Version 1.1, April Kurt Fesenmyer Trout Unlimited Science Program

Transcription

1 Central Appalachians Conservation Success Index: An assessment of brook trout habitat in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia, with focus on vulnerability to shale gas development 0 Version 1.1, April 2014 Kurt Fesenmyer Trout Unlimited Science Program

2 1 ABSTRACT This document describes the methods, structure, and results of the Central Appalachian Conservation Success Index (CSI), an assessment tool focused on eastern brook trout, the condition of their habitats, and threats aquatic resources will likely face in the future in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland. The CSI uses a common conservation planning approach of watershed-scale data summary and scoring, synthesizing and interpreting spatial information for 24 metrics consolidated into 8 indicators. The watershed units used in the Central Appalachian CSI are trout habitat patches identified by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) imbedded within subwatersheds. The Population Integrity group of indicators includes EBTJV characterizations of brook trout population status and habitat patch size. Habitat Integrity indicators provide interpretations of watershed condition as reflected by land use, stream impairment status, road network size and location, mine locations, existing conventional oil and gas and shale gas development, dam locations and size, and water withdrawals. Future threats are anticipated within indicators related to shale gas and wind resource development, climate factors, and land stewardship. The combined results map the pattern and relative condition of aquatic species, habitats, condition, and threats across a broad landscape. CSI results show that brook trout occur within watersheds totaling 10.4 million acres in the Central Appalachians. Of these, 39% support brook trout only. 7.5% of allopatric brook trout habitat patches currently have shale gas development, while an additional 25% are likely to be developed in the future. We discuss important considerations for using the assessment and provide two interpretations to show how the results of the Central Appalachian CSI can be used to identify general conservation strategies and water quality monitoring strategies specifically related to shale gas development. CSI results are available as a web map and as a GIS database, allowing users to develop custom queries and configurations of the results for identifying specific opportunities or for evaluating projects. Recommended Citation: Fesenmyer, K Central Appalachians Conservation Success Index. Trout Unlimited, Arlington, Virginia. Cover photograph: Brook trout streams draining into the West Branch Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania

3 2 INTRODUCTION Trout Unlimited (TU) developed the Conservation Success Index (CSI) to provide a strategic, landscape-scale planning tool for cold-water conservation that is focused on watersheds (see Williams et al. 2007). The CSI is a series of watershed-scale summaries of GIS datasets which are assigned scores that reflect the best understanding of how the mapped features likely affect the viability of aquatic species and the condition of habitats. Trout Unlimited produced a CSI for eastern brook trout (Salvelinus frontinalis) in 2007 and subsequently updated that analysis with a custom application for Pennsylvania in This CSI uses completely new data to provide an updated assessment for the Central Appalachian region, including all of Pennsylvania and all trout streams in the mountains and foothills of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Several recently available data sources provide a foundation for this new analysis: 1) Eastern brook trout habitat patch and population characterization data produced by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, which provides finer resolution brook trout information than previous iterations of the CSI; 2) Predictions of the likely locations of shale gas and wind development throughout the Central Appalachian region produced by The Nature Conservancy, which updates data previously available only for Pennsylvania. Combined, these sources provide key pieces of information for prioritizing water quality monitoring before and after shale gas development in brook trout watersheds. This assessment also summarizes data related to acid mine drainage impaired streams and the likely location of road culverts, two factors which affect the connectivity of brook trout populations that are focal areas for Trout Unlimited programs in the Central Appalachian region. All CSI results are available as a web map and as a GIS database, allowing users to develop custom queries and configurations of the results for identifying specific opportunities or for evaluating projects. METHODS 2.1 Conservation Success Index Background Trout Unlimited s Conservation Success Index (CSI) is a compilation and assessment of spatial information related to a species distribution, populations, habitats, and future threats. The CSI summarizes spatial (GIS) data within watersheds related to a broad suite of population metrics, anthropogenic stressors, and environmental conditions and assigns the summaries a categorical score (5 through 1, reflecting exceptional through poor condition) based on the best scientific understanding of the significance of the particular data on aquatic species persistence and

