WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF PRAIRIE CREEK RESERVOIR
TRIBUTARIES IN
DELAWARE COUNTY, INDIANA
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF SCIENCE
BY
JEREMY D. FERGUSON
Committee Approval:
___________________________________________________
Committee Chairperson
____________
Date
___________________________________________________
Committee Member
____________
Date
___________________________________________________
Committee Member
____________
Date
Departmental Approval:
___________________________________________________
Departmental Chairperson
____________
Date
___________________________________________________
Dean of Graduate School
____________
Date
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
JULY 2015
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF PRAIRIE CREEK RESERVOIR TRIBUTARIES IN
DELAWARE COUNTY, INDIANA
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF SCIENCE
BY
JEREMY D. FERGUSON
DR. JOHN PICHTEL - ADVISOR
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
JULY 2015
ABSTRACT
THESIS: Water Quality Assessment of Prairie Creek Tributaries in Delaware County, Indiana
STUDENT: Jeremy D. Ferguson
DEGREE: Master of Science
College: Sciences and Humanities
Date: July 2015
PAGES: 247
Prairie Creek Reservoir was located in east-central Indiana within an agricultural watershed. The
reservoir served as a secondary source of drinking water for the city of Muncie and provided
various recreational amenities. Previous research had focused on water quality in the reservoir,
and land management decisions were performed based on those studies. The current study was
conducted to obtain baseline physical and chemical data on the five major tributaries of Prairie
Creek Reservoir, and to determine how agricultural land use impacted water quality via tributary
sub-watersheds. Water temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH were measured over the course of
133 days; additionally, concentrations of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphorus species were analyzed. Discharge was measured using a Flowtracker®. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were
below Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) guidelines; total phosphorus and particulate phosphorus significantly differed between several tributaries; whereas total nitrogen and nitrate concentrations did not significantly differ, which indicated consistent nitrogen concentrations throughout the watershed. Shave Tail Creek produced the largest nutrient load per kg/km2/yr.; nevertheless, Carmichael Ditch was ranked the worst tributary among the other sampling locations in
iii
terms of overall water quality. Best management practices should be implemented at Carmichael
Ditch and Shave Tail Creek to sustain reservoir water quality.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An overwhelming thanks goes out to my committee chair, Dr. John Pichtel, for his emotional, social, and academic support and his knowledge, inspiration, and his fervent supervision.
It was a pleasure working with him on various challenges. Many thanks to my committee members, Drs. Amy Gregg and Dr. Lee Florea, for their guidance and creativity. I cannot express the
importance of their involvement in my academic career. I also want to thank my advisor, Dr.
Jarmila Popovicova for giving me the opportunity to work on this thesis.
The Department of Natural Resources, Mr. Stan Ross, and Ms. Karee Buffin are
acknowledged for their technical and administrative assistance. I also thank them for their moral
support when things got rough.
Thanks to my wife, Jessica, for her unwavering faith, unending courage, inspiration, and
being there through the most difficult times in my life. There are no truer words to explain how
grateful I am. Thanks to my parents, Daryl and Judy; brothers, Justin and Brandon; sister,
Amanda; and my cousin and his wife, Kenneth and Erica Miller for all their support. Finally, I
want to thank some great friends that were here emotionally and spiritually; Dr. Kiev Gracias,
Dr. Chuck McKinney, Zoe Payne, and Chris Krieg.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Final Approval Acceptance Form
i
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………..
iii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..
vi
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….
vii
List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………..
viii
EXPLANATION OF FORMAT…………………………………………………...
xii
CHAPTER 1: Review of Literature……………………………………………….
1
1.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………
1
1.2 Literature Review………………………………………………………………...
2
1.2.1 U.S. History and Policies Relating to Water
Use……………………………………………………………………
2
1.2.2 U.S. Surface Water Quality Status and Issues…………………………
3
1.2.3 Indiana Surface Water Quality Status and Issues……………………...
7
1.2.4 Eutrophication………………………………………………………….
7
1.2.5 Nutrients………………………………………………………………..
9
1.2.5.1 Nitrogen……………………………………………………...
9
1.2.5.1.1. Drinking Water Standards for Nitrogen and Human
Health Concerns……………………….……..
