Water Quality Assessment

by Margo Wilson Lera Tsayukova & Sara Seiberling 2001

Acknowledgments We acknowledge and thank the following partners and/or individuals that have assisted in this stream assessment: • "Financial and other support for this project has been provided by the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts, Inc. and the PA Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Water Quality Protection, PA Chesapeake Bay Program." • Kathleen Banski, Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts, selected HAMS Environmental Club for Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay mini-grant. • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection - David E. Hess, Secretary, accepted analysis and data on behalf of DEP. - Robert J. Scott, Senior Aquatic Biologist, reviewed document and made suggestions pertaining to the stream survey. • Caitie Hanlon and Celina Isenberg, 10th grade students at Huntingdon Area High School, provided macroinvertebrate data from the Fairground site for October 2000. • Ashton Reynolds, Huntingdon Area Middle School student, assisted with field research at two reference sites on October 6, 2001. • Juniata Clean Water Partnership, post project on their web site - Dave Hockman-Wert provided GIS mapping of Crooked Creek watershed and statistical information. - Jennifer Park, assisted with field research on October 17, 2001. • Juniata College, Science in Motion, Leslie White, provided assistance with conducting nitrate and phosphate tests, October 18, 2001. • Theresa Wilson, Jerry Grubb, Elena Grubb, parent chaperones during fieldwork days. • Frederic R. Wilson, teacher, Huntingdon Area Middle School, student mentor, assisted with all aspects of the project.

Margo Wilson Lera Tsayukova Sara Seiberling

© November 2001

Crooked Creek Assessment Table of Contents Topic

Page(s)

Table of Contents Abstract Introduction Methodology

1 2-4 5-20

Macroinvertebrates

5-7

Chemical Water Quality Tests

8-11

Physical

12-14

Habitat

15-19

Equipment

20

Analysis

21-33

Macroinvertebrates

21-23

Chemical Water Quality Tests pH

24

Alkalinity

25

Dissolved Oxygen

26

Total Hardness

27

Total Dissolved Solids

28

Nitrates

29

Phosphates

30

Stream Habitat

31-32

Physical

33

Conclusion/Recommendations Appendices Crooked Creek Watershed Map Field Study Results

34-35

Abstract This study focuses on ascertaining the water quality of Crooked Creek and its ability to support aquatic life. To achieve this, a stream assessment was conducted at three reference sites—within five-miles of creeks confluence with the Juniata River. Sites were at McConnellstown, the Fairgrounds and at the creek mouth, near Smithfield. The stream assessment included examining and evaluating the following four components: 1) Biological organisms-benthos or macroinvertebrates living on the stream bottom: • Pollution Sensitive Organisms, e.g., Mayfly, Stonefly, Caddisfly • Somewhat Pollution Sensitive Organisms, e.g., Crayfish, Damselfly, Dragonfly, Fishfly larva, Scud, Sowbug • Pollution Tolerant Organisms, e.g., Aquatic Worms, Leech. 2) Chemical stream analysis- e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH, total hardness, alkalinity, dissolved solids, nitrate and phosphate. 3) Physical stream characteristics- e.g., width, depth, velocity, volume. 4) Stream habitat parameters- e.g., attachment sites for macroinvertebrates, embeddedness, shelter for fish and macroinvertebrates, channel alteration, sediment deposition, stream velocity and depth combinations, channel flow status, bank vegetative protection, streambank conditions, and riparian vegetative zone width.

1

Introduction Crooked Creek is mostly a rural and sparsely residential watershed. It is approximately 10.1 miles long, with a watershed of 27.3 square miles. The headwater is located in Hartslog Valley, just west of Huntingdon. The stream channel flows south, with six small tributaries emptying into it from the west, to McConnellstown, PA, (State Route 26, Walker Township) where it changes course, flowing in a northeast direction to the Juniata River, just east of Smithfield, Pennsylvania. A somewhat larger tributary, flowing in a northern direction from the Hesston area, flows into Crooked Creek at McConnellstown. The upper region of the watershed is used for agriculture. In the lower region, small industry, businesses and residential homes dominate the land use within two miles of its confluence with the Juniata River. Reference Sites: 1) McConnellstown- The site is just south of six headwater streams flowing into the creek. Most of the area upstream is agricultural and rural residential, with septic systems. The site has a partial tree canopy. It is about 5 miles from the headwater and mouth. 2) Fairground- The site about 2 miles from the mouth. It is downstream of the town McConnellstown and several homes near Crooked Creek. It is on the main channel and has a full stream canopy. 3) Smithfield- The creek’s mouth located here beside Smithfield. The location is downstream of many small businesses, industries and Smithfield, population about 2,200. It has an open stream canopy.

2

GIS map of Crooked Creek

3

Objectives: • To educate Huntingdon Area Middle School students, the local community, and Smithfield supervisors about activities within Crooked Creek watershed that impact the water quality. • To develop a watershed pre-assessment report to assist DEP “assess this state’s more than 83,000 miles of streams by the year 2006.” • To recommend solutions to protect water quality in the watershed. • To educate Middle School students about the concept of conservation planning and environmental protection at the watershed level and the methodology required with a comprehensive watershed assessment process. • To engage students in independent research. This assessment project was “funded by a grant from the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts, Inc. and the PA Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Water Quality Protection, PA Chesapeake Bay Program.” It was a partnership of the Huntingdon Area Middle School Environmental Club, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Juniata Clean Water Partnership, Juniata College Science in Motion program, and Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts.