4 3 effects on habitat quality. The data considered are not intended to comprise a comprehensive list of factors affecting instream habitat or aquatic species; rather, they include factors that exist as broadly available, mapped data. This watershed data summary and scoring approach is a standard conservation planning tool and is similar to products developed by other land management agencies and conservation partners, including the Watershed Condition Framework developed by the US Forest Service and the NFHAP Data System created by the National Fish Habitat Partnership. The CSI has a hierarchical structure in which each input data source is summarized and interpreted as individual factors, suites of similar factors are rolled up into thematic indicators, and indicators are combined into three simple groups Population Integrity, Habitat Integrity, and Future Security. These can be further organized to identify conservation strategies that may be appropriate in watersheds given the pattern of species occurrence, habitat condition, and likely future threats, providing a landscape-scale blueprint for management efforts on public and private lands (Figure 1). Each factor, indicator, and group receives a score. Factors and interpretive scoring rules are outlined in detail in Table 1. Figure 1: Hierarchical structure of the CSI. Data are summarized and scored within factors and then organized into Indicators and Groups. All indicators have factors; this example only shows those for Resource Development.

5 4 2.2 Watershed Units The CSI typically uses the 12 digit hydrologic-unit code (HUC12) subwatershed (NRCS, USGS, EPA) as the basic unit of data summary and interpretation. This CSI uses subwatersheds in combination with trout habitat patches identified by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV; Hudy and Coombs 2012). EBTJV defines trout habitat patches as a group of contiguous, hydrologically connected catchments occupied by a population of brook, brown, or rainbow trout. Patches are intended to encompass populations Figure 2: Example CSI analysis units - trout habitat patches and surrounding HUC12 subwatersheds genetically isolated by features such as dams and warm water. For the CSI, brook trout habitat patches can occur within subwatersheds (Figure 2) or span multiple subwatersheds. Trout habitat patches with rainbow or brown trout only (i.e. no brook trout present) are not nested within subwatersheds; instead, those patches are aggregated at the subwatershed scale. Subwatershed areas without trout habitat patches are treated as unoccupied or unassessed. 2.3 Population Integrity The Central Appalachian CSI includes two indicators within the Population Integrity group population status and patch size. Both indicators are comprised of single factors. The population status indicator reflects the EBTJV population designation for the habitat patch. Highest scores are assigned to populations with brook trout as the only trout species present (allopatric populations). Moderately high scores are assigned to brook trout populations that co-occur with natural reproducing rainbow trout (sympatric populations). Sympatric populations of brook and brown trout receive moderate scores due to their competition (Wagner 2013; Waters 1983). Subwatersheds with naturally reproducing rainbow and/or brown trout, but no brook trout, receive moderately low scores, while stocked only patches or unknown status receive low scores (Table 1). Subwatersheds without trout are treated as unoccupied or unassessed patches and are not scored. Habitat patch size is scored based on total acreage (Table 1) and only scored for habitat patches with brook trout present. Largest patches receive highest scores due to the increased resiliency and likelihood of persistence afforded by habitat diversity and connectivity within large

6 5 patches, while lowest scores are assigned to small patches that are not likely to persist through disturbances and genetic bottlenecks (Hilderbrand and Kershner 2000; Haak and Williams 2012). 2.4 Habitat Integrity The current condition of aquatic habitats is analyzed in the CSI through three Habitat Integrity indicators: land use, resource extraction, and flow regime. Each indicator is scored for occupied brook trout habitat patches and for portions of subwatersheds with brown/rainbow trout only or unoccupied by trout. Table 1 outlines scoring rules and data sources for all indicators Land Use The land use indicator includes factors related to forested areas, agriculture, the footprint of roads, and 303d listing for impairment. Scores for the percent of watershed forested, percent of riparian zone forested, and percent of watershed with agricultural land use factors all reflect research showing that watersheds or riparian zones with higher proportions of forested cover and lower agricultural land use are more likely to support brook trout (Wagner et al. 2013, Hudy et al. 2008). High values for road densities and the ratio of road mileage to stream mileage in riparian zones receive low scores. High road densities in watersheds often reflect the presence of sediment in streams or the footprint of roads in watersheds, a source of fine sediments (Lee et al. 1997), which smother benthic invertebrates, embed spawning substrates, and increase turbidity (Lloyd 1987; Davies-Colley and Smith 2001); roads in the riparian zone can impair proper floodplain function. A moderate score is assigned to any habitat patch or subwatershed with a stream reach on the federal 303d list for any source of stream impairment except acid mine drainage. Impaired water quality, including reduced dissolved oxygen, increased turbidity, toxins, and nutrients associated with land uses and other sources reduces aquatic habitat suitability Resource Extraction The resource extraction indicator incorporates information related to current and legacy energy development, including the number of active mines, active conventional oil and gas wells, active shale gas wells, and miles of stream identified on the 303d list for impairment due to acid mine drainage. Lower scores are assigned to higher densities of existing conventional and shale wells due to the aquatic habitat degradation and fragmentation effects of service roads and pipelines and the potential for spills and direct discharge of fracking fluids or produced water (Entrekin et al. 2011).