14
1.2.5.2 Phosphorus…………………………………………………...
15
1.2.6 Discharge………………………………………………………………
17
1.2.7 Mass Balance……………………………………………………….….
18
1.2.8 Previous Studies and the Current Study…………………....................
19
1.2.8.1 Prairie Creek Reservoir………………………………….....
19
1.2.8.2 Project Over view…………………………………………...
24
1.2.8.1 Outfall……………………………………………………....
26
v
1.2.8.2 Carmichael Ditch…………………………………………...
26
1.2.8.3 Shave Tail Creek……………………………………………
26
1.2.8.4 Huffman Ditch………………………………………………
27
1.2.8.5 Cemetery Run…………………………………….…………
27
1.2.8.6 Cecil Ditch………………………………………………….
27
1.2.8.7 Field and Lab Procedures…………………………………..
28
1.2.8.8 Data…………………………………………………………
29
1.3 Literature Cited...…………………………………………………………………
30
CHAPTER 2: Technical Paper…………………………………………………….
38
2.1 ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...
38
2.2 Introduction………………………………………………………………………
39
2.3 Experimental Methods……………………………………………………………
44
2.3.1 Study Location………………………………………………………….
44
2.3.2. Sampling and analysis………………………………………………….
45
2.3.3 Ranking tributaries……………………………………………………...
46
2.4 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………………
48
2.4.1 Discharge………………………………………………………………..
48
2.4.2 Chemical Characteristics…………..…………………………………….
50
2.4.3 Nutrients………………………………………………………………...
55
2.4.4 Tributary Comparison…………………………………………………..
62
2.4.5 Correlations and Nutrient Loads………………………………………..
65
2.4.6 Ranking and Best Management Practices……………………………...
66
2.5 Literature Cited …………………………………………………………………..
68
CHAPTER 3: Management Recommendations and Suggestions for Future
Research.................................………………………………………………..
72
3.3 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………
77
…………………………………………………………………………
78
Appendices
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Major crops growing in the United States ………………………………
5
Table 2.1. Tributary sub-watershed characteristics of Prairie Creek Reservoir,
IN.……………………………………………………………………………………
41
Table 2.2. Discharge measured at Prairie Creek Reservoir tributaries in 2014
(June to October)…………………………………………………………….
49
Table 2.3. Chemical parameters measured at Prairie Creek Reservoir tributaries
in 2014 (June through October)……………………………………………...
51
Table 2.4. Nutrient concentrations measured at Prairie Creek Reservoir Tributaries.
53
Table 2.5. Nutrient loads for each sampling location in Prairie Creek
Watershed (kg/yr.)………………………………………………………………
62
Table 2.6. Ranking of tributaries and outfall based on parameter results………………
65
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Nitrate ion concentrations………………………………………………...
12
Figure 1.2. Contamination risks of shallow ground water (< 100 ft. deep)……………
13
Figure 1.3. Location for Prairie Creek Reservoir …………………………………......
22
Figure 1.4. Illustrates sub-watersheds, and sampling locations………………………
25
Figure 2.1 Prairie Creek Reservoir, Tributary sub-watershed, and sampling locations.
43
Figure 2.2 Concentrations for nitrogen species in the five tributaries and outfall. ‘+’
indicates a significant difference among paired tributaries…………………..
56
Figure 2.3 Concentrations of phosphorus species. ‘+’ and ‘++’ indicates significant
differences among paired tributaries and “*” is for outliers…………………..
viii
58
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………... .
79
Table 1A. Discharge Measurements for the outfall………………………………. .
79
Table 2A. Discharge Measurements for Carmichael Ditch………………………. .
110
Table 3A. Discharge Measurements for Shave Tail Creek…………………………
128
Table 4A. Discharge Measurements for Huffman Ditch…………………………...
144
Table 5A. Discharge Measurements for Cemetery Run…………………………….
158
Table 6A. Discharge Measurements for Cecil Ditch……………………………….