4

Methods Macroinvertebrates We followed accepted methods for conducting aquatic insect analysis of a water body, accepted by national and state agencies. To determine the biodiversity and water quality, a D-Net or seine net (fine, small seine mesh) is used to collect macroinvertebrates living on the streams bottom—under rocks and in the soil—of the bed, which is disturbed by kicking, shuffling, and washing the rocks clean. We fixed the seine securely on the stream bottom as not to allow the macroinvertebrates to escape. Aquatic organisms from three different locations of the streams, one-meter square area above the net, were collected at each location.

HAMS students collect macroinvertebrates using a seine net.

Specimens were placed in a large white collecting pan-in order to see small organisms. We sorted through the organisms and separated them based on appearance, movement, and other physically distinct characteristics. An aquatic bug sheet was used to identify organisms. At times, we used a hand lens or magnifier to identify the smaller insects.

5

Dobsonfly (Hellgrammite)

Scuds

Crayfish

Once we knew the total different insect families, we determined the stream's water quality by using a stream quality index assessment. The

Sorting and proper identification of aquatic organisms must occur to obtain a valid assessment of the water quality.

stream earns a point value based on the different types of aquatic insects found. Each Taxa 1 (pollution-sensitive) organism received 3 points. Taxa 2, somewhatpollution-sensitive-organisms, received 2 points each. Taxa 3, pollution-tolerantorganisms received 1 point. The streams total point value determined its water quality. A score of less than 10 is poor, 11-16 points is fair, 17-22 points is good, and 23 or higher is excellent.

6

The biological assessment format is shown on the chart below. Biological Data Taxa I

Taxa 2

Taxa 3

Sensitive

Somewhat Sensitive

Tolerant

(Good)

# Types (Fair)

# Types

(Poor)

Caddisfly

Alderfly

Aquatic Worm

Dobsonfly

Beetle larva

Blackfly Larva

Gilled Snail (right)

Clam (River)

Leech

Mayfly

Crane Fly

Midge Fly Larva

Riffle Beetle

Crayfish

Pouch Snail

Stonefly

Damselfly

Planaria

Water Penny

Dragonfly

Other Snails

# Types

Fishfly larva Scud Sowbug Watersnipe Total varieties

Total varieties

Total varieties

found X 3

found X 2

found X 1

Cumulative Stream Quality Index Assessment 23 and above = 17 - 22 = 11 - 16 = 10 or less =

Excellent Good Fair Poor

Stream Quality Score Macroinvertebrate Assessment After identifying and counting the number of aquatic insects in each Taxa group, organisms were returned to the stream.

7

Water Quality Tests A combination of water testing kits and meters that used chemicals or electronics were used to perform the water quality tests. The tests conducted were dissolved oxygen, pH, total hardness, alkalinity, nitrate, phosphate, and total dissolved solids. To find the pH, we used a LaMotte pH Meter and Hach pocket pH pen. The pH tester was set or calibrated by putting it in a pH buffer solution of 7.0. A pH of 7.0 is neutral. This means that the liquid is not an acid or base (acidic or alkaline). Once the pH meter reading was set at 7.0, the probe was placed into the water sample. Then, we waited until the meter showed a constant number. This number is the pH of the water. A number less than 7.0 would show that the water is acidic. A number greater than 7.0 indicates that the water is alkaline.

A kindergarten researcher (left) obtains the pH of the water by conducting several repetitions using a pH pen while a HAMS student uses a pH Meter (right) to do the same.

A LaMotte CDS 5000 Conductivity/TDS Meter and TDS pen were used to learn the total dissolved solids and conductivity of the water. We placed the electronic probe in the water sample and waited for a number to appear. A LaMotte Dissolved Oxygen Kit was used to get the dissolved oxygen (amount of gaseous oxygen) level of the water. The LaMotte kit required that we follow a step-by-step set of instructions for mixing different chemicals to learn the dissolved oxygen level. 8

A Huntingdon Area Middle School student conducts a dissolved oxygen test of Crooked Creek. Conducting repetitions of the test provides a more accurate indication of the amount of gaseous oxygen in the water.

A student conducts a total hardness. As part of a preassessment of the water quality of Crooked Creek.

To discover the total hardness and alkalinity levels, we used two chemical water-testing kits. For hardness, we used a LaMotte Hardness Kit, and for alkalinity, a Hach Alkalinity Kit. Both these tests require following instructions for mixing different chemicals, giving the test result in parts per million (ppm). The nitrate and phosphate levels were determined by using a DREL 2000 Spectrophotometer. This instrument required that you follow precise instructions to enter a predetermined method code. After entering the code and preparing the water sample, light rays pass through the sample. After a set time, the Spectrophotometer provided a number in parts per million. We would then record all our water tests on a data chart for analysis. The last row would be where we put the average for each test.

