Research pH, Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC), specific conductivity, water temperature, and water stage/volume at various flow rates and seasons.

The watershed monitoring plan for Meadow Branch was implemented. Findings are presented in the Data Supplement. Monitoring responsibility was distributed among partners and executed with mixed success. Some data that was proposed for collection was not collected. Some data was not collected with the frequency or over the time periods proposed in the monitoring plan. Changeover of key personnel and lax management of the monitoring team are contributing factors.

Outcomes a) Improvement in some physical, chemical and biological metrics along 500 feet of stream from baseline 2009 within 3 years

While the Coopers Cove Run and Dry Run plantings were a success, data is not available to support improvement in baseline conditions. It will take a few more years to see positive impacts from riparian reforestation. b) 500 native shrubs planted along 1500 linear feet of headwater stream in 3 years

At least 500 native trees and shrubs were planted along 1,500 linear feet of Dry Run and Coopers Cove Run in 2010 with assistance from Burgundy Center volunteers. c) Genetically appropriate Eastern brook trout reintroduced in cooperation with WVDNR Fisheries in 3 years in 1 or both tributaries

Brook trout were not reintroduced in either stream, though data has been gathered to support possible reintroduction in Dry Run and shared with WVDNR (see Data Supplement). WVDNR has expressed interest in further studying Dillons Run and its tributaries for possible reintroduction. d) 550 native shrubs planted along 1600 linear feet of headwater stream in 3 years

880 trees and shrubs were planted along 1,600 linear feet of Slate Rock Run in 2011. 160 were purchased by TU with the Project grant, leveraging an additional 720 trees provided by the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The Hardy County Conservation Club assisted with the planting. e) Adoption of appropriate best management practices, including riparian revegetation, along Capon Springs by Capon Springs Resort

Capon Springs resort did not adopt any BMPs during the Project, though remains committed to putting them in place in the future, particularly after learning that Himmelwright Run, a tributary to Capon Springs Run, contains brook trout. They approved of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempt to procure funding for the replacement of a culvert on their property with an open box fish passage-friendly design (a project developed with TU assistance). TU will continue to work with Capon Springs resort in future years, and has already discussed riparian reforestation along the portion of Himmelwright Run that passes through the resort with WVDNR. f) Multi‐partner, scientifically derived watershed monitoring plan adopted by various partners

A watershed monitoring plan for Meadow Branch was developed and implemented with a variety of partners. See attached Data Supplement. g) Identification of source(s) of stress hindering water quality and aquatic ecosystem recovery in the Meadow Branch watershed

Data collected during 2009 and 2010 suggest a number of possible water quality and aquatic ecosystem stressors in Meadow Branch. See attached Data Supplement for findings.

Generally, human induced stressors include impoundments (), acid mine drainage, and acid rain. The acid neutralizing capacity of Meadow Branch was not derived during the Project, though geology of the region indicates that Meadow Branch may lack the capacity to neutralize additional acid.

Data collected by the working group suggests that temperatures are generally conducive to salmonid habitation. However, inadequate streamflow—controlled in part by the dam at Sleepy Creek Lake—causes temperatures to spike above thresholds for trout tolerance. pH readings taken over the course of 2010 meet recommended water quality criteria, though Meadow Branch appears to suffer from the episodic acidification common to many streams in the area. Episodic acidification may push pH below recommended tolerance levels, though this was not observed during the period where water stage and pH were simultaneously recorded.

Except for immediately below the dam, dissolved oxygen concentrations fall within the tolerance range for coldwater fishes. Iron concentrations also exceed national water quality criteria below the dam.

The Data Supplement has been shared with WVDNR, which is now considering reintroduction of brook trout to Meadow Branch tributaries and possible establishment of a put and take fishery in the lower portions of Meadow Branch.

Unexpected Outcomes

Unexpected positive outcomes of the Project include: a) Identification of brook trout in Himmelwright Run. While Himmelwright Run was not an original focus of this Project, surveying this Capon Springs Run tributary was very worthwhile. Knowing brook trout inhabit this stream indicates that they inhabit the Capon Springs Run system, which will motivate riparian landowners to implement BMPs on both streams. b) Pilot implementation of a brook trout habitat credit program. Through connections established on this Project, TU was able to link CLRLT and a landowner adjacent to Capon Springs Run with the Pinchot Institute to test a new habitat conservation credit program administered through Pinchot’s Bay Bank. c) Youth education in connection with the tree and shrub planting on Slate Rock Run. TU initially struggled to find volunteers for the Slate Rock Run planting. Due to cancellation of another project, the Hardy County Conservation Club, comprised of students and teachers from Hardy County Schools, were able to help. In addition to instruction on tree and shrub planting, Club members learned about hydrology, water quality, and stream ecology.

