The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Central Pennsylvanian Riparian Area

Nicholas R. Fink Geography 313 Lab Report 1 Abstract The health of primary can be measured using a distinct method developed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) using measurements about the area being studied and the fauna inhabiting the study environment. The objective of this experiment was to analyze a primary headwater in Pennsylvania to see if the Ohio EPA's method could be applied in an area outside of Ohio. The research area was located at the base of Tussey Mountain, just outside State College, Pennsylvania, in a spot known as Galbraith Gap. Recorded measurements from the outing were plugged into a form calibrated by the Ohio EPA to calculate the Headwater Health Evaluation Index (HHEI) score for the area. Our data from the outing suggested a healthy stream, with a range of animal species being captured and studied. Due to the lack of a system created by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) it seems that the Ohio method is the best possible substitute, at least in western and central Pennsylvania where the geomorphology is more similar to Ohio.

Introduction Primary headwaters are the beginning of rivers, often starting with a spring or in a marshy area. They are a vital component of forest and aquatic ecosystems, with their health often being linked to that of the surrounding areas and larger bodies of water such as rivers. The health of these areas can be measured using a distinct method developed by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency using measurements about the area being studied and the fauna inhabiting the study environment (Fritz et al 2008). Many factors can affect the condition of a headwater stream, such as the surrounding vegetation, soil composition, the source of the water, nearby pollutants, animals and the physical measurements of the stream. The Ohio EPA classification method chooses to only examine the substrate types, maximum pool depth and average bank full width.

The objective of this experiment was to analyze a primary headwater in Pennsylvania to see if the Ohio EPA's Headwater Health Evaluation Index (HHEI) method could be applied in an area outside of Ohio, since Pennsylvania's own Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has no classification scheme for these areas. The area selected was a riparian habitat in central Pennsylvania, Galbraith Gap, which is located at the foot of Mount Tussey near State College, Pennsylvania. An evaluation begins with taking measurements of the study range: length of study range,bank full width, and maximum pool depth . The range should be measured to a certain distance from a known point, in the case of this experiment the range was 50 meters. Bank full width is measured from bank to bank at the point where the water reaches when it is at its maximum flow, this measurement is taken at three or four points and averaged.. Maximum pool depth is simply measured by taking a depth reading of the largest pool of water in the study area. The examination of substrate is carried out by a specific method of pacing in a zig-zag pattern diagonally from bank to bank of the designated area, stopping to classify the sediments size after each step. There are six different categories with five ranging from bedrock all the way down to silt, and a final category for detritus material. These designations are also further broken down into three channel types: dry, riffle (relatively swift moving water) and pools (water which appears almost stagnant). It is important to note how much the size of the particles matter to indigenous species and their life cycles, as a channel with only fine sediment offers no place for macroinvertebrates or aquatic salamanders to live and breed. They require cobbles and boulders to hide under and attach their eggs to. Fauna in a riparian habitat are especially critical to determining the health of the headwater. A stream may appear clean, but if no animals are present it indicates there may be a problem with the ecosystem. There are different classes for these specimens, ranging from one to three, with three being the best indicator of a healthy headwater. For salamanders the class one designation indicates a terrestrial dependence, two represents a semi-aquatic dependence and three means the vertebrate is entirely dependent on the aquatic environment (Davic and Welsh 2004). Macroinvertebrates follow the same pattern, except that the most common are ranked as a one and the rarest being a three. Class three is the most important indicator of stream health in this study (Angradi 1996).