9

Water Quality Monitoring Tests Dissolved Oxygen

pH

Hardness

TDS

Alkalinity

Nitrates

Multiple repetitions of water tests are conducted to obtain an average.

HAMS students and Jennifer Park, Juniata Clean Water Partnership, participate in chemical water tests of Crooked Creek.

10

Phosphates

Water Quality Parameters Parameter

Unpolluted Stream

Polluted Stream

Dissolved Oxygen

The higher the amount of oxygen the better the quality...Trout- 10 ppm, Bass- about 7/8 ppm

Less than 5 ppm is considered unacceptable for most aquatic organisms

0-3 Creatures flee 4-5 Creatures can survive Greater than 5 Creatures thrive pH (Hydrogen ion present)

Water with pH range from 6.5-8.6 will have little effect on life processes

Water with pH less than 5 or greater than 9 will support little aquatic life

Total Hardness

Soft water Hard water

Values below 250 ppm are acceptable for drinking Over 500 ppm is hazardous to health

Dissolved Solids

Clean water has low amounts of D.S., ... Clear water is water less than 50 ppm... 50 ppm to 150 ppm is not bad

Caused by erosion, runoff, materials from industries, etc. Over 500 ppm for any monthly average is unacceptable...single test should not be over 750 ppm

Alkalinity

Good streams have between 100 and 200 ppm... are able to buffer the water from acidity... levels between 20 and 200 ppm are typically found in fresh water

Poor streams have lower alkalinity levels, < 50 ppm... could be affected by acid rain or acid mine drainage

Nitrates/Phosphates

Nitrates and phosphates are necessary for organisms in small quantities Clean water- less than .10 ppm

Higher readings indicate fertilizer, industrial waste, sewage and/or other nutrient enrichments Greater than .10 ppm is nutrient loading

0-60 ppm 120-180 ppm

This chart is used in the 6th grade STREAMS program at the Huntingdon Area Middle School. Adapted and used with permission. We used it to interpret water quality.

11

Physical Measurements As part of our stream assessment, we needed to acquire the width, depth, velocity (speed) and volume of the water body. The width was determined at by using a 100 meter measuring tape to see how wide the stream was at the different locations. We got the average depth of the stream by taking five measurements at different locations using a meter stick and dividing the total of the five different depths by five. We also determined the speed that the water was flowing at the four places we visited. To determine the speed, we used the following items: 1) a small ball that could float a little above the water 2) two sticks tied five meters apart with a rope, and 3) a stopwatch. Two methods were used to get average speed, resulting in similar metersper-second. The first was to get the speed at one location in the stream five times (appropriate maximum). The second was to get the speed at four different depths at the same location five times. First, we pulled the sticks and rope the full five meters apart in one of the deepest parts of the area. Then we placed a ball upstream from the first stick so it would be going the same speed of the water when it reached the stick. When the ball reached the first stick, someone would yell, "Start," and we would start the stopwatch. When the ball reached the downstream stick, someone would yell, "Stop," so that we would stop the timing. We did this procedure five times, recording the time the ball needed to travel the five meters each time. The final step was to divide five meters by the averaged time it took the ball to travel the five-meter length, which gave us the speed in meters-per-second.

12

A student obtains the average depth of the water.

Students learn water speed by timing the rate a ball takes to flow five meters at a upstream reference site.

To determine volume of water flow, we multiplied the stream's width, times the average depth times the stream velocity times a constant. The constant for a rocky or rubble bottom stream, like Crooked Creek, is .8. A mud or sand bottom stream would be .9.

Students obtain width, depth, speed and volume of water at all reference sites. Above students ascertaining water speed are near Crooked Creek’s confluence to the Juniata River.

13

The processes for averaging width, depth, velocity and volume using different locations and one location are seen in the chart below. Stream Width, Depth, Speed and Volume Different Location Technique

Approximate Maximum Technique (Same Location)

Stream width

Stream width

Depth at point A

meter

Depth at point A

meter

Depth at point B

meter

Depth at point C

meter

Depth at point D

meter

A+B+C+D = average 4 depth

meter

Time at A

seconds

Time at A

seconds

Time at B

seconds

Time at A

seconds

Time at C

seconds

Time at A

seconds

Time at D

seconds

Time at A

seconds

A+B+C+D = average 4 time

meter

A+A+A+A = average 4 time

meter

5 meters = stream average time velocity Volume of flow = wdvc w = width d = depth v = velocity/speed c = constant (.8) Volume of flow

m/second

5 meters = stream average time velocity Volume of flow = wdvc w = width d = depth v = velocity/speed c = constant (.8) Volume of flow

m3/second

14

m/second

m3/second

Habitat Assessment The last activity we did when we were out in the field was a Stream Habitat Assessment. There were ten stream parameters (categories) we reviewed one hundred yards upstream at each of the three reference sites. They were: 1) Attachment sites for macroinvertebrates or aquatic insects that live under rocks on the stream bottom, 2) Embeddedness of the stream bottom, 3) Shelter for fish and macroinvertebrates, 4) Channel alteration, 5) Sediment deposition soil built up on the stream bottom, 6) Stream velocity and depth combinations, 7) Channel flow status, 8) Bank vegetative protection looking for undercut and vertical banks without vegetation, 9) Condition of stream banks, and 10) Riparian vegetative zone width.