4. Challenges and Lessons Learned Describe any specific challenges that have arisen during the course of the project and how they have been addressed. Also describe the key lessons learned from this project, such as the least and most effective conservation practices or notable aspects of the project’s methods, monitoring, or results. How could other conservation organizations adapt their projects to build upon some of these key lessons about what worked best and what did not?

The greatest challenge encountered during the Project, and the reason it took longer than anticipated to complete, was the loss of key personnel—TU’s Project manager and the coordinator of the Potomac Headwaters Resource Conservation and Development Council (PHRCD), the latter being a critical player in the Meadow Branch work. TU and PHRCD were unable to fill the positions for several months, and as soon as the PHRCD position was filled, funding for PHRCD was slashed and they were forced to re-assign their newly hired staffer. This downtime led to momentum loss and minor partnership erosion. Fortunately, all activities were underway or complete at the time the time the TU position was filled except for the Slate Rock Run planting and data aggregation and analysis. Lesson learned: filling vacancies quickly and planning for project coverage during transition can mitigate the loss of key teammates.

Another challenge encountered was implementation of the monitoring plan for Meadow Branch. Monitoring essentially fell to one volunteer and one intern, with support provided primarily by PHRCD. Data was not reported by monitors in consistent formats, was not shared with the entire group as it was collected, and was not accompanied by any analysis. This made retrieval and reporting very challenging. In future collaborative monitoring projects, tighter oversight of volunteers and interns and regular team meetings would yield more consistent data collection and reporting.

One new lesson learned is that it is ambitious to make reintroduction of brook trout to previously unstudied streams a project period outcome. This Project was designed to explore and set a stage for reintroduction through data analysis and BMP implementation. In many cases, it will take years for buffers to mature and provide the shade necessary to return streams to temperature levels conducive to brook trout survival. In future projects, TU might be better off listing reintroduction as a long-term outcome.

Lastly, two lessons that were re-learned in this Project are that: (a) brook trout continue to be a valuable focus for landowner outreach (i.e. a charismatic species) and (2) engaging children in land stewardship activities elicits greater willingness to cooperate among landowners. Both cut across ideological divides, and most landowners agree that children need to increase their participation in outdoors, nature-based activities.

5. Dissemination Briefly identify any dissemination of lessons learned or other project results to external audiences, such as the public or other conservation organizations.

The Data Supplement was shared with all Project partners, including participating landowners and organizations. A brief write-up of TU’s work on the Project also appears on its website. Local community members have been engaged along the way in workshops and volunteer events.

6. Project Documents Include in your final programmatic report, via the Uploads section of this task, the following:

 2-10 representative photos from the project. Photos need to have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi;  report publications, GIS data, brochures, videos, outreach tools, press releases, media coverage;  any project deliverables per the terms of your grant agreement.

Captions for the uploaded pictures are as follows:

1. Slate Rock Run, post-planting (taken 4/20/11) 2. Members of Hard County Conservation Club at work along planting trees (foreground) and sampling the stream (background) at Slate Rock Run (taken 4/20/11) 3. Capon Springs Run, downstream monitoring site (taken 3/23/2011) 4. Capon Springs Run, culvert being considered for replacement on resort property (taken 3/23/2011) 5. Coopers Cover Run planting site (taken 3/23/2011) 6. Dry Run temperature monitoring site (taken 3/23/2011) 7. WVDNR sampling Meadow Branch (taken 4/27/09) 8. Meadow Branch, below dam monitoring site (taken 11/18/2011) 9. Meadow Branch, Devils Nose monitoring site (taken 11/18/2011)

POSTING OF FINAL REPORT: This report and attached project documents may be shared by the Foundation and any Funding Source for the Project via their respective websites. In the event that the Recipient intends to claim that its final report or project documents contains material that does not have to be posted on such websites because it is protected from disclosure by statutory or regulatory provisions, the Recipient shall clearly mark all such potentially protected materials as “PROTECTED” and provide an explanation and complete citation to the statutory or regulatory source for such protection.

Eastern Panhandle Brook Trout Reintroduction Project

DATA SUPPLEMENT

Project SWG 2009-0054-021 Proposal ID 18868

PREPARED BY:

Kevin Anderson Chesapeake Bay Land Protection Coordinator Trout Unlimited [email protected]

December 31, 2011 INTRODUCTION

The Eastern Panhandle Brook Trout Reintroduction Project (“Project”) sought to conduct the necessary water quality, physical and biological monitoring to determine the feasibility of reintroduction or restoration of Eastern brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, to four streams located in West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle region. This Data Supplement is intended to serve as a record of data collection activities to be shared with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and other Project partners, including: Cacapon and Lost Rivers Land Trust; Potomac Headwaters Resource, Conservation, and Development Council; West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR), and the private landowners that participated in the Project.

