Water Quality in the Lower Salamonie River Watershed

Water-quality sampling is an important part of understanding problems within a watershed. During development of the Lower Salamonie River (LSR) watershed plan, sampling was an integral part of the process. Thirteen specific sampling sites were chosen throughout the LSR watershed ( Figure 1). Sampling site selection took into account locations used previously by other agencies to allow for data comparisons. Sites were sampled for chemical and physical parameters monthly throughout the recreational season and twice during the winter for the duration of the grant period. In addition, macroinvertebrate and habitat data was sampled once a year. Data was used in the development of the WMP and will be used in the future for comparison to show progress made in water-quality improvements. Flow measurements were also taken when practical, first using Riverwatch methods, and later with professional equipment that became available.

Water Quality in the Upper Salamonie River Watershed

As part of the development of the Upper Salamonie River Watershed (USRW) Management Plan water quality was evaluated throughout the watershed. Ten professional sampling sites, and six volunteer sampling sites were chosen throughout the USRW (Figure 1 below). Sampling site selection considered locations used previously by other agencies to allow for data comparisons. Professional sampling sites were sampled twice a year with the intent to sample both low and high flow situations. Volunteer sampling sites were sampled at a rate of four times a year for chemistry and physical parameters, and once a year for habitat analysis and aquatic biology in the form of macroinvertebrate sampling. Volunteers were trained the summer of 2014 and began sampling that August. Professional sampling began June of 2014.

Findings:

Several different parameters were measured, but the parameters of highest concern where nutrients (specifically phosphorus and nitrogen), E. coli bacteria, and turbidity. The results of these findings are discussed below and pictured in figures 2 -5.

Water Quality Monitoring Results

Because of the variable nature of the chemistries of river and stream systems, a helpful way to view the data is using box and whisker plots. This enables the viewing of all the data at a glance, and median values, data variability, and outliers are immediately evident. Figure 2 shows a basic box and whisker plot. The box contains half the data points. The color change indicates the median value, and the extent of the box ranges from the 1^st quartile of the data to the 3^rd quartile. The whiskers show the data range of the two quartiles furthest from the median, minus any outliers. Outliers are values that statistically don’t make immediate sense. They are data extremes that may not truly reflect the reality of the system. These values should be investigated to determine if they are sampling, analysis, or data entry errors or are true events. In rivers and streams, chemistry data that are often shown as outliers may be due to extreme events such as flooding. For example, turbidity in a particular stream may range from 10 to 20 NTU, but may jump to 120 NTU when a storm event causes the stream to flood its banks and soil and other particles from streets and farmland wash into the stream. Of the parameters measured we will discuss four specific parameters of concern: phosphorus, nitrate, E. coli bacteria, and turbidity.

Phosphorus

Excess nutrients are a major problems in the LSR watershed and is a stakeholder concern. Majenica Creek sub-watershed, HUC 051201020403, is listed on IDEM’s 2012 303(d) list as impaired due to nutrients. Although it is the only sub-watershed listed under this impairment designation, LSR water quality monitoring shows consistently high values of total phosphorous that exceed the target level of 0.08mg/L (Figure 3). They also exceed the 0.3mg/L that IDEM uses to determine the necessity of a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load – a study to address water-quality issues of concern). Values indicate that all areas of the watershed need measures to reduce phosphorus loading to rivers and streams. Sites are arranged on the graphs in the following manner. From left to right, sites B1 through W12 are on the Salamonie River itself so you can visualize trends as you move from upstream to downstream. Sites B2 through H11 are on tributaries of the Salamonie River or Salamonie Reservoir.

Nitrate

Nitrate levels were not as much as a problem as phosphorus in the LSR watershed, but still often exceeded recommended values (Figure 4). Values changed radically, which may be due to run-off events in association with nitrogen fertilizer application, and increased tile drainage which has been found to be high in nitrogen because of the ability of nitrogen to leach from soils. Better farm practices and the use of drainage management may help solve this issue.

