-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
1/14
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.
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
2/14
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).
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
3/14
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
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
4/14
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.
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
5/14
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,
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
6/14
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.
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
7/14
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 AmericanBenthological 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 Reviewof 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: 199-
206.
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.
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
8/14
Figure 1. This is the drainage basin of the primary headwater at Galbraith Gap, where theexperiment 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).
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
9/14
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.
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
10/14
Figure 3. The Primary Headwater Habitat Evaluation Form is pre-calibrated by the Ohio EPA sothat users can simply input the values and receive the score on the area being studied. Ourgroups 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.
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
11/14
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
12/14
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 footof Mount Tussey just outside State College, Pennsylvania.
Substrate
Type
Substrate Size
(mm)
Dry
Channel
Riffle Pool Percent of Total (%)
Boulder >256 3 1 0 3.63
Cobble 65-256 7 8 0 13.64
Gravel 2-64 20 27 7 49.09
Sand
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
13/14
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 StateCollege, Pennsylvania and their HHEI score, with data collected according the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency's methods.
Measurement HHEI Score
Bank Full Width average 5.825 meters 30/30
Maximum Pool Depth 15 centimeters 25/30
-
7/30/2019 The Effectiveness of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwater Classification Method in a Ce
14/14
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 totest the validness of the Ohio EPA's Headwater Macroinvertebrate Field Evaluation Index
(HMFEI) in Pennsylvania.
Species Number
Caught
Notes
Stonefly nymph 2
Damselfly nymph 1
Dobsonfly nymph 1
Two Lined Salamander 4 2 were below average size for the time of the year