A NFWF Expanded Quality Assurance Statement (QAS) for the Project was approved by NFWF on October 18, 2011 and is attached hereto for reference. The QAS should be consulted for the Project’s data quality objectives and sampling, measurement, and oversight protocols.

Findings are summarized by site below. Four sites were the subject of data collection activities, though some sites included sampling and monitoring at numerous locations. Raw data and original laboratory reports are available upon request.

SITE 1 – MEADOW BRANCH, BERKELEY AND MORGAN COUNTIES

Description A working group comprised of representatives of Potomac Headwaters Resource, Conservation, and Development Council (PHRCD), Trout Unlimited (TU), , and Sleepy Creek Watershed Association prepared and implemented a data collection plan to test the hypothesis that water quality in Meadow Branch currently limits the survival and reproduction of brook trout. Responsibilities for data collection were divided up among a Shepherd University intern and a volunteer monitor (Bert Lustig). Using equipment supplied by TU and PHRCD, the intern and volunteer collected data on a variety of physical and chemical parameters at the locations identified below in Table 1. WVDNR staff also performed an electroshocking survey of Meadow Branch during the spring of 2010.

Table 1. GPS Locations for Sampling/Monitoring Sites, Meadow Branch Site Latitude Longitude Source a. Spruce Pine Hollow Park 39.63313202 -78.10842751 B. Lustig b. Devils Nose 39.60610734 -78.1116573 B. Lustig c. Coal Mine Area/Whites Gap 39.57115 -78.13334 Intern d. Below Dam, 2009 39.53365417 -78.1499196 B. Lustig e. Below Dam, 2010 39.54234302 -78.1450213 B. Lustig f. Above Dam 39.49558969 -78.16881677 B. Lustig g. Downstream of Spruce Pine Hollow 39.63728559 -78.11496086 B. Lustig h. Downstream of Lake (i.e. below dam) 39.53187 -78.15083 Intern i. Upstream of Lake (i.e. above dam) 39.49607 -78.1686 Intern

Page 2 of 19 Findings

Temperature Water temperature in Meadow Branch was collected at sites a, b, c, d, and f in 2009. Temperature was collected at those same sites in 2010, with the exception of site d, which was replaced with site e due to excessive deposition of a red-orange precipitate at site d.

Summary statistics for peak temperatures by month are provided in Table 2, below. Note that in 2010, low flows in sections of Meadow Branch brought several probes very near the water surface or out of the water.

Table 2. Peak Temperatures Per Month (°F), Meadow Branch, 2009-2010 Site, Year May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Coal Mine Area, 2009 NA NA 76.4 78.6 69.4 75.5 76.7 NA Coal Mine Area, 2010 88.1 78.8 75.1 79.2 68.9 66.7 NA NA Above Lake, 2009 NA NA 72.2 74.6 66.2 75.7 76.5 NA Above Lake, 2010 88.8 77.4 93.3 115.4 80.9 69.4 54.1 64.8 Below Dam, 2009 NA NA 70.6 68.6 66.6 75.2 NA NA Below Dam, 2010 88.2 77.7 85.7 84.1 77.0 86.3 69.1 64.8 Devils Nose, 2009 NA NA 71.4 74.3 67.4 75.5 NA NA Devils Nose, 2010 76.9 81.3 90.5 85.8 81.5 75.7 68.7 64.6 Spruce Pine Hollow, 2009 NA NA 73.3 76.4 68.7 75.1 NA NA Spruce Pine Hollow, 2010 85.9 77.0 77.6 78.6 80.2 75.9 68.5 65.0

Maximum daily maximum and maximum daily mean temperatures by exposure period are plotted in Figures 1 through 4 against maximum temperature thresholds for brook trout survival developed by Wehrly et al. (2007). The following thresholds (in degrees Celsius) are used:

 Exposure period of one day: 27.6 maximum daily maximum; 25.3 maximum daily mean.  Exposure period of three days: 26.5 maximum daily maximum; 24.1 maximum daily mean.  Exposure period of 7 days: 25.4 maximum daily maximum; 23.3 maximum daily mean.  Exposure period of 14 days: 24.6 maximum daily maximum; 22.5 maximum daily mean.  Exposure period of 21 days: 24.2 maximum daily maximum; 22.1 maximum daily mean.  Exposure period of 28 days: 24 maximum daily maximum; 21.9 maximum daily mean.  Exposure period of 35 days: 23.8 maximum daily maximum; 21.6 maximum daily mean.  Exposure period of 42 days: 23.5 maximum daily maximum; 21.4 maximum daily mean.