7 6 Table 1: Indicators and factors within the Central Appalachians CSI and their scoring rules and datasources. All trout habitat patches and surrounding subwatersheds receive summaries and scores except the Population Integrity group of indicators, which are only scored for trout habitat patches. Factors that are only available for individual states (e.g. water withdrawals for PA) are included in average indicator score calculations, but excluded from total group scores. Group Indicator Factor Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 4 Score = 5 Data and Scoring Sources Population Integrity Population status Patch size EBTJV brook trout designation Stocked only or unknown Habitat patch size (acres) < 1,000 Brown and/or rainbow only 1,000 3,000 Brook & brown or brook, brown, & rainbow 3,000 6,000 Brook + rainbow 6,000 12,000 Brook trout only > 12,000 Hudy and Coombs 2012; Wagner et al. 2013; Waters 1983 Hudy and Coombs 2012; Haak and Williams 2012 Habitat Integrity Land use Miles 303d listed as impaired (all sources) Percent of watershed forested Percent of riparian zone forested (riparian zone is 100m buffer of streams) Percent of watershed with agricultural land use (cultivation) > 0.1% of streams 0% < 45% 45 55% 55 68% 68 80% > 80% < 50% 50 60% 60 70% 70 80% > 80% > 40% 30 40% 20 30% 10 20% < 10% PA DEP, 2014; WV DEP 2010; VA DEQ 2010; MD Dept of Env USGS National Landcover Dataset 2006; scoring follows patterns described in Wagner et al. 2013, Hudy et al EPA National Hydrography Dataset Plus (1:100K); USGS National Landcover Dataset 2006 USGS National Landcover Dataset 2006; scoring follows patterns described in Wagner et al. 2013, Hudy et al Road density (miles/miles²) >= < 2 US Census Bureau TIGER roads 2010; scoring follows patterns described in Hudy et al. 2008

8 7 Group Indicator Factor Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 4 Score = 5 Data and Scoring Sources Land use, continued Roads in riparian zone (miles road within 100m of streams per miles stream) EPA National Hydrography Dataset Plus (1:100K); US Census Bureau TIGER roads Existing resource development Active conventional oil and gas wells > PA DEP 2014; WV DEP 2014; VA Dept. of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 2014; MD Dept. of Env. Habitat Integrity, continued Active shale gas wells Active mine count Miles 303d listed as impaired (acid mine drainage) > > > 0.1% of streams 0% PA DEP 2014; WV DEP 2014; VA Dept. of Mines, Minerals, and Energy USGS Minerals Resources Data System (Active) 2005 PA DEP, 2014; WV DEP 2010; VA DEQ 2010; MD Dept of Env Flow regime Dam count > USACE National Inventory of Dams 2008 Ratio of dam storage (ac-ft) to stream miles >= 5,000 1,000 5, , EPA National Hydrography Plus (1:100K); USACE National Inventory of Dams 2008 Water withdrawal count (PA only) > PA DEP Marcellus shale water management plans 2013

9 8 Group Indicator Factor Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 4 Score = 5 Data and Scoring Sources Habitat Integrity, continued Flow regime, continued Water withdrawal count no passby > Water withdrawal maximum volume (millions of gallons/day) Road stream intersection counts (likely passage barriers) - - Not scored - - > PA DEP Marcellus shale water management plans 2013 PA DEP Marcellus shale water management plans 2013 EPA National Hydrography Dataset Plus (1:100K); US Census Bureau TIGER roads Future Security Resource development Maximum shale gas development density (% of watershed above 0.65 probability of development in any of the TNC shale gas models) Maximum shale gas development density (% of watershed above 0.35 probability of development in any of the TNC shale gas models) >50% 10 50% 5 10% 0 5% 0% - - Not scored reported for reference - - The Nature Conservancy Marcellus Shale, Utica shale, and all shale gas development forecasts 2013; areas outside prediction regions receive scores of 5. The Nature Conservancy Marcellus Shale, Utica Shale, and all shale gas development forecasts 2013