The stream assessment included examining the stream from its headwater to mouth. The pictures above are near the confluence with the Juniata River.

For parameters 1 through 7, we would observe the left and right sides of the stream and assign a number between 0 and 20. When we had disagreement on a parameter we would discuss it or average our numbers. Each range of five numbers indicated a classification quality for the stream. Optimal (excellent) is 16-20, suboptimal (good) is 11-15, marginal (fair) was 6-10 and poor (bad) is 0-5.

15

Parameters associated with Bank Vegetative Protection, Conditions of Banks, and Riparian Vegetative Zone Width were scored different. Each side of the stream received a separate number, with optimal 9-10, optimal 6-8, marginal 3-5, and poor 0-2. We could than access the total stream parameter and left and right banks alone.

Students visually check for undercut and vertical banks, two common problems observed during the Crooked Creek Stream Habitat Assessment as seem in the picture above.

We averaged the assessed score from the three sites for each of the ten habitat parameters to obtain a final rating. The Stream Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for Attachment Sites for Macroinvertebrates for Rocky Bottom Sampling, used by Environmental Protection Agency and the Senior Environment Corps, follows on the next pages.

16

Stream Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet

Rocky Bottom Sampling Site:

Date:

Time:

Surveyed by: Habitat Parameter 1. Attachment Sites for Macroinvertebrates

Marginal

Poor

Riffle is as wide as stream but length is less than 2 times width; cobble less abundant; boulders and gravel common.

Run area may be lacking; riffle not as wide as stream and length is less than 2 times the width; gravel or large boulders are bedrock prevalent; some cobble present

Riffles or run virtually nonexistent; large boulders and bedrock prevalent; cobble lacking.

20 19 18 17 16 Score: 2. Embeddedness Fine sediment surrounds and fills in 0-25% of the living spaces around and in between the gravel, cobble, and boulders.

15 14 13 12 11 Fine sediment surrounds and fills in 25-50% of the living spaces around and in between the gravel, cobble, and boulders.

10 9 8 7 6 Fine sediment surrounds and fills in 50-75% of the living spaces around and in between the gravel, cobble, and boulders.

5 4 3 2 1 0 Fine sediment surrounds and fills in more than 75% of the living spaces around and in between the gravel, cobble, and boulders.

Score: 3. Shelter for Fish and Macroinvertebrates

20 19 18 17 16 Snags, submerged logs, undercut banks, cobble and rocks, or other stable habitat are found in over 50% of the site.

15 14 13 12 11 Snags, submerged logs, undercut banks, cobble and rocks, or other stable habitat are found in over 3050% of the site.

10 9 8 7 6 Snags, submerged logs, undercut banks, cobble and rocks, or other stable habitat are found in over 1030% of the site.

5 4 3 2 1 0 Snags, submerged logs, undercut banks, cobble and rocks, or other stable habitat are found in less than 10% of the site.

Score:

20 19 18 17 16

15 14 13 12 11

10 9 8 7 6

Optimal Well-developed riffle and run; riffle is wide as stream and length extends 2 times the width of stream; cobble predominates; boulders and gravel common.

Suboptimal

17

5 4 3 2 1 0

Habitat Parameter 4. Channel Alteration

Optimal Stream straightening, dredging, artificial embankments, dams or bridge abutments absent or minimal; stream with meandering pattern.

Suboptimal Some stream straightening, dredging, art-ifical embank-ments or dams present usually in areas of bridge abutments absent or minimal; no evidence of recent channel alteration activity.

Marginal Artificial embankments present to some extent on both banks; and 40 to 80% of stream site straightened, dredged, or otherwise altered.

Poor Banks shored with gabion or cement; over 80% of stream straightened and disrupted

Score: 5. Sediment Deposition

20 19 18 17 16 Little or no enlargement of islands or point bars and less than 5% of the bottom affected by sediment deposition.

15 14 13 12 11 Some new increase in bar formation, mostly from coarse gravel; 5-30% of bottom affected; slight deposition in pools.

10 9 8 7 6 Moderate deposition of new gravel, coarse sand on old and new bars; 30-50% of the bottom affected; sediment deposits at stream obstructions and bends; moderate deposition in pools.

5 4 3 2 1 0 Heavy deposits of fine material, increased bar development; more than 50% of bottom affected; pools almost absent due to substantial sediment deposition.

Score: 6. Stream Velocity and Depth Combinations

20 19 18 17 16 Slow (1.5 ft); slow/shallow; fast/deep; fast/shallow combinations all present

15 14 13 12 11 3 of the 4 velocity/depth combinations are present; fast current areas generally dominate.

10 9 8 7 6 2 of the 4 velocity/depth combinations are present; Score lower if fast current areas missing.

5 4 3 2 1 0 Dominate by 1 velocity/depth category (usually slow/shallow areas).