In 2009, sites a, b, and d fell below these thresholds, indicating that temperatures could be conducive to brook trout survival. In 2010, every site exceeded these thresholds during at least one exposure period.

Page 3 of 19 Temperature Monitoring, Meadow Branch Maximum Daily Maximum, 7/15/09 through 10/14/09 *Coal Mine Area and Above Lake Sites Monitored through 11/3/09*

28 27 26 Wehrly et al. 2007 25 Coal Mine Area Above Lake 24 Below Dam 23 Devils Nose 22 Spruce Pine Hollow Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 21 20 1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 Exposure period (days)

Figure 1

Temperature Monitoring, Meadow Branch Maximum of Daily Means, 7/15/09 through 10/14/09 *Coal Mine Area and Above Lake Sites Monitored through 11/3/09*

26 25 24 Wehrly et al. 2007 23 Coal Mine Area Above Lake 22 Below Dam 21 Devils Nose 20 Spruce Pine Hollow

Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 19 18 1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 Exposure period (days)

Figure 2

Page 4 of 19 Temperature Monitoring, Meadow Branch Maximum Daily Maximum, 5/20/10 through 12/7/10 *Coal Mine Area Site Monitored through 10/11/10*

48 46 44 42 40 Wehrly et al. 2007 38 Coal Mine Area 36 Above Lake 34 32 Below Dam 30 Devils Nose 28 Spruce Pine Hollow 26 Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 24 22 20 1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 Exposure period (days)

Figure 3

Temperature Monitoring, Meadow Branch Maximum of Daily Means, 5/20/10 through 12/7/10 *Coal Mine Area Site Monitored through 10/11/10*

30 29 28 27 Wehrly et al. 2007 26 Coal Mine Area 25 Above Lake 24 23 Below Dam 22 Devils Nose 21 Spruce Pine Hollow

Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 20 19 18 1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 Exposure period (days)

Figure 4

Page 5 of 19 Acidity and Alkalinity Total acidity, total alkalinity, and total hot acidity were measured at sites a, c, h, and i between June and November of 2010. Samples were collected by an intern from Shepherd University and analyzed by Reliance Laboratories of Bridgeport, West Virginia. Results are reported in Table 3, below. There was no flow at the Spruce Pine Hollow Park site in August and September.

Table 3. Total Acidity, Total Alkalinity, Total Hot Acidity, Meadow Branch, 2010 (mg/L)* Site June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. a. Spruce Pine Hollow Park Total Acidity ND 6.0 ND ND ND 3.6 Total Alkalinity 5.0 16.8 ND ND 5.8 8.4 Total Hot Acidity 2.8 ND ND ND ND ND c. Coal Mine Area/Whites Gap Total Acidity 2.3 6.4 7.8 9.6 2.8 4.9 Total Alkalinity 5.2 21.8 33.6 31.8 4.8 6.0 Total Hot Acidity 2.0 ND ND ND ND ND h. Downstream of Lake (i.e. below dam) Total Acidity 9.4 9.2 14.8 10.0 7.1 4.5 Total Alkalinity 6.2 15.6 13.2 16.2 5.6 5.2 Total Hot Acidity 3.0 ND ND ND ND ND i. Upstream of Lake (i.e. above dam) Total Acidity 3.3 7.6 17.4 9.3 4.0 5.9 Total Alkalinity 5.6 10.4 12.4 7.4 1.6 1.6 Total Hot Acidity 5.0 ND ND ND 5.2 3.6 *ND indicates not detected at minimum detectable or minimum reportable limits. pH Monitoring of pH occurred at 5 sites: a, c, g, h, and i. pH was continuously monitored at site g using a Eureka Manta 2-20 multiprobe equipped with an M2 pH sensor between November 21, 2010 and December 15, 2010. Values ranged from 6.29 to 7.71, with a mean pH of 7.33—well within National Recommended Water Quality Criteria thresholds for pH (U.S.EPA, 2009).

The intern assessed pH in the course of completing stream flow measurements in July and October of 2010, once during each month. The intern’s data is reported in Table 4. These values are also within National Recommended Water Quality Criteria thresholds.