10 9 Group Indicator Factor Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 4 Score = 5 Data and Scoring Sources Future Security, continued Resource development, continued Climate Land stewardship Shale gas development setting (watershed average of maximum development probability) Wind resource development density (% of watershed above 0.65 probability of development) August average air temperature ( C) Base Flows Karst-stream overlap (% of streams) Percent of watershed protected (includes all public and private designations) - - Not scored reported for reference - - >75% 50 75% 25 50% 10 25% 0-10% > < 19 < 35 (more surface water runoff dependent) Not scored > 55 (more groundwater dependent) - - <1% 1-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% The Nature Conservancy Marcellus Shale, Utica Shale, and all shale gas development forecasts 2013 The Nature Conservancy wind development forecast 2013; areas outside prediction region receive scores of 5. PRISM Group, Oregon State ( air temperature) USGS Base Flow Index 2003 USGS Appalachian Karst 2008 USGS Protected Areas Database

11 Flow Regime The Flow Regime indicator represents the count of dams and their storage capacity in each habitat patch or subwatershed, several factors related to water withdrawals for shale gas production, and the number of road-stream intersections in a habitat patch or subwatershed. Watersheds receive higher scores where the footprint of dams is absent. Natural flow regimes are critical to proper aquatic ecosystem function (Poff et al. 1997) and dams and reservoirs alter flow regimes (Benke 1990). Similarly, water withdrawals for the hydraulic fracturing required to produce shale gas can alter flow regimes, especially at low flows and when withdrawals do not require minimum flow past the points of diversion (Entrekin et al. 2011; Weltman-Fahs and Taylor 2013). Data for water withdrawals related to shale gas development are only available for Pennsylvania Marcellus shale development; lowest scores are assigned to watersheds with the highest number of withdrawal locations and withdrawals that do not require pass-by flows (flows beyond the point of withdrawal, which are necessary for supporting aquatic life downstream). We also report the total maximum daily withdrawal volume permitted within each watershed. While population connectivity is already factored into the habitat patch designations, it does not account for habitat fragmentation caused by road and stream intersections, typically in the form of culverts (Warren and Pardew 1998). Increased hydrologic connectivity provides more habitat area and better supports multiple life stages of aquatic species, an important viability criterion which increases their likelihood of persistence (McElhany et al. 2000) and watersheds with higher numbers of road/stream crossings receive lower scores. 2.6 Future Security Threats to aquatic habitats are addressed in the CSI through three Future Security indicators resource development, climate, and land stewardship. Each indicator is scored for occupied brook trout habitat patches and for portions of subwatersheds with brown/rainbow trout only or unoccupied by trout. Table 1 outlines scoring rules and data sources for all indicators Resource Development The Resource Development indicator uses predictions of the likely locations of shale gas and wind resource development in the Central Appalachians produced by The Nature Conservancy (The Nature Conservancy 2013). The predictions use geological and topographic characteristics of the locations of existing shale gas wells and wind turbines to model the likely locations of future development. For shale gas development, The Nature Conservancy produced three separate models one for the Marcellus Shale formation that uses 5 geological variables, one for the Utica Shale formation that uses 7 variables, and another developed for all gas shale formations that uses 4 geological variables across a broader geography. We combined these three models to represent the maximum probability of development within any of the models

12 11 and summarize the maximum development predictions in two ways as overall watershed average probability of development, which represents the setting for shale gas development, and the percent of the watershed with probabilities greater than 0.65, which represents the likely density of development (Figure 3). We summarize wind resource development predictions as density of development. Shale gas development is associated with impacts to aquatic resources ranging from sedimentation from road and pipeline construction, flow impairments from water withdrawals, and water quality issues related to transportation and disposal of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and effluents (Entrekin et al. 2011). Wind resource development is associated with road construction and stream sedimentation. Figure 3: Summary techniques used for development predictions. Panel A shows the underlying data for the average development probability calculation. The gas development setting, or watershed average development probability, for this watershed is Panel B shows the density of areas with probabilities > The gas development density, or percent of watershed with development probabilities > 0.65, for this watershed is 62% Climate The climate indicator includes two factors assessing the vulnerability of aquatic habitats to climate change: average August air temperatures and base flow index. Because of the limited availability of water temperature data across large landscapes, air temperature for the hottest portion of the year is often used as a proxy for critical instream temperatures. Watersheds with the lowest air temperatures receive the highest scores as warmer water inhibits growth rates and reduces feeding of juvenile and adult brook trout during critical summer low-flow periods (Wehrly et al. 2007). Base flow index is the ratio of base flow, or groundwater flows, to total