Methods and Materials Study Area The research area was located at the base of Tussey Mountain, just outside State College, Pennsylvania, in a spot known as Galbraith Gap (Figure 1), at an elevation of around 637 meters (USGS 2011). It is also a part of Rothrock State Forest, with the stream density being .463 square kilometers (USGS 2011). The geographic coordinates for this area are 40 45' 40 North, 77 45' 11 West (NAD 83 datum) (USGS 2011) (see Figure 1). Data was collected on September 2, 2011. It is a riparian habitat with 99.6% forest cover. The soil which underlies the area is Andover Very Stone Loam (Figure 2), which is often found at the footslope of drainageways or valleys (NRCS, 2011). It should also be noted that there was a large fork in our stretch of the river, with a large dry channel in between. Our group began the experiment by measuring the length of our research area out to 50 meters with a measuring tape, and marking the beginning and end of our area with flags. We next moved on to taking samples of the substrate, by walking from bank to bank diagonally in a zig-zag pattern, picking up a sample of the substrate after each stride. We recorded size and type of the material in the HHEI chart provided by the Ohio EPA, with added notation on whether the substrate was found in a dry channel, riffle or pool. The entire process of examining substrate took us around 30 minutes to complete. Once the substrate had been examined and logged, our group moved onto measuring bank full width and maximum pool depth. We measured bank full width using a tape measure from one side of the stream where terrestrial plants began to the opposite side of the bank, again to the point where terrestrial plants took root. It was important for us to keep the tape as level as possible at the same time so the measurements did not become distorted, we also took four measurements and averaged the bank full width as the directions stated. Pool depth was simply measured by dipping a ruler into all the pools we found and taking the depth of the deepest pool we found as the maximum pool depth. Afterward the recorded measurements were plugged into a form calibrated by the Ohio EPA to calculate the HHEI score for the area. The data for riffle, pool and dry channels were combined to give one number per substrate type, with the two most the common types being scored and a separate score the number of substrate types. The maximum substrate score is 40 points. Scores are also assigned for the categories that maximum pool depth and the average

bank full width fall into, with the highest score for both categories being 30 points. The primary headwater is then categorized by a flowchart, again provided by the Ohio EPA, into one of three classes with class three being the healthiest variety (Figure 3). To classify the primary headwater even further, our group next began to examine the fauna of our section of stream according to the Headwater Macroinvertebrate Field Evalation Index (HMFEI). This second index was designed to classify benthic macroinvertebrates by ecological importance as supplement to the HHEI. We were supplied with nets to capture animals and bags to store them until their species could be identified by our instructor. To catch animals we placed our nets in front of cobbles which we then lifted. Any animals underneath were then pushed into the nets by the current and then bagged, we then replaced any cobbles that were disturbed back to their natural position. Our group was careful to sort any biota we caught by size so larger animals would not eat smaller ones. After our instructor identified what we had caught and the species were recorded, they were released back into the stream near the points where they were caught.

Results Our raw data from the outing suggested a healthy stream. The two most prominent substrate types were various types of cobble and detritus material, with the two making up 49.1% and 24.5% of the substrate, respectively (Table 1). The bank full width was an average of 5.82 meters wide, scoring in the highest category for headwaters at 30 points. While the maximum pool depth of 15 centimeters was not especially deep, it still managed to score fairly well on the HHEI scale with 25 points (Table 2). Several species of benthic macroinvertebrates were captured during our experiment. Two stonefly nymphs, which garner high scores on the HMFEI, a damselfly nymph, more common than the stonefly nymphs, and a dobsonfly nymph (Table 3). Our group caught four salamanders during our field outing. All of them were two-lined salamanders (eurycea bislineata). It is interesting to note that two of the salamanders were well below the size they should have been for the time of year that the study was conducted (Table 3). Between the HHEI score of 72 out of a possible 100, and the variety of aquatic biota observed by our team, it is easy to classify the primary headwater studied as a class three, the highest possible rating.

Discussion The results of our work were not very surprising. The stream appeared very healthy while doing the field work, and when analyzed by the Ohio EPA's methods, the score came out to 72 out of 100, signifying a class three designation (Figures 3&4). This is the most healthy category that a body of water can be in by the standards of our experiment, which indicates that at least the physical measurement part of this method can be applied outside of Ohio. The effectiveness of this classification method can be determined mainly by the region in which is it used. Due to the lack of a system created by the Pennsylvania DEP, it seems that the Ohio method is the best possible substitute, at least in western and central Pennsylvania where the geomorphology is more similar to Ohio. I can see several issues that stem from using the Ohio EPA's method in Pennsylvania. The first of these problems is that fact that the soil is probably radically different, which will have an effect on the vegetation, which then will have an effect on the animals that are in the region (Brooks 1997). You may have some animals that are present in Ohio headwater systems, but not in their Pennsylvania counterparts and that would negatively affect the overall score of the area if it does not meet the physical requirements of a category three headwater. You must also take into account animals that may be indicators of health in Pennsylvania but not in Ohio, and how they would affect the outcome. Water chemistry is another issue, as the method used in this experiment entirely ignores acidity levels and does not account for any pollutants that may be present in the primary headwater. There were a couple of issues that did not stem from the Ohio EPA's method. The first is the total drainage area. The Ohio method is supposed to be used for areas of less than two square kilometers and the research area was greater than 4 square kilometers. Another problem was with our study area, as it had a fork in the headwater that left a large dry channel between two smaller wet channels. This has to potential to throw off both the bank full width average and the substrate results. To counter the problems I see with the selected classification method I would make a couple of simple changes. First I would recommend modifying the HFMEI to exclude species not found in Pennsylvania, while including ones that are found within the state. The next change I would make would be to add a simple water chemistry portion to the test, most likely testing the acidity of the water. If those results were outside of a set of parameters deemed normal,