Table 4. pH at Select Sites, Meadow Branch, 2010 Site July, 2010 October, 2010 a. Spruce Pine Hollow Park NA 8.07 c. Coal Mine Area/Whites Gap 6.51 NA h. Downstream of Lake (i.e. below dam) 6.11 8.04 i. Upstream of Lake (i.e. above dam) 6.81 6.95

Page 6 of 19 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) The Project intern measured DO at 4 sites: a, c, h, and i. Results are reported in Table 5. While limited to single-day “snapshots,” the findings suggest that brook trout could survive at these locations should these DO concentrations be common. Recorded DO concentrations exceed EPA-recommended minimum coldwater criteria thresholds for “other life stages,” and only one site (site h) was below the threshold for “early life stage development” (U.S. EPA, 1986).

Table 5. DO at Select Sites, Meadow Branch, 2010 (mg/L) Site July, 2010 October, 2010 a. Spruce Pine Hollow Park NA 8.18 c. Coal Mine Area/Whites Gap 9.55 NA h. Downstream of Lake (i.e. below dam) 8.51 7.48 i. Upstream of Lake (i.e. above dam) 8.90 8.27

Specific Conductivity The intern also measured specific conductivity (SC) at sites a, c, h, and i.

Table 6. SC at Select Sites, Meadow Branch, 2010 (µS/cm) Site July, 2010 October, 2010 a. Spruce Pine Hollow Park NA 9.80 c. Coal Mine Area/Whites Gap 18.80 NA h. Downstream of Lake (i.e. below dam) 22.40 18.80 i. Upstream of Lake (i.e. above dam) 21.10 22.10

Streamflow Streamflow was monitored manually at sites a, c, h, and i twice by the Project intern. A Marsh- McBirney flow meter was used to calculate flow. A stream channel cross section was developed at each site for the purpose of developing discharge estimates. The discharge data reported by the intern is presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Discharge at Select Sites, Meadow Branch, 2010 (m3/s) Site July, 2010 October, 2010 a. Spruce Pine Hollow Park NA 0.26 c. Coal Mine Area/Whites Gap 28.61 NA h. Downstream of Lake (i.e. below dam) 27.47 0.16 i. Upstream of Lake (i.e. above dam) 6.78 0.00

Water stage was monitored on a continuous basis using an Onset Hobo Water Level U-20 logger at hourly intervals at site g between November 20, 2010 and December 15, 2010. A channel cross section at this site was not developed; discharge estimates are not available. Water sensor depth ranged from 0 to 3.652 feet during the monitoring period. Episodic acidification of Meadow Branch was of concern to the working group, hence the paired measurement of depth and pH at site g. Figure 5 plots sensor depth and pH over time. pH dropped a half unit (7.61 to 7.11) during a storm event on December 1, 2010 that increased sensor depth by 1.793 feet.

Page 7 of 19 Sensor Depth Depth (ft)

11/ 2 1/ 11/ 201 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 2/ 0 11/ 201 2 3/ 0 11/ 201 2 4/20 0 11/ 2 1 5/20 0 11/ 2 1 6/ 0 11/ 201 2 7/ 0 11/ 201 Sensor Depth and pH, Meadow Branch, pH, Meadow and Depth Sensor 2 8/ 0 11/ 201

2 11/21/2010 through 12/15/2010 9/ 0 11/ 201 3 0/ 0 20 12 1 /1/20100 12 /2/2010 Figure 5

Sensor Depth Sensor 12 /3/ 12 20 10 /4/ 20 12/5/2010 10

12/6/2010

1 2

pH /7/2010 12 /8/ 2 12 010 /9/ 2 12/ 010 1 0/20 12/ 1 1 1/20 0 12/ 1 1 2/ 0 12/ 201 1 3/ 0 12 201 /1 4/ 0 12/ 20 1 1 5/ 0 201 0 6 6. 7 7.5 8 5 pH

Page 8 of 19 Macroinvertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates were collected by the intern at sites a, h, and i in October and November, 2010 (one collection each month). The October collection yielded only one winter stonefly (Plecoptera: capniidae) at site i. During November, one segmented worm (Annelida) was collected at site a; one worm (Annelida), one midge (Diptera: chaoboridae), and two winter stoneflies (Plecoptera: capniidae) were collected at site h; and one winter stonefly (Plecoptera: capniidae) was collected at site i.

Fish Community WVNDR staff completed an electrofishing survey of Meadow Branch in the vicinity of Devil’s Nose on April 14, 2010. Results are provided in Table 8 below. Brook trout were not observed.