174
APPENDIX B
Table 1B. Nitrate concentrations measured at all sampling locations…………………… 184
APPENDIX C
Table 1C. Ammonia concentrations measured at all sampling locations………………. 188
APPENDIX D
Table 1D. Total nitrogen concentrations measured for all sampling locations………
189
APPENDIX E
Table 1E. Particulate phosphorus measured for all sampling locations………………… 193
APPENDIX F
Table 1F. Soluble orthophosphate measured for all sampling locations……………….. 197
APPENDIX G
Table 1G. Total phosphorus measured for all sampling locations…………………….
ix
199
APPENDIX H
Table 1H. In-situ measurements for pH for all sampling locations……………………
203
APPENDIX I
Table 1I. In-situ measurements for dissolved oxygen for all sampling locations…….
207
APPENDIX J
Table 1J. In-situ measurements for temperature for all sampling locations ………….
208
APPENDIX K
Table 1K. In-situ measurements for turbidity for all sampling locations…………….
209
APPENDIX L
Table 1L. In-situ measurements specific conductivity for all tributaries…………….
209
APPENDIX M
Table 1M. Descriptive Statistics for water quality parameters for all tributaries…….
210
APPENDIX N
Table 1N. Nutrient loads for all sampling location……………………………………
216
APPENDIX O
Table 1O. Ranking tributaries based on mean results………………………………..
217
APPENDIX P
Table 1P. Spearman’s rho correlation for concentrations of different parameters for
each sampling location………………………………………………………....
x
219
APPENDIX Q
Table 1Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing nitrate concentrations among sampling
Locations……………………………………………………………………….
225
Table 2Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing ammonia concentrations among sampling
locations……………………………………………………………………….
226
Table 3Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing discharge concentrations among sampling
locations……………………………………………………………………….
227
Table 4Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing total nitrogen concentrations among
sampling locations…………………………………………………………….
228
Table 5Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing nitrite concentrations among the
sampling locations…………………………………………………………….
229
Table 6Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing particulate orthophosphate concentrations
among sampling locations……………………………………………………
230
Table 7Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing soluble orthophosphate concentrations among
sampling locations…………………………………………………………….
231
Table 8Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing total phosphorus concentrations among
sampling locations……………………………………………………………
Table 9Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing pH among sampling locations…..
232
233
Table 10Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing dissolved oxygen concentrations among
sampling locations…………………………………………………………..
234
Table 11Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing temperature concentrations among sampling
locations……………………………………………………………………..
235
Table 12Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing specific conductivity among sampling
locations…………………………………………………………………….
236
Table 13Q. Kruskal Wallis ANOVA: comparing turbidity concentrations among sampling
locations…………………………………………………………………….
237
xi
APPENDIX R
Table 1R. Multiple comparison test for ammonia concentrations for the tributaries…
238
Table 2R. Multiple comparison test for discharge for the tributaries…………………
239
Table 3R. Multiple comparison test for particulate orthophosphate concentrations for the
tributaries……………….………………………………………………………
240
Table 4R. Multiple comparison test for soluble orthophosphate concentrations for the
tributaries………………………………………………………………………
241
Table 5R. Multiple comparison test for specific conductivity for the tributaries……
242
Table 6R. Multiple comparison test for total phosphorus concentrations for the
tributaries………………………………………………………………………
xii
244
EXPLANATION OF FORMAT
This thesis consists of three chapters. The first chapter contains an introduction and literature review of the topic; Chapter Two is a technical paper; and Chapter Three includes supplementary information and recommendations for future research.
Chapter One addresses surface water and groundwater contamination issues within agricultural systems in the U.S. and specifically in Indiana. It also describes the effects of eutrophication, the importance of nitrogen/phosphorus species, a description of sampling locations used
in the reported study, and an overview of the project. Chapter Two has been drafted in the form
of a manuscript to be submitted to a refereed scientific journal. An abstract, introduction, experimental methods, and results and discussion are incorporated in this chapter. Chapter Three provides additional information not reported in the technical paper. Management recommendations
and future research suggestions for the watershed are included.
xiii
CHAPTER 1: Review of Literature
1.1 Introduction
Lakes and reservoirs offer multiple uses and benefits to humans and the environment;
they act as containment basins for drinking water, provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial organisms, and offer recreational opportunities. It is anticipated that lakes and reservoirs will experience greater pressures in the future due to increasing water scarcity and continued population
growth. In order to meet these needs, it is essential to maintain the health and proper function of
aquatic ecosystems, which are adversely affected by improper land use and other environmental
stresses (e.g., atmospheric deposition of pollutants), resulting in impaired water quality, limited
fresh water supply, and restricted aquatic biodiversity. Best management practices (BMPs) must
be implemented to sustain healthy aquatic ecosystems, ensure optimum drinking water quality,
and provide safe recreational use.