E. coli

E.coli is another important water quality parameter in the LSR watershed. High levels of E.coli are included on the stakeholders list of concerns. The 2010 303(d) list identifies E.coli impairments in three sub-watersheds: Scuffle Creek, Shadle Drain, and Salamonie Reservoir. Water quality monitoring indicates that E.coli is often above state standards for safe full contact recreation (Figure 5). Although the problem is wide spread, it appears to be more of an issue in the upstream Black Creek sub-watershed as opposed to the Salamonie River watershed to the west.

Turbidity

Turbidity measurements are often used as a surrogate for total suspended solids measurements. Turbidity values exceed recommendations for the majority of samples taken in the LSR watershed (Figure 6). This problem is widespread and is only less of an issue on a couple small tributaries to the Salamonie Reservoir (Sites H10 and H11). Maintaining a low turbidity is important for the health of the aquatic ecosystem. Particulate matter in the stream, indicated as turbidity may prevent sunlight from reaching aquatic plants which effects photosynthesis and thus dissolved oxygen content which is vital for much aquatic life. This suspended material can also absorb heat increasing water temperature and stressing aquatic organisms. In addition, this material absorbs heat, so turbidity can raise the surface water temperature. It also makes it difficult for fish and other organisms to find prey, may affect their health, and when it settles, can smother benthic organisms. All streams have a natural level of turbidity, and these are the levels we need to strive to maintain. In addition, soil particles can transport phosphorus downstream resulting in toxic algae blooms when this nutrient becomes bio-available. It will be important to reduce loading of suspended solids in all areas of the watershed.

Excess nutrients are a major problems in the USR watershed and is a stakeholder concern. Water quality monitoring showed consistently high values of total phosphorous that exceeded the target level of 0.08mg/L (Figure 2). They also exceeded the 0.3mg/L that IDEM uses to determine the necessity of a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load – study to address water-quality issues). Values indicated that all areas of the watershed needed measures to reduce phosphorus loading to rivers and streams. However, stream phosphorus levels rise substantially after the Portland WWTP during low flow periods. It is recommended that the plant began both treatment and testing for phosphorus levels. Although concentrations of orthophosphate were highest below the Portland WWTP during low flow periods, the highest loading of phosphorus to area streams occurs during high flows when soils and nutrients from the landscape are swept into area streams and stream beds and banks are eroded. Best Management Practices that help keep soil in place, stabilize stream banks, and reduce in-stream erosion will help reduce phosphorus levels in area streams.

Nitrate

Nitrate levels are not as critical as phosphorus in the USR watershed, but still often exceeded recommended values (Figure 3). However, whereas phosphorus is the limiting nutrient in the USRW, nitrogen is the main issue causing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. It is important to control this nutrient to help alleviate this problem. In the USRW, values changed radically from spring to summer, which may be due to run-off events in association with nitrogen fertilizer application, and increased tile drainage which has been found to be high in nitrogen because of the ability of nitrogen to leach from soils. Better farm practices and the use of drainage management may help solve this issue.

E. coli

E.coli is another important water-quality parameter in the USR watershed. High levels of E.coli were included on the stakeholders list of concerns. The 2012 303(d) list identifies E.coli impairments in two sub-watersheds: the Salamonie River in the Stoney Creek sub-watershed and the Little Salamonie River in the Miller Ditch sub-watershed. Water-quality monitoring indicates that E.coli was often above state standards for safe full contact recreation (Figure 4). Although the problem is wide spread, it appeared to be more of an issue in the sub-watersheds upstream of the Portland WWTP during low flow. However, depending on the time of year, the discharge can be a large portion of the flow in the Salamonie River downstream of the plant. This water which is treated for E. coli serves to dilute the river and is the main reason for the sudden drop in E. coli levels after the WWTP. During high flows, E. coli values are extremely high throughout the watershed. Likely sources include CSOs and land application of manure. It is vital that proper storage, handling and application of manure be practiced to help alleviate this problem.