Table 8. WVDNR Coldwater Fish Survey Data, Meadow Branch Location Date Common Name # Fish GPS E (17S) GPS N Effort (m) Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Blacknose Dace 1 743368 4375560 100 Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Creek Chub 6 743368 4375560 100 Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Green Sunfish 3 743368 4375560 100 Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Yellow Bullhead 1 743368 4375560 100 Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Creek Chub 35 743384 4375468 100 Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Green Sunfish 3 743384 4375468 100 Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Rosyside Dace 3 743384 4375468 100 Meadow Branch 4/14/2010 Yellow Bullhead 5 743384 4375468 100 Source: B. Keplinger, 11/10/11

Additional Reliance Laboratories Analyses Reliance Laboratories also analyzed samples taken by the intern from sites c, h, and i on June 2, 2010 for a variety of other water quality parameters. Results are reported in Table 9.

Table 9. Additional Water Quality Measurements, Meadow Branch, 6/2/10* Site Parameter c. Whites Gap h. Below Lake i. Above Lake MF Fecal Coliform (C/100ml) 230.00 Est 700 Est 10 Total Iron (mg/l) 0.96 2.70 0.34 Total Nitrate (mg/l) ND ND ND Total Aluminum (mg/l) 0.21 0.11 0.12 Total Selenium (mg/l) ND ND ND Total Sulfate (mg/l) 5.88 5.50 5.40 Total Bromide (mg/l) ND ND ND Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 22.00 14.00 30.00 Total Fluoride (mg/l) ND ND ND *ND indicates not detected at minimum detectable or minimum reportable limits.

Iron concentrations at site H exceed the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for

Page 9 of 19 indefinite exposure (1,000 µg/L).

SITE 2 – CAPON SPRINGS RUN, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY

Description With assistance from the Cacapon and Lost Rivers Land Trust, TU deployed two water temperature data loggers on Capon Springs Run in 2010 to test the hypothesis that water temperature limits the survival and successful reproduction of brook trout in this stream.

One logger was placed on the Capon Springs resort property. This logger was lost while deployed. A second logger was placed on the Rudolph property, approximately 2.5 miles downstream from the Capon Springs resort site (N39 89.321, W078 31.811; source N. Gillespie).

WVDNR staff performed an electroshocking survey of Capon Springs Run in July, 2011. Outreach and conservation planning activities were also conducted at Capon Springs resort as part of this Project, which are described in the narrative of the Final Programmatic Report.

Findings

Temperature Temperature data for Capon Springs Run is only available for the Rudolph property during 2010. Summary statistics for peak temperature per month are provided in Table 10. Low flows during September brought the logger very close to the surface of the water.

Table 10. Peak Temperatures Per Month (°F), Capon Springs Run, 2010 Site May June July Aug. Sept. Rudolph Property 69.6 72.5 73.8 72.2 86.6

Maximum daily maximum and maximum daily mean temperatures by exposure period are plotted in Figures 6 and 7 against maximum temperature thresholds for brook trout survival developed by Wehrly et al. (see page three for a description of the specific thresholds used). Temperatures generally held below these thresholds, with the exception of the one-day exposure period for maximum daily maximum and the three- and 42-day exposure periods for maximum daily mean. The cause for exceeding the one- and three-day exposure periods appears to be the result of unusually high temperatures experienced between September 9 and September 13, 2010. Excluding these figures from analysis would bring temperatures below the thresholds for one- and three-day exposure periods.

Page 10 of 19 Temperature Monitoring, Capon Springs Run, Downstream Maximum Daily Maximum, 5/19/10 through 9/13/10

32 31 30 29 28 27 Wehrly et al. 2007 26 25 Capon Springs Run, Rudolph 24 23

Temperature (Celsius) 22 21 20 1 3 7 1421283542 Exposure Period (days)

Figure 6

Temperature Monitoring, Capon Springs Run, Downstream Maximum of Daily Means, 5/19/10 through 9/13/10

26 25

24 23 Wehrly et al. 2007 22 Capon Springs Run, 21 Rudolph 20

Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 19 18 1 3 7 1421283542 Exposure Period (days)

Figure 7

Page 11 of 19 Fish Community WVDNR staff completed an electrofishing survey of Capon Springs Run on July 7, 2011. Results are provided in Table 11. That survey did not find brook trout in Capon Springs Run. However, two brook trout were observed in Himmelwright Run, a major tributary to Capon Springs Run that passes through the Capon Springs resort property. Prior to this survey, brook trout had never been documented in Himmelwright Run (source: B. Keplinger).