13 12 flows, expressed as a percentage (Wolock 2003). The percentage of stream miles within each habitat patch or watershed that overlays karst features is reported, but not scored; karst features can be important sources of cold water, but also sinks of stream flow (Weary 2008) their ability to mitigate stream temperatures should be evaluated locally. Higher scores are assigned to watersheds with higher base flows, reflecting the buffering effects of groundwater on instream temperature Land Stewardship The Land Stewardship indictor interprets the percentage of each watershed with lands in a protected status. Protected lands have a mandate for conservation via federal, state, or private conservation ownership with additional regulatory or congressionally-established protections (e.g., National Forest, State Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, conservation easement, etc.). Stream habitats and watersheds with higher portions of protected lands are likely to experience less anthropogenic disturbance than other land or offer a means to influence land use decisions through public participatory processes, although different agencies and land status convey different levels of protection (i.e. US Forest Service wilderness areas vs. general lands). RESULTS The following brief summaries describe the broad patterns of the data summary and scoring for the Central Appalachians CSI. These data are available as web maps and best explored online for more detailed information and additional resolution. 3.1 Population Integrity Within the Central Appalachians, watersheds totaling million acres support brook trout. Of those acres, only 39% are occupied by allopatric brook trout populations (i.e. no brown or rainbow trout present). The average brook trout habitat patch size is 6,000 acres and the largest trout habitat patch occupied by brook trout only is 76,000 acres (Three Runs and Sterling Run in the headwaters of the West Branch Susquehanna, Pennsylvania). Hotspots for large patches of habitat with brook trout only include tributaries to the West Branch Susquehanna in Pennsylvania and tributaries off of the Shenandoah Mtns. in Virginia (Figure 4). The total area of trout habitat patches that support brook trout only, as a proportion of all brook trout habitat patches, is highest in Virginia and lowest in Maryland (Table 2). 3.2 Habitat Integrity Total habitat integrity scores are highest in the montane portions of north-central Pennsylvania, western Maryland, western Virginia, and eastern West Virginia, and lowest in the developed areas near the major metropolitan areas of Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. and around agricultural areas such as the Susquehanna River valley (Figure 5).

14 Figure 4: CSI Total Population Integrity scores 13

15 14 Table 2: Summary of select CSI factors by brook trout population status. Patch or watershed acreage Brook trout only Brook and rainbow trout Brook and brown/rainbow trout Brown and/or rainbow trout only (patch may not be fully occupied) Stocked only, no trout, unassessed, or unknown All categories (Total) PA 1,791, ,671,821 5,285,823 15,301,031 27,049,726 WV 843,286 64, ,016 3,411,263 6,275,816 11,156,043 VA 1,349, , ,697 1,131,992 7,242,171 10,564,228 MD 131,855 19, , ,157 1,674,292 2,850,496 Multi-state 17, ,787 1,225,156 4,136,818 5,385,618 Average patch size 3,888 8,426 9, Average % forested Ave. % riparian forested Average road density Conventional oil/gas well count 4, ,663 20,463 92, ,342 Active shale gas well count Count Marcellus shale water withdrawals w/o passby (PA only) Ac. forecast for any shale gas development (prob. > 0.65) PA , ,165 9,920 WV VA MD PA 736, ,881, ,161 5,165,483 8,709,462 WV 89,946 2,224 47, ,341 1,395,402 1,975,851 VA ,235 MD 5,436 10,378 7,660 23,969 7,660 55,103 Ave. Aug. air temp. ( C) Ave. Base Flow Index Ave. % protected

16 Figure 5: CSI Total Habitat Integrity scores. 15

17 16 As described by others (see Hudy et al and Wagner et al. 2013), brook trout habitat patches occur where overall forest and riparian forest cover are high (Table 2). Active, existing and legacy resource development is concentrated in western Pennsylvania, with scattered development in western West Virginia and within much of the best remaining brook trout habitat in northern Pennsylvania. Of the 4.1 million acres of allopatric brook trout habitat patches, 23% have some existing conventional oil and gas development and 7.5% have some existing shale gas development. 3.3 Future Security Total future security scores are highest in the upper Allegheny and West Branch Susquehanna River basins in Pennsylvania and the portions of West Virginia and Virginia in the Monongahela National Forest and Shenandoah and Blue Ridge Mountains (Figure 7). These areas correspond to the higher elevations with cooler climates and offer a large base of protected lands in National or State Forest (Table 2). Shale gas development is forecast for much of northeastern Pennsylvania, the headwaters of the West Branch Susquehanna basin in Pennsylvania, and the lower Monongahela basin in Pennsylvania and West Virginia (Figure 6). Of the allopatric brook trout habitat patches without current shale development, 25% are predicted to have a probability of development of 0.65 or greater within some portion of their land area. DISCUSSION 4.1 Brook Trout Conservation Strategies The Central Appalachians CSI provides an assessment of brook trout, habitat, and threat data from multiple data sources summarized at a consistent scale and interpreted using transparent scoring rules. By comparing factors from the combined products across administrative boundaries, we can categorize watersheds according to generalized conservation strategies: Protection strategies occur in habitat patches with best brook trout populations and habitat conditions, as indicated by the highest CSI Population Integrity ( 8) and Habitat Integrity scores ( 59). Examples of protection strategies include land management designation changes (e.g. Wilderness Area designations on National Forest lands) on public lands, encouraging land use planning on public lands that avoids or mitigates land disturbances such as shale gas development, and acquisition of land and conservation easements by public land management agencies and their partners. Restoration strategies are appropriate in brook trout habitat patches with lower relative population or habitat condition, as reflected in CSI Population Integrity (< 8) and/or Habitat Integrity scores (< 59). Restoration strategies may need to address single factors that lower the CSI scores (e.g. addressing water quality impairment caused by acid mine drainage) or a broader suite of factors.