Score: 7. Channel Flow Status

20 19 18 17 16 Water reaches base of both lower banks and minimal amount of channel substrate is exposed.

15 14 13 12 11 Water fills > 75% of available channel; 50 feet; no evidence of human activities (i.e., parking lots, roadbeds, clearcuts, mowed areas, or crops) within the riparian zone.

8 7 6 8 7 6 Width of riparian zone 35-40 feet; no evidence of human activities (i.e., parking lots, roadbeds, clearcuts, mowed areas, or crops) within the riparian zone.

5 4 3 5 4 3 Width of riparian zone 20-40 feet; no evidence of human activities (i.e., parking lots, roadbeds, clearcuts, mowed areas, or crops) within the riparian zone.

2 1 0 2 1 0 Width of riparian zone < 20 feet; no evidence of human activities (i.e., parking lots, roadbeds, clearcuts, mowed areas, or crops) within the riparian zone

(score each bank)

Score: Score: 10. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width

(score each riparian zone)

Score: Score:

Left Bank 10 9 Right Bank 10 9

8 8

7 7

19

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

Equipment Chemical Measurements

Biological Measurements

• DREL 2000 Spectrophotometer Nitrates powder pillow-NitroVer5 Phosphates power pillow-PhospaVer3 • LaMotte pH Meter • LaMotte Conductivity/ TDS Meter

• D-Net (small seine net) • Macro Identification Sheet • Guide to Aquatic Insect Field Guide • Collection Pans (White) • Eye Dropper • Magnifier/Hand lens (ID small organisms) • Ice Cube Trays (Separate organisms) • Water Boots & Water Shoes • Sampling Collection Jars • Tweezers

Physical Measurements • 165 feet/50 meters tape • Water Boots & Water Shoes • Meter Stick • 5 Meter Poles • Ball, Walnut or Bobber • Calculator • Stop Watch • Clipboard • Batteries • Pencil/pen • Thermometer

Conductivity/ TDS Meter top) pH Meter (bottom) • LaMotte Dissolved Oxygen Kit • LaMotte Hardness Kit • Hach Alkalinity kit • Hach pH pens • pH buffer solutions • Hach TDS pen • Safety Glasses • Disposal Bottle/glassware • Distilled Water • Waste Bottle • Glassware/Bottles • Water Instruction Sheets-Dissolved Oxygen, Total Hardness, Alkalinity • Water Quality Parameter Sheet • Cloth wipes

Stream Habitat Assessment • Physical Habitat Assessment-Field Data Sheet

Others • Paper • Camera • Film • Computer • Printer • Scissors • Construction paper • Display Board • Clear tape • Masking tape • Glue • Vehicle • Money

20

Macroinvertebrates Analyses of the collected organisms revealed that Crooked Creek has good to excellent water quality as it supports a higher ratio and number of Taxa 1 (sensitive to pollution organisms-good) and Taxa 2 (somewhat sensitive to pollution organisms-fair) quality insects compared to Taxa 3 (tolerant of pollution organism-poor) macroinvertebrates or benthos organisms. Taxa 1 macroinvertebrates were the predominant species found at all three research sites. However, greater number of Taxa 2 macroinvertebrates populated Fairgrounds and Mouth sites. Specifically, at the Fairgrounds the dominant specie was the Fishfly lava. At the creek mouth, the dominant organism was Scud. We found them in all three nettings at this site by the thousands. About an equal number of Fishfly larva and leeches dominated the McConnellstown site. Biodiversity of benthos organisms was exemplary. We netted, identified, and released twenty-two (22) different taxa of macroin-vertebrates. Ten (10) species of pollution-sensitive-organisms (two taxa of Mayflies and Stoneflies), eight (8) taxa of somewhat-pollution-sensitive organisms, and five (5) pollution tolerant taxa were collected. Caitie Hanlon and Celena Isenberg (2000) found twelve (12) taxa of macroinvertebrates in their study site of Crooked Creek. Ten (10) benthos organisms were alike and two (2) were different than what we found. All stream reference sites evaluated scored good or excellent on the Cumulative Stream Quality Index Assessment, earning higher than the 17 and above range, indicating good water quality. The Stream Quality Score was arrived by multiplying each different Taxa 1 species by 3, multiplying each Taxa 2 species by 2, multiplying each Taxa 1 species by 1 and adding the total points to obtain the macroinvertebrates score. The number indicates water quality as demonstrated in the scale that follows:

21

Cumulative Stream Quality Index Assessment 23 and above = 17 - 22 = 11 - 16 = 10 or less =