Streams and rivers replenish water supplies; however, they also transport nutrients, including those originally intended for agriculture, as well as sediment. By analyzing the chemical
properties of water within watersheds, we can understand and evaluate the effects of specific
land uses and derive useful information regarding water quality, which can aid in identifying atrisk areas within a watershed. For example, natural and anthropogenic activities in a specific region can contribute high concentrations of nutrients and sediments, thus triggering eutrophication
of local water bodies.
1.2 Literature Review
1
Lakes and reservoirs provide numerous important uses such as replenishment of ground
water supplies; they also serve as a source of drinking water; help control of flooding; preserve
biodiversity; provided wildlife habitat, irrigation water, recreation, and tourism; and support residential living (New Brunswick, 2015; US Geological Survey, 2014).
1.2.1 U.S. History and Policies Relating to Water Use
Streams are classified based on environmental niches and locations within a watershed -they may be classified as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral (US Environmental Protection
Agency [US EPA], 2013). Ephemeral streams flow only during precipitation events and lack biological, hydrological, and physical characteristics common to intermittent and perennial streams
(North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources [NC DENR], no date). Intermittent streams are characterized by a well-developed channel and flow only during certain
periods of the year while perennial streams flow throughout the year (NC DENR, no date).
Streams collect overland flow, recharge or discharge groundwater, provide habitat for
aquatic organisms and wildlife, and sustain the health of influent water sources e.g., they remove
nutrients and reduce suspended solids (US EPA, 2013). Furthermore, oxygenation of moving
water may reduce
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Of all the stream miles assessed by federal agencies, 53%
are classified as headwaters, i.e., those located at the farthest distance from a confluence of another stream or a river. Nearly 60% of headwaters flow intermittently (US EPA, 2013).
Anthropogenic activities have altered many natural streams and lakes in the United
States. For example, agricultural activities, drainage of wetlands, pollutants, and exotic species
impart adverse effects on water quality within watersheds (Meyer et al., 2003). In addition,
2
channeling streams can disrupt receiving water bodies, reduce groundwater recharge rates, alter
evapotranspiration patterns and rates, displace riparian zones, destabilize extant water bodies,
promote flooding in areas not originally prone to flooding, and increase susceptibility to algal
blooms (MacKenzie et al., 2011; Meyer et al., 2003). Stream modifications may result in a range
of biological impacts. For example, a study in Hawaii found that lower flow regimes restricted
the growth of caddis flies and Atyid shrimp (MacKenzie et al., 2011; McIntosh et al., 2003).
1.2.2 U.S. Surface Water Quality Status and Issues
In recent decades comprehensive data have been collected in efforts to assess the nation’s
water quality (US EPA, 2014). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has assessed 43 percent of US lakes and reservoirs; 67.3% of the areas assessed, totaling close to 12 million acres,
were found to be impaired for one or more designated uses. The major impairments were primarily due to the presence of mercury, excess nutrients, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); turbidity; and organic enrichment/oxygen depletion. The likely sources for these pollutants include
agriculture, commercial forestry, improper use of lawn care products, and atmospheric deposition, among others (US EPA, 2014).
A total of 29.6% of all U.S. rivers and streams have been assessed, of which 53.7%, totaling 560,411 miles, were designated as impaired. A total of 476,351 miles (45.6%) were considered to support designated uses, and 7,559 miles (0.7%) were considered to be at high risk for
becoming impaired (US EPA, 2014). The main causes for these impairments are the presence of
pathogens, sediment, and nutrients; organic enrichment/oxygen depletion; and contamination by
PCBs. Likely contaminant sources included agriculture, channel modification, urban-related runoff/stormwater, atmospheric deposition, and others.