18 Figure 6: CSI Future Security scores - shale gas development 17

19 Figure 7: CSI Total Future Security scores 18

20 19 Assessment strategies occur in portions of subwatersheds where EBTJV data do not indicate trout presence, but CSI Habitat Integrity scores are relatively high ( 55) and average August air temperatures are relatively cool (< 20.5 C). Pennsylvania has an active program to document trout abundance and distribution on unassessed streams. These opportunities are summarized at the habitat patch scale (Figure 8). Recent studies highlight the importance of concentrating restoration efforts in limited areas in order to produce measurable changes in aquatic species abundance (Roni et al. 2010). Recovery plans and local knowledge will provide important information on fine-scale condition and opportunities within watersheds identified based on their relative condition across the analysis landscape. For example, restoration opportunities likely exist on local scales within watersheds with a protection priority. 4.2 Water Quality Monitoring Strategies CSI results can be filtered to identify strategies for a specific action. By looking at the status of brook and naturally reproducing brown and rainbow trout populations within habitat patches, the number of active shale gas wells, and the predictions of future shale gas development, we identify water quality monitoring strategies for citizen monitoring groups: Baseline strategies occur in habitat patches with trout present, no existing shale gas wells, and moderate to low probability of future shale gas development (some portion of habitat patch has development probabilities > 0.35 in either predictive model, but no portion has development probabilities > 0.65 in either model). These patches provide opportunities for gathering baseline information on water quality for comparison to watersheds that are currently developed or are highly likely to be developed in the future. Due to the moderate to low probability of shale gas development, these likely share some geological characteristics with sites developed for shale gas, thus providing comparable long term reference. Immediate monitoring strategies are appropriate in habitat patches with trout present and some existing shale gas development (active shale gas well counts > 0). These watersheds warrant monitoring to track water quality variables of importance during the development stage, including changes in conductivity resulting from spills of produced water and sedimentation in streams from construction activities. Baseline data may provide a valuable reference for observations from these watersheds. Long-term monitoring strategies occur where trout populations are present, no shale gas wells currently exist, and the likelihood of shale gas development is high (some portion of the habitat patch has predicted development probabilities > 0.65 in either model). Monitoring in these watersheds now provides baseline data for key water

21 Figure 8: CSI conservation strategies 20

22 21 quality variables likely to be affected by future development, including temperature and sedimentation. These strategies should be considered in light of the limitations of the shale gas development models, which are robust in predicting the location of future development based solely on the pattern of current development. As shale gas extraction technologies evolve and as new formations are developed, that pattern will inevitably change. The development models do not anticipate those changes, and the CSI monitoring strategies (Figure 9) will warrant revision and refinement as shale gas development occurs throughout the region. 4.3 Additional CSI Applications The Central Appalachians CSI assessment described here provides a consistent and transparent structure for assembling diverse data and interpreting those data to describe broad patterns of brook trout distribution and habitats, the likely condition of those habitats, and the threats those habitats and brook trout are likely to face in the future. The results outlined in this document are one of a multitude of interpretations of the original data based on a suggested set of scoring rules and the organizing structure of the indicators and factors (e.g. conservation strategies). However, the primary utility of this effort and other watershed conservation planning tools is to provide a single product for filtering and querying a large set of disparate but important data with user-defined questions about landscape scale patterns (see Game et al. 2013). These questions can be general or specific: Where are the highest quality brook trout populations in West Virginia? Then: Which of those populations have degraded riparian forest cover? And: Which of those watersheds have the warmest summer air temperatures and would benefit the most from riparian vegetation restoration? These questions can be asked at a variety of scales, including within state, TU chapter, and individual basin boundaries. An equally useful approach is to start instead with a specific location and pose questions about its local condition and features or its context within the landscape. An example question may be: What is the probability that this watershed will be developed for wind resources relative to other watersheds in the vicinity? This approach is especially useful for evaluating projects. As proposals or alternatives come together, the Central Appalachians CSI becomes one criterion in the project evaluation phase. Additional considerations can be gained from a limiting factors analysis, or local data sources such as species recovery plans. Figure 10 provides a conceptual model of this project evaluation process, in which different tools are used to identify priorities. Transparency is a main strength of the summary and scoring approach in the CSI. The CSI scoring is based on the best understanding from scientific literature of how a particular metric affects aquatic habitat. In the absence of a well-described relationship, we use natural breaks or patterns within the data summaries (e.g. quantiles, even percentage breaks, etc.) that