Excellent Good Fair Poor

The Fairgrounds reference site had an excellent Cumulative Stream Quality Index Assessment, scoring twenty-eight (28), twenty-five (25), and thirtyeight (38) on our three visits. Seven (7) Taxa 1, pollution- sensitive-organisms, seven (7) Taxa 2, somewhat-sensitive-pollution organisms and only one (1) Taxa 3, pollution-tolerant-organism, was discovered. This site had a full tree stream canopy and fast moving water over a rocky stream bottom. The McConnellstown reference site also obtained an excellent Cumulative Stream Quality Index Assessment, twenty-four (24). Six (6) pollution-sensitiveorganisms, two (2) somewhat-pollution-sensitive- organisms, and two (2) pollution-tolerant-organisms were identified. This site had a partial tree stream canopy and fast moving water over a rocky stream bottom in the section monitored. The good Cumulative Stream Quality Index Assessment occurred at Smithfield, the open stream canopy site near the mouth. It earned a good macroinvertebrate assessment score of twenty (20) and twenty-one (21) based on the identification of four (4) Taxa 1 organisms, five (5) Taxa 2 organisms, and four (4) Taxa 3 organisms. However, algal blooms were observed here. Algae can lower dissolved oxygen at night as they respire and also lower dissolved oxygen when they die and biodegrade.

22

Location McConnellstown Fairgrounds Fairgrounds Fairgrounds Smithfield Smithfield

Taxa 1 (Good) 6 7 5 8 4 3

Taxa 2 (Fair) 2 3 5 7 3 5

Taxa 3 (Poor) 2 1 0 0 2 2

Points 24 28 25 38 20 21

The chart shows the number of taxa identified in the Cumulative Point Index score of Wilson/Tsayukova/Seiberling macroinvertebrates study of 2001.

C. Hanlon and S. Isenberg (2000) macroinvertebrate research at the Fairgrounds reference site was almost identical to ours. The Cumulative Stream Index Assessment was 26, excellent, with six (6) Taxa 1, three (3) Taxa 2, and two (2) Taxa 3 species identified.

Location Fairgrounds

Taxa 1 (Good) 6

Taxa 2 (Fair) 3

Taxa 3 (Poor) 2

Points 26

The chart shows the number of taxa identified in the Cumulative Point Index score of Hanlon/Isenberg study at the Fairgrounds site in 2000.

Taxa 1 organisms dominated their collected sample. However, the taxa varied somewhat from the ones we found. Hanlon and Isenberg found Taxa 3 (planaria and midgefly larva). Overall, the seven field assessments for macroinvertebrates showed the stream has good biodiversity. Twenty-four (24) taxa were found to live in Crooked Creek at the three reference sites over the two-year period. Nine (9) were Taxa I organisms, eight (8) were Taxa 2 organisms, and seven (7) were Taxa 3 organisms were identified.

23

pH Water Quality Monitoring Results The pH levels were close at all reference sites. The pH level averages were between 7.33 and 7.57, which have little effect on most water organisms. We conducted thirty pH tests. These numbers indicate that Crooked Creek is capable of supporting a wide variety of aquatic life because water with a pH range from 6.5 and 8.6 will have little effect on life processes of aquatic organisms. The maximum tolerance range extends from 5.0 to 9.0. Readings less than 5.0 and greater than 9.0 have a dramatic affect or influence on aquatic life.

Location

Average

McConnellstown Fairgrounds Smithfield

7.33 7.58 7.57

Average

7.49

Note: The chart results are the average of the following number of tests conducted at each site: McConnellstown-7, Fairgrounds-13, Smithfield-10, for a total of 30 pH tests. Tests were conducted with two battery pH pens and a pH meter. An average of 7.49 may be more alkaline than normal due to below average amounts of rain in region for the year (currently over 5 inches below normal).

24

Alkalinity Water Quality Monitoring Results The alkalinity results at the three creek sites were very good, averaging between 174 and 200 ppm. Pennsylvania's average rainfall has an acidic pH of 4.7 in this area. Therefore, test results indicate Crooked Creek is excellent in its ability to buffer acidity. Abnormal streams have less than 20 ppm and greater than 200 ppm. Crooked Creek falls in the optimal range, which is 100 to 200 ppm, averaging 186 ppm at the three reference sites.

Location

Average

McConnellstown Fairgrounds Smithfield

200 174 184

Average

186

Note: The chart results are the averages of the following number of tests conducted at each site: McConnellstown-3, Fairgrounds-7, Smithfield-7, for a total of 17 alkalinity tests. Tests were conducted with a chemical alkalinity kit, using a count the drop method.

25

Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Monitoring Results The dissolved oxygen level was fairly constant at all reference sites along Crooked Creek, between 8.9 ppm at McConnellstown and 10.3 ppm at the creek’s mouth, Smithfield. The higher the oxygen level (the amount of gaseous oxygen in the water) the better the water quality. For example, trout need cold water with 10 ppm, bass need 8 ppm, while bottom feeding fish can live on less. Less than 5 ppm is considered unacceptable for most aquatic organisms. Crooked Creek is classified as a Warm Water Fishery in Chapter 93 of the Department’s Rules and Regulations. The minimum daily average dissolved oxygen is 5 ppm. The minimum at any time is 4 ppm. Much of Crooked Creek has stretches of shallow to medium depth pockets of fast moving water (lotic), moving over a predominantly gravel and rocky stream bottom which provide an abundant supply of dissolved oxygen required by most aquatic animals for cellular functions, which sustains life. However, because of a lack of precipitation this year, we observed many slow moving pockets of water in the creek where was the water was almost still (lentic).