Turbidity

Turbidity measurements are often used as a surrogate for total suspended solids measurements. Turbidity values exceeded recommendations for the majority of samples taken in the USR watershed. This problem was widespread even though most of the sampling shown took place during normal to low flows (Figure 5). In higher flow situations, turbidity tends to be substantially higher due to run-off and erosion. Maintaining a low turbidity is important for the health of the aquatic ecosystem. In addition, soil particles can transport phosphorus downstream resulting in toxic algae blooms when this nutrient becomes bio-available. It will be important to reduce loading of suspended solids in all areas of the watershed.

A healthy river contributes to a healthy community and local economy, and the first step toward a healthy river is maintaining its watershed. Watershed planning is important to help prevent future water resource problems, preserve watershed functions, and results in long-term economic, environmental and public health benefits. Every person who lives in the watershed affects watershed health, even if they are not aware of their impact. A watershed management plan (WMP) is intended to benefit the local communities by improving the environment through comprehensive water resource planning, and by helping stakeholders understand the links between their actions and watershed health.

The Salamonie River Watershed is an eight-digit HUC (05120102) that covers just over 352,900 acres. It encompasses portions of six different Indiana counties and is divided into 23 sub-basins. The Salamonie River originates near the Indiana-Ohio border in Jay County, Indiana, and flows to the northwest for approximately 60 miles before discharging into the Wabash River upstream of Lagro, Indiana. The focus area for this project was the Lower Salamonie River (LSR) watershed which covers approximately half of the entire Salamonie watershed, including the Salamonie Reservoir. The LSR watershed consists of approximately 196,494 acres in Huntington, Wabash, Grant, Wells, and Blackford counties. The LSR watershed area extends from Montpelier in Blackford County to where it discharges into the Wabash River upstream of Lagro, Indiana. Twelve HUC 12 sub-watersheds fall within the LSR watershed.

The motivation behind preparing a watershed management plan for the LSR stems from known water quality problems within the Salamonie Reservoir. Sampling has shown particularly high levels of phosphorous, nitrogen, sulfates, total organic carbon, and total suspended solids. These elements increase the turbidity and fertility of the waters flowing into the Salamonie Reservoir, where blue-green algae blooms occur 2 to 3 times per year.

With most of the watershed contributing to the water quality problems in Salamonie Lake, Critical Areas were determined using both the windshield surveys and modeling of data to determine where best to begin implementing best management or conservation practices. Modeling of the watershed was completed using STEPL. STEPL stands for Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads, and was originally developed by the USEPA to assist State Non-Point Source Pollution project managers report load reductions to the USEPA. Purdue has developed a web-based version to make this program more available. The modeling considered several parameters including: soil types and properties, such as erodibility and hydric qualities; land use; septic system use; confined feeding operations, and other regional properties that can be applied to the entire watershed.

Windshield surveys were prioritized first in the development of the critical areas because they involve actual documentation of parameters that have been scientifically shown to cause water quality degradation. Water-quality modeling was prioritized second because, although it is an estimate, it looks at the entire sub-watershed area and can be used to make general comparisons between sub-watersheds.

Specific water quality data, both chemical and biological, were evaluated to determine if the data generally supported or didn’t support the critical area designations. Chemical water quality data, unless it exists in sufficient quantity for a proper evaluation, although valuable can be transient, and site specific. Therefor it was used only to add support to the critical area assignments. The biological data collected for the project was part of a volunteer effort using RiverWatch sampling and identification methods. This data was also used to help support the decision process for designating sub-watershed quality. The table below shows each sub-watershed, the tier designations for the windshield survey and three key parameters, and whether or not the chemical and biological data tended to support the tier designation, or there was some question. Where differences arise may indicate where further investigation needs to take place to determine if the data is indicative of a localized problem or indeed represents the overall quality of the sub-watershed. The designated critical areas are shown in the figure below.