23 Figure 9: CSI monitoring strategies 22

24 23 Figure 10: Conceptual model of how information within the Central Appalachians CSI can be used with other tools, limiting factors analysis, and local knowledge to help screen and prioritize conservation actions. In some cases, post-project effects can be used to update the metrics and scoring within the CSI. warrant consideration by the end users. If the results of the scoring or strategies don t make sense to you, look back at the individual indicators and factors and their scoring these may not all be pertinent to your area or species of interest, and CSI results can be reconfigured, weighted, and rescored accordingly within a GIS. Even small changes in scoring decisions can influence the scores for example, changing indicator aggregated scores from average of the factor scores to the minimum of the factor scores. When interpreting CSI results, there are two important considerations related to the input data: data quality and missing data. The data we use represent the best available datasets for representing a particular feature. Most data are from the period from , and may not be the most up to date: the CSI provides a snapshot not trend for features and conditions for that period. Additionally, there may be variability within a particular factor not captured by the broad data. For example, we use road densities to approximate sedimentation effects from road networks, but roads will vary greatly in their delivery of sediment to streams based on their quality of construction, position in the

25 24 watershed, and bedrock geology (Black et al. 2010). Likewise, there may be local spatial datasets overlooked during the data gathering of broader, more general datasets or more recent updates to those general datasets that may provide additional resolution for considering conditions or resources on the ground. A second consideration is what important factors are missing from the CSI. For Future Security, we lack overlays of the sensitivity of aquatic systems to changes in stream temperature and cannot, therefore identify important thermal refugia or watersheds that have special resilience to climate change. Studies in progress will help fill these data gaps (e.g., brook trout climate studies by Penn State). One opportunity the CSI serves is providing baseline information that can be updated as new data are available thus establishing trends or as projects are completed that address factors in the CSI. For example, remediating mine drainage within or below an occupied brook trout habitat patch may dramatically change CSI scores, including habitat patch size and acid mine drainage factors. Treatment of acid mine drainage can switch a watershed score from the worst (1) to best (5), effectively changing the color on the CSI results map with a single restoration action (Figure 11). In this example based on recent restoration work by TU and its partners on Two Mile Run, a tributary to Kettle Creek in Pennsylvania, the CSI conservation strategy shifts from restore population and habitat to protect. Remaining stressors for the new habitat patch include a moderate patch size, a condition that can be addressed with additional restoration efforts to further expand the patch extent downstream. Figure 11: Example of how restoration can address stressors within brook trout habitat patches. TU and partner restoration efforts on Two Mile Run results in an increase in CSI scores by remediating acid mine drainage and increasing habitat patch size - pre-restoration habitat patch in light blue, post-restoration habitat patch outlined in red.

26 25 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Central Appalachian CSI was funded in part by the generous support of The Heinz Endowments, the Cedar Tree Foundation and the Appalachian Stewardship Foundation. Katy Dunlap, Amy Wolfe, Gary Berti, Kevin Anderson, Seth Coffman, Rebecca Holler, Jaime Holmes, Rachel Kester, Samantha Kutskel, Jake Lemon, Shawn Rummel, Jake Tomlinson, and Dustin Wichterman provided valuable comments and discussion during the development of the CSI. This assessment relies heavily on data produced and provided by variety of agencies including the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture, The Nature Conservancy, and the state agencies of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia.