Location

Average

McConnellstown Fairgrounds Smithfield

8.9 9.95 10.3

Average

9.72

Note: The chart results are the averages of the following number of tests conducted at each site: McConnellstown-2 Fairgrounds-5, Smithfield-3, for a total of 10 dissolved oxygen tests. Tests were conducted with a chemical kit, using a titration method.

26

Total Hardness Water Quality Monitoring Results The water hardness test averages were a low 224 ppm at the Fairgrounds, 242 ppm at Smithfield, and high of 263 ppm at McConnellstown. Soft water is between 0 and 60 ppm. Hard water is between 120 and 180 ppm. Crooked Creek water is very hard, meaning that there is a lot of calcium or magnesium in the stream. Acceptable drinking water is a value below 500 ppm. Therefore, this water is not great for human consumption, but will sustain aquatic creatures.

Location

Average

McConnellstown Fairgrounds Smithfield

263 224 242

Average

243

Note: The chart results are the averages of the following number of tests conducted at each site: McConnellstown-4, Fairgrounds-7, Smithfield-6, for a total of 17 total hardness tests. Tests were conducted with a chemical kit, using the titration method.

27

Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality Monitoring Results The total dissolved solids (TDS) results were 297 ppm at McConnellstown, 274 ppm at the Fairgrounds site and 311 ppm at Smithfield. The TDS at the Smithfield site dropped from 350 ppm on October 13, 2001, to 272 ppm after a rain event on October 16, 2001. Clean water has low amounts of dissolved solids, less than 50 ppm. Water having between 50 and 150 ppm is considered not bad. As alkalinity increases, total dissolved solids also increases. Unacceptable drinking water would have over 500 ppm. Overall, these TDS levels indicated that Crooked Creek currently has a high total dissolved solid level. The amount of water is currently low because of a lack of rainfall in the region this year. However, it is not a concern for aquatic life in the stream.

Location

Average

McConnellstown Fairgrounds Smithfield

297 274 311

Average

294

Note: The chart results are the averages of the following number of tests conducted at each site: Mcconnellstown-6, Fairgrounds-8, Smithfield-6, for a total of 20 dissolved solids tests. Tests were conducted with a TDS meter.

28

Nitrates Water Quality Monitoring Results All reference sites had slight nitrate nutrient enrichment readings. In the more agricultural areas, near McConnellstown, the nitrate levels averaged .15 mg/l, which is considered to be nutrient loading. The Fairgrounds had a nitrate average of .10 mg/l. Smithfield had a .15 mg/l average, too. However, these are not alarming levels. Implementation of Best Management Practices could eliminate some of this problem. Also, the tests were conducted after a marginal rain event of over .25 inches the day before samples were collected. One test at Smithfield had a 0 mg/l reading, due to the nitrate levels being too low for the DREL 2000 Spectrophotometer to pick up. Nitrates are found in most fertilizers and many pesticides. They increase eutrophication (a process affecting waters that are rich in mineral and organic nutrients, whereby plant life grows, eventually reducing the dissolved oxygen content and often killing off of other organisms).

Location

Average

McConnellstown Fairgrounds Smithfield

.15 mg/l .10 mg/l .15 mg/l

Average

.13 mg/l

Note: The chart results are the averages of the following number of tests conducted at each site: Mcconnellstown-2, Fairgrounds-2, Smithfield-2, for a total of 6 nitrate tests (NO3). Tests were conducted with a DREL 2000 Spectrophotometer one day after a rain event of over .25 inches.

29

Phosphates Water Quality Monitoring Results Phosphate nutrient loading levels existed at two of the three sites. McConnellstown had a slight enrichment level of .87 mg/l. The Fairgrounds had almost no phosphates with .01 mg/l. Smithfield had a .16 mg/l level. Much like the nitrate levels, while considered to be nutrient loading, these are not overly high. One source of the phosphate nutrient enrichment is from the agricultural fertilizers. Again, implementation Best Management Practices could eliminate some of this nutrient loading problem, specifically, streambank fencing to restrict livestock from entering or coming to close to the stream and reestablishing riparian buffers vegetation, most commonly trees and shrubs located along streambanks of moving water that prevent erosion along the waterway.

Location

Average

McConnellstown Fairgrounds Smithfield

.87 mg/l .01 mg/l .16 mg/l

Average

.345 mg/l

Note: The chart results are the averages of the following number of tests conducted at each site: Mcconnellstown-2, Fairgrounds-2, Smithfield-2, for a total of 6 phosphate tests (PO4). Tests were conducted with a DREL 2000 Spectrophotometer one day after a rain event of over .25 inches.

