the effectiveness of the ohio environmental protection agency's primary headwater classification...

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.


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).


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


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.


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,


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.


7/14

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.


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).


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.


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.


11/14


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


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


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

the effectiveness of the ohio environmental protection agency's primary headwater classification...

Documents