Critical areas were evaluated and designated as either Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 watersheds depending on the severity of the problems. Tier 1 watersheds are believed to be the most degraded and are thus a high priority for implementation whereas Tier 3 watersheds are considered to be in the best condition, and are a lower priority. Tier 2 watersheds are intermediate. However, it should be understood that watersheds in all three tiers may benefit from best management practices to improve water quality and protect and enhance existing natural resources.

In 2013 the Jay County Commissioners, in cooperation with the Jay County SWCD and the Blackford County received a planning grant and began development of a Watershed Management Plan (WMP) for the USRW. A WMP is a strategy for achieving water-quality goals by characterizing the watershed, setting goals and actions steps, and developing an implementation plan to address documented problems. The primary goal of this grant was to develop a WMP for the USRW that would meet standards developed by both the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and IDEM. WMPs that met these requirements would be eligible for future 319 grants for implementation. Other major goals for the project included: Development of a Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sampling in the watershed and sampling both professionally and with volunteers, Implementation of an effective outreach and education program, and Preparation of quarterly reports of project progress and final required reports to the granting agency. The key result of was the identification of Critical Areas in the watershed where implementation of conservation or Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be most effective.

To develop a watershed plan, it was important to have a comprehensive understanding of the watershed and its current condition. This process began with a desktop survey. Information on several aspects of the watershed was collected and analyzed. This data included information on geology, hydrology, soils, landuse, climate, and natural areas and endangered species. In addition, other studies relating to the watershed were investigated and documented in the WMP. Understanding this data helped provide a thorough understanding of the watershed and began to shed light on what potential sources of pollution could be responsible for the negative downstream effects on the Salamonie Reservoir, as well as on the local flora and fauna.

It was also important to visually survey the watershed to gain a more thorough understanding of landuse practices and potential negative impacts to the watershed. In the USRW, 445 sites were surveyed. The information gathered includes data concerning: channel modification, stream bank erosion, type and width of stream buffers, adjacent land use, type of tillage, livestock access to streams, combined feeding operations, hobby farms, drain tiles, trash, construction and other land perturbations. Other conservation practices were also noted. A scoring system was developed, and the sub-watersheds were divided into three categories relating to the overall quality of the area. These designations are shown in the table below. Tier 1 sub-watersheds were considered the most degraded, and Tier 3 the least.

An important aspect of the WMP was the designation of critical areas. Because funds for implementation are always limited, it was important to develop a ranking system to identify which sub-watersheds would benefit most from installation of BMPs. Information was considered from the desktop survey, windshield survey, monitoring data, and computer modeling of the watershed. Because the sub-watersheds were very similar in nature, the windshield survey was the best tool to delineate critical areas. Other data was used in a supportive role.

Modeling of the watershed was completed using STEPL. The modeling took into account several parameters including: soil types and properties, such as erodibility and hydric qualities; land use; septic system use; and other regional properties that can be applied to the entire watershed. However, little difference was found in pollutant load per acre from sub-watershed to sub-watershed.

Water-quality data, both chemical and biological, were evaluated to determine if the data generally supported or didn’t support the critical area designations. Chemical water-quality data, unless it exists in sufficient quantity for a proper evaluation, although valuable can be transient, and site specific. There for it was used only to add support to the critical area assignments. The biological data collected for the project was part of a volunteer effort, and since it could not be professionally verified, was used in a supportive role. The table below shows each sub-watershed, the tier designations for the windshield survey, and whether or not the chemical and biological data tended to support the tier designation, or there was some question. Where differences arise may indicate where further investigation needs to take place to determine if the data is indicative of a localized problem or indeed represents the overall quality of the sub-watershed. The designated critical areas are shown in the figure below.

In summary, critical areas were evaluated and designated as either Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 watersheds depending on the severity of the problems. Tier 1 watersheds are believed to be the most degraded and are thus a high priority for implementation whereas Tier 3 watersheds are considered to be in the best condition, and are a lower priority. Tier 2 watersheds are intermediate. This plan will focus on Tier 1 and Tier 2 watersheds. However, it should be understood that watersheds in all three tiers may benefit from best management practices to improve water quality and protect and enhance existing natural resources.