27 26 REFERENCES Benke, A. C A perspective on America's vanishing streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 9(1): Black, T Road inventory and monitoring with GRAIP. CDM Water Resources Discipline webinar. Davies-Colley, R. J. and D. G. Smith Turbidity, suspended sediment, and water clarity: a review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(5): Entrekin, S. M. Evans-White, B. Johnson, and E. Hagenbuch Rapid expansion of natural gas development poses a threat to surface waters. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9: Environmental Protection Agency National Hydrography Dataset Plus (1:100,000), Version 1. EPA, Washington, DC. Game, E. T., P. Kareiva, and H. P. Possingham Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology 27(3): Haak, A. L. and J. E. Williams Spreading the risk: Native trout management in a warmer and lesscertain future. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32: Hilderbrand, R.H. and J.L. Kershner Conserving inland cutthroat trout in small streams: How much stream is enough? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: Hudy, M, and J. Coombs Eastern Brook Trout habitat patches. GIS data produced for the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. Hudy, M., T.M. Thieling, N. Gillespie, and E.P. Smith Distribution, status, and land use characteristics of subwatersheds within the native range of brook trout in the eastern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, and J. E. Williams Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. Pages in T. M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, editors. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume III. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR- 405, Portland, OR. Lloyd, D. S., J. P. Koenings, and J. D. LaPerriere Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7(1): Maryland Department of the Environment Water Quality Monitoring Report 303(d) List and 503(b) Report. Baltimore, MD. Maryland Department of the Environment. Natural Gas Wells in Maryland. Baltimore, MD. Available online:

28 27 d.us/assets/document/mining/naturalgaswelllocationmap.pdf Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Geological Survey, and Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Boundary Dataset. NRCS, Washington, DC. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Integrated List Non-Attaining (303(d)). Harrisburg, PA. Available online: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Locations Conventional and Unconventional. Harrisburg, PA. Available online: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Water Management Plans (WMP) Marcellus Shale. Harrisburg, PA. Available online: Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg The natural flow regime. BioScience 47(11): PRISM Group. PRISM 800m Normals ( ) Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Roni, P., G. Pess, T. Beechie, and S. Morley Estimating changes in coho salmon and steelhead abundance from watershed restoration: how much restoration is needed to measurably increase smolt production. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30: Smith, D.R., C.D. Snyder, N.P. Hitt, J.A. Young, and S.P. Faulkner Shale gas development and brook trout: Scaling best management practices to anticipate cumulative effects. Environmental Practice 14: Stephens, S. E., J. A. Walker, D. R. Blunck, A. Jayaraman, D. E. Naugle, J. K. Ringelman, and A. J. Smith Predicting risk of habitat conversion in native temperate grasslands. Conservation Biology 22(5): The Nature Conservancy Marcellus Shale formation, all shale formation, and wind resource development predictions. GIS data produced for the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Available online: US Army Corps of Engineers. National Inventory of Dams USACE, Washington, DC. US Census Bureau TIGER roads. US Census Bureau, Washington DC. US Geological Survey National Elevation Dataset (30m). USGS, Sioux Falls, SD. US Geological Survey National Land Cover Database. USGS, Sioux Falls, SD. US Geological Survey Mineral resources data system: active mines. USGS, Reston, VA.

29 28 US Geological Survey Protected areas database of the United States (PAD-US) Version 1.3. USGS, Gap Analysis Program (GAP), Moscow, Idaho. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Final (b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report. Richmond, VA. Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy Division of Oil and Gas Information System. Available online: Wagner, T., J. T. Deweber, J. Detar, and J. A. Sweka Landscape-scale evaluation of asymmetric interactions between brown trout and brook trout using two-species occupancy models. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142: Warren, M.L. Jr. and M.G. Pardew Road crossings as barriers to small-stream fish movement. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: Waters, T. F Replacement of brook trout by brown trout over 15 years in a Minnesota stream: Production and abundance. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112: Weary, D.J Preliminary map of potentially karstic carbonate rocks in the central and southern Appalachian states. USGS Open-File Report Reston, VA. Wehrly, K.E., L. Wang, and M. Mitro Field-based estimates of thermal tolerance limits for trout: Incorporating exposure time and temperature fluctuation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136: Weltman-Fahs, M. and J.M. Taylor. Hydraulic fracturing and brook trout habitat in the Marcellus Shale region: Potential impacts and research needs. Fisheries 38: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Incl. Impaired Streams. Charleston, WV. Available online: West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Oil and Gas Database. Charleston, WV. Available online: Wolock, D. M Base-flow index grid for the conterminous United States. Open-File Report USGS, Reston, VA.