Table 11. WVDNR Coldwater Fish Survey Data, Capon Springs and Himmelwright Runs Location Date Common Name # Fish GPS E (17S) GPS N Effort (m) Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Blacknose Dace 347 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Blueridge Sculpin 93 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Creek Chub 51 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Fantail Darter 25 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Greenside Darter 2 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Longnose Dace 21 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Rosyside Dace 4 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 Stoneroller 63 716670 4335066 112 Capon Springs Run 7/7/2011 White Sucker 6 716670 4335066 112 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 Blacknose Dace 180 717864 4334798 77 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 Blueridge Sculpin 25 717864 4334798 77 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 Brook Trout 2 717864 4334798 77 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 Creek Chub 33 717864 4334798 77 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 Fantail Darter 16 717864 4334798 77 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 Longnose Dace 6 717864 4334798 77 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 Stoneroller 1 717864 4334798 77 Himmelwright Run 7/7/2011 White Sucker 1 717864 4334798 77 Source: B. Keplinger, 11/10/11

SITE 3 – DILLONS RUN TRIBUTARIES, HAMPSHIRE COUNTY

Description In cooperation with the Burgundy Center for Wildlife Studies and private landowner Mike Rudolph, TU sought to test the hypothesis that water temperature limits the survival and reproduction of brook trout in two tributaries to Dillons Run—Dry Run, on Rudolph’s property, and Cooper’s Cove Run, on the Burgundy Center’s property.

TU deployed one water temperature data logger on Dry Run in 2009 on the upstream portion of Rudolph’s property where the stream enters woodland after passing through open pasture (N39 14.344 W078 31.804; source N. Gillespie). The same site was monitored in 2010, as well as a site several thousand feet downstream where the stream is bordered by mature forest (N39 14.339 W078 31.517; source N. Gillespie)

Burgundy Center staff and students monitored stream temperatures on a non-continuous basis during 2009. Data was collected and shared with TU in hardcopy format. This data is missing.

Page 12 of 19 Temperatures in Coopers Cove Run were not collected by Burgundy Run staff or students in 2010. Consequently, no temperature data on Cooper’s Cover Run is presented in this Data Supplement.

Riparian buffer plantings (and associated maintenance) were also conducted along both streams as part of this Project. These activities are described in the narrative section of the Final Programmatic Report. WVDNR staff was not able to perform an electroshocking survey of the fish community in Dillons Run or its tributaries, though they did visit a headwater tributary to Dillons Run in 2011 and recorded a temperature of approximately 55°F.

Findings Summary statistics for peak temperatures by month are provided in Table 12. As with other sites monitored in 2010, temperature readings were clearly impacted by the severe drought.

Table 12. Peak Temperatures Per Month (°F), Dry Run, 2009-2010 Year, Site April May June July Aug. Sept. Upstream, 2009 NA NA 67.0 66.6 66.2 60.6 Upstream, 2010 62.4 65.7 66.5 67.5 65.9 80.3 Downstream, 2010 60.5 63.1 69.2 75.5 73.6 80.8

Maximum daily maximum and maximum daily mean temperatures by exposure period are plotted in Figures 8 through 11 against maximum temperature thresholds for brook trout survival developed by Wehrly et al. (see page three for a description of the specific thresholds used).

In 2009, maximum daily maximum and maximum daily mean temperatures held below the thresholds for all exposure periods except for the 14-day maximum daily mean exposure period, which exceeded the threshold by three-hundredths of a degree. The exposure period that generated that figure consisted of the last 14 days of the sample.

In 2010, maximum daily maximum temperatures fell below all thresholds, while thresholds for maximum daily mean temperatures were exceeded only for the three day exposure period. As in other cases, the exposure period that generated the figures that exceeded the thresholds were for the final three days in the sample, apparently the peak of the drought.

Of all the streams analyzed for temperature as part of this Project, Dry Run appears to be the most conducive to brook trout reintroduction. Flow, however, may be a limiting factor.

Page 13 of 19 Temperature Monitoring, Dry Run (Rudolph Property): Maximum Daily Maximum, 6/11/09 through 11/3/09

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 Wehrly et al. 2007 22 Dry Run, Upstream 21 20 19 18 Temperature (Celsius) 17 16 15 1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 Exposure period (days)

Figure 8

Temperature Monitoring, Dry Run (Rudolph Property): Maximum Daily Mean, 6/11/09 through 11/3/09

30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 Wehrly et al. 2007 22 Dry Run, Upstream 21 20 19 18 Temperature (Celsius) 17 16 15 1 3 7 1421283542 Exposure period (days)

Figure 9

Page 14 of 19 Temperature Monitoring, Dry Run, Rudolph Property: Maximum Daily Maximum, 4/15/10 through 9/13/10