further chemical testing would probably be necessary. Hydrological chemistry can also be affected by water source and some studies have shown vegetation to be an indicator of the water's source (Goslee 1997), so I would also advocate adding a study of the surrounding vegetation.

Literature Cited Angradi, T.R. 1996. Inter-Habitat Variation in Benthic Community Structure, Function, and Organic Matter Storage in 3 Appalachian Headwater Streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 15: 42-63. Brooks, R.P. 1997. Improving Habitat Suitability Index Models. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25: 163-167. Davic, R.D. and H.H. Welsh Jr. 2004. On The Ecological Roles of Salamanders. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 35: 405-434. Fritz, K.M., et all. 2008. Physical indicators of hydrologic permanence in forested headwater streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 27: 690-704. Goslee S.C., et al. 1997. Plants as Indicators of Wetland Water Source. Plant Ecology. 131: 199206. NRCS. 2011. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ app/HomePage.htm. Accessed 9-22-11. USGS. 2011. http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/. Accessed 9-22-11.

Figure 1. This is the drainage basin of the primary headwater at Galbraith Gap, where the experiment was conducted. The area studied by our group is located at the foot of Mount Tussey, near State College, Pennsylvania. The selected area is project on the United State Geological Survey quadrangle for State College, Pennsylvania from 1988 (USGS, 2011).

Figure 2. This is a topographic map showing the different soils (outlined in orange) in the drainage area of the primary headwater (outlined in blue) at Galbraith Gap, Mount Tussey, near State College, Pennsylvania. The study area is underlain by Andover very stony loam (AoC) Map was created using National Resource Conservation Services' Soil Survey tool.

Figure 3. The Primary Headwater Habitat Evaluation Form is pre-calibrated by the Ohio EPA so that users can simply input the values and receive the score on the area being studied. Our groups score came out to 72 using substrate, bank full width and maximum pool depth data collected at Galbraith Gap near State College, Pennsylvania on 9-2-11.

Figure 4. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created this flow chart to help in the classification of primary headwaters by the their Headwater Health Evaluation Index (HHEI). Using the data collected by Group 4 on 9-2-11, at the foot of Mount Tussey, just outside State College, Pennsylvania our research area was classified as a class three headwater.

Table 1. Shows the various substrate types and what kind of channel they were found in using the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's collection method by Group 4 on 9-2-11, at the foot of Mount Tussey just outside State College, Pennsylvania. Substrate Substrate Size Dry Riffle Pool Percent of Total (%) Type (mm) Channel Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt Detritus Total >256 65-256 2-64 <2 N/A N/A 3 7 20 0 0 23 53 1 8 27 0 5 2 43 0 0 7 0 5 2 14 3.63 13.64 49.09 0.00 9.09 24.54

Table 2. This table shows two of the three Headwater Health Evaluation Index (HHEI) specified measurements taken by Group 4 on 9-2-11, at the foot of Mount Tussey just outside State College, Pennsylvania and their HHEI score, with data collected according the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's methods. Measurement HHEI Score Bank Full Width average Maximum Pool Depth 5.825 meters 15 centimeters 30/30 25/30

Table 3. This table illustrates the number of species caught on 9-2-11 at Galbraith Gap at foot of Mount Tussey near State College, Pennsylvania by group Group 4 as part of an experiment to test the validness of the Ohio EPA's Headwater Macroinvertebrate Field Evaluation Index (HMFEI) in Pennsylvania. Species Number Notes Caught Stonefly nymph Damselfly nymph Dobsonfly nymph Two Lined Salamander 2 1 1 4 2 were below average size for the time of the year