30

Crooked Creek Stream Habitat Crooked Creek has mostly suboptimal stream habitat, having a mid suboptimal average score of 127. However, each site had different cumulative scores. The Fairgrounds had the high 156 (suboptimal) score. McConnellstown had the low 98 (marginal) score. Smithfield, the mouth site, had a 128 (suboptimal) score. The highest average parameters related to shelter (16) and channel alteration (15). Parameter 1. Attachment Sites 2. Embeddedness 3. Shelter 4. Channel Alteration 5. Sediment Deposition 6. Velocity & Depth 7. Channel Flow 8. Vegetation Left Right 9. Condition of Banks Left Right 10.Riparian Vegetative Left Right Total

Mctown

Fairgrounds

Mouth

Stream Average

4

14

13

10

6

20

15

14

11 14

18 15

18 17

16 15

8

14

12

11

5

19

14

13

16

10

9

11

8 5

6 8

6 2

7 5

7 5

7 8

7 4

7 6

6 2

8 9

9 2

8 4

98

156

128

127

Stream Habitat Assessment Score are as follows: Optimal Stream Habitat-158-200 pts, Suboptimal Stream Habitat-107-157 pts, Marginal Stream Habitat- 53-106 pts, and Poor Stream Habitat- 0-52 pts.

31

Only one stream habitat parameter had an average in the most favorable optimal condition category, scoring between 16-20, Shelter for Fish and Macroinvertebrates. Eight of the remaining nine parameters averaged in the suboptimal range, between 11-15. These were: Embeddedness (14), Channel Alteration (15), Sediment Deposition (11), Velocity & Depth (13), Channel Flow Status (11), Vegetation (12), Condition of banks (13), and Riparian Vegetative (12). Attachment Sites for Macroinvertebrates averaged a high marginal (10), because of a poor score at the McConnellstown reference site. However, the vegetation, condition of banks, and riparian vegetative scores do reveal some concerns. Each side of the stream received a score associated with Bank Vegetative Protection, Conditions of Banks, and Riparian Vegetative Zone Width. Though the composite score for both sides of the stream is in the low suboptimal range of 11-15 for all reference sites, the right bank of the waterway had several marginal and poor scores. For example, the McConnellstown site had marginal scores for vegetation, and conditions of banks and a poor score for riparian vegetation. This site also had marginal scores for sediment deposition and embeddedness for macroinvertebrates and poor scores for attachment sites and stream velocity. The Smithfield site had poor scores for vegetation and riparian vegetation and a marginal for condition of banks. In addition, there were other locations along the stream that had slow moving water and sedimentation built up. Furthermore, many areas along the waterway have sparse, but only adequate, riparian zones.

32

Physical We obtained the temperature, width, depth, speed and volume of water flowing at the selected reference sites. However, we could not make an interpretative analysis about the stream because we lacked long-term data. Even though we do not know the normal stream flow rate, we know that the creek is below normal conditions due to precipitation being 5 inches less than normal for the year. Several areas along stream had extremely slow moving water, almost lentic water conditions. The physical results, e.g., water temperature, width, depth, speed, volume of water (stream flow) are illustrated in the chart below.

Parameter

Mctown

Fairgrounds

Mouth

Stream Average

1. Date

10/13/01 10:15 AM

10/13/01 2:15 PM

10/13/01 1:00 PM

2. Water Temp

57 ° F

63 ° F

61 ° F

60 ° F

3. Width

7.20 m

3.60 m

8.8 m

6.53 m

4. Depth

.08 m

.220 m

.085 m

.13 m

5. Speed

.22 m/sec

.43 m/sec

.19 m/sec

.28 m/sec

6. Volume

.102 m3/sec

.273 m3/sec

.14 m3/sec

.170 m3/sec

Note: Cubic meter/second equals 15,850 gallons of water per minute

33

Conclusion Our macroinvertebrate assessment and evaluation of water quality demonstrate that Crooked Creek has excellent water quality (at the three reference sites). Biodiversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates is high (24 taxa). Water quality tests show the stream has a high level of dissolved oxygen (9.72 ppm), an excellent pH level (7.5), and an alkalinity level (186 ppm) that can buffer acidity. The water is hard (243 ppm) and has a high dissolved solids (294 ppm) level, but not hazardous to most aquatic organisms. The nitrate (.35 mg/l) and phosphate (.13 mg/l) levels indicate the creek has a slight nutrient enrichment problem. However, water test results for total hardness, total dissolved solids and alkalinity may not reflect normal stream conditions because the region is 5 inches below normal precipitation for the year. Nitrates and phosphates tests were conducted one day after a .25 inch rain event. Most stream habitat parameters were in the suboptimal range, with some riparian, streambanks and velocity flows problems found. This survey is a partial representation of the watershed as we conducted fieldwork at three reference sites with faster moving water. Subsequent surveys should also include reference sites with slower moving water and target reaches with degraded habitat (erosion, vertical banks, etc.) with the purpose of recommending remedial measures (fencing, planting, etc.). Therefore, we recommend to: 1) Complete a full-scale watershed assessment to obtain a more thorough and accurate picture of the water quality (especially stream habitat including streambanks, e.g., vertical, undercut, overhanging, no vegetation and insufficient riparian vegetative buffer zone width). 2) Ascertain the sources of nitrates and phosphates entering the watershed. 3) Educate public about water-related issues in the watershed.

34

Trees provide a stream canopy and a scenic view of Crooked Creek as it exits Hartslog Valley, near McConnellstown, 6 miles south of Huntingdon, in early fall.

35