30 29 28 27 26 25 Wehrly et al. 2007 24 Dry Run, Upstream 23 Dry Run, Downstream 22 21

Temperature (Celsius) 20 19 18 1 3 7 1421283542 Exposure period (days)

Figure 10

Temperature Monitoring, Dry Run (Rudolph Property): Maximum of Daily Means, 4/15/10 through 9/13/10

26 25 24 23 Wehrly et al. 2007 22 Dry Run, Upstream 21 Dry Run, Downstream 20

Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 19 18 1 3 7 1421283542 Exposure period (days)

Figure 11

Page 15 of 19 SITE 4 – SLATE ROCK RUN, HARDY COUNTY

Description Staff from the Hardy County Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office deployed one temperature logger in 2009 and two in 2010 in Slate Rock Run on the property of Joshua Frye to test the hypothesis that water temperature limits the survival and successful reproduction of brook trout in this stream. A tree and shrub planting was also executed in connection with this Project in the spring of 2011, the results of which are described in the narrative section of the Final Programmatic Report.

The 2009 temperature logger was placed in the middle of Frye’s property (approximately 39° 5’ 44.23”N, 78° 34’ 20.90”W). Data collection occurred between September and December, yielding inadequate data to support or refute the hypothesis.

In 2010, one upstream logger (N39 05.631 W078 34.176; source N. Gillespie) and one downstream logger (N39 05.771 W078 34.417; source N. Gillespie) were placed in Slate Rock Run with the intent of gauging the thermal impacts of open pasture on stream temperatures. Data was recorded April through September.

Findings Summary statistics for peak temperatures by month are provided in Table 13. The NRCS staffer that retrieved the loggers reported that the downstream logger in 2010 went completely dry in June and remained so for the duration of the monitoring period.

Table 13. Peak Temperatures Per Month (°F), Slate Rock Run, 2009-2010 Site, Year April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2009 NA NA NA NA NA 88.3 79.7 59.6 48.4 Upstream, 2010 67.6 74.1 76.9 83.4 82.7 83.6 NA NA NA Downstream 2010 69.4 82.8 102.3 120.2 116.1 120.5 NA NA NA

Maximum daily maximum and maximum daily mean temperatures by exposure period are plotted in Figures 12 through 15 against maximum temperature thresholds for brook trout survival developed by Wehrly et al. (see page three for a description of the specific thresholds used). Temperatures fell below all thresholds in 2009 due the period of data collection. In 2011, temperatures at both the upstream and downstream locations well exceed the thresholds for all exposure periods.

Clearly, reintroduction of brook trout to this section of Slate Rock Run is not feasible at this time. The site should be revisited as riparian buffers mature. Reforestation of sites upstream of the property may also be required to bring stream temperatures down to a suitable level.

Page 16 of 19 Temperature Monitoring, Slate Rock Run (Frye Property): Maximum Daily Maximum, 9/25/09 through 12/31/09

28 27 26 25 Wehrly et al. 2007 24 Slate Rock Run 23 22 Temperature (Celsius) 21 20 1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 Exposure period (days)

Figure 12

Temperature Monitoring, Slate Rock Run (Frye Property): Maximum Daily Mean, 9/25/09 through 12/31/09

26 25 24 23 Wehrly et al. 2007 22 Slate Rock Run 21 20

Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 19 18 1 3 7 14 21 28 35 42 Exposure period (days)

Figure 13

Page 17 of 19 Temperature Monitoring, Slate Rock Run (Frye Property): Maximum Daily Maximum, 4/15/10 through 9/13/10

55

50

45

40 Wehrly et al. 2007 Slate Rock Run, Upstream 35 Slate Rock Run, Downstream 30

Temperature (Celsius) 25

20 1 3 7 1421283542 Exposure period (days)

Figure 14

Temperature Monitoring, Slate Rock Run (Frye Property): Maximum of Daily Means, 4/15/10 through 9/13/10

31 30 29 28 Wehrly et al. 2007 27 26 25 Slate Rock Run, Upstream 24 23 22 Slate Rock Run, 21 Downstream 20 Temperature (Celsius) Temperature 19 18 1 3 7 1421283542 Exposure period (days)

Figure 15

Page 18 of 19 REFERENCES

U.S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U.S. EPA. 2009. National Recommended Water quality Criteria. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/current/index.cfm

Wehrly, K.E., L. Wang, and M. Mitro. 2007. Field-Based Estimates of Thermal Tolerance Limits for Trout: Incorporating Exposure Time and Temperature Fluctuation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:365-374.

Page 19 of 19