3
The United States has the largest agricultural capacity compared to any country in the
world (US EPA, 2013). A total of 1.02 billion acres of land is devoted to agriculture (US EPA,
2013)—408 million acres are in crop production and 613 million acres are used for grazing livestock. U.S. agriculture generates $153 billion in revenue from livestock production and $143 billion worth of crops (corn, soybeans, hay, wheat, cotton, sorghum, and rice) per year (Table 1.1)
(US EPA, 2013). The U.S. was the largest producer and exporter of corn and soybean (32% and
50%, respectively) in 2008 (US EPA, 2013; USDA, 2014; 2013).
4
Table 1.1. Major crops grown in the United States in 2011 (excluding root crops, citrus, and
vegetables).
Harvested Area
(million acres)
Cash Receipts from Sales
($ billion)
84
63.9
Soybeans
73.8
37.6
Hay
55.7
6.7
Wheat
45.7
14.6
Cotton
9.5
8.3
Sorghum
(grain)
3.9
1.3
Rice
2.6
2.9
Crop
Corn
(grain)
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Ag 101: Major Crops Grown in the United
States. (Accessed 12 January 2015).
5
Agriculture is the largest consumer of water in the U.S. and accounts for 80% (90% in
Western States) of all water usage (USDA, 2013). Water quality in irrigation systems varies
greatly in terms of concentrations of trace elements and minerals which influence water conductivity (Fipps, 2013; UN FAO, n.d.). A primary concern regarding irrigation water quality is salinity, i.e., salt concentrations that can retard or prevent crop growth (Fipps, 2013; Ongley, 1996).
Salinity originates from the weathering of rocks and soils over which water flows. As a result of
using even slightly saline water for agricultural purposes, salt and other trace minerals accumulate at the surface (Fipps, 2013).
A suite of well-established field and laboratory methods can provide data regarding the
suitability of water for agriculture. Example methods include determination of total dissolved
solids, electrical conductivity, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). Based on these criteria soil
can be classified as normal, saline, sodic, or saline-sodic (Fipps, 2013). Saline soils have a pH <
8.5, low sodium concentrations and contain various species of sodium-, calcium-, and magnesium sulfates and chlorides. Sodic soils have a pH of 8.5-10, and sodium concentrations are sufficiently high to make soil surfaces impervious (Fipps, 2013).
In intensive agriculture, fertilizer applications are necessary to replace macro- and micronutrients in agricultural fields. Modern agriculture is highly dependent on the use of commercial
agricultural fertilizers. The most critical nutrient elements for generating high yields of agronomic and other crops are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Many commercial fertilizer formulations are manufactured as salts, e.g., NH4NO3, K3(PO4), KCl. Should these materials enter
waterways, they cause ecological damage via eutrophication (see below), as well as via salinity
effects when these fertilizer salts dissolve in water (Dowling, 1998).
6
Excessive and/or poorly timed fertilizer application can result in groundwater and surface
water pollution (US EPA, 2010). As much as 25% of nitrogen applied to fields is lost through
leaching or denitrification (US EPA, 2010). To alleviate such losses, a portion of the required
fertilizer rate should be applied during spring and subsequently in limited amounts throughout
the growing season. Application of fertilizer during the Fall should be avoided to prevent nitrogen leaching and denitrification. This practice will optimize crop yields and reduce nitrogen
losses. Fertilization should occur only after annual soil sampling has been conducted to determine current nutrient concentrations (US EPA, 2010).
1.2.3 Indiana Surface Water Quality Status and Issues
Data on Indiana water quality has been compiled for 83.6% of all lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds. A total of 95.6%, totaling 231,000 acres, are designated as impaired (US EPA, 2014). The
major causes for impairment include the presence of mercury and PCBs, excess nutrients, and
excessive algal growth. Sources of pollution include non-point sources, industrial resource extraction, and urban-related runoff/stormwater (US EPA, 2014).
A total of 67.2 percent of Indiana streams and rivers have been assessed and 69.1 percent,
totaling 16,554 river miles, are designated as impaired. The main causes for impairment include
pathogens, PCBs, mercury, organic enrichment/oxygen depletion, and unknown causes. The major sources of these pollutants are animal feeding operations, municipal discharges/sewage and
unspecified non-point sources (US EPA, 2014).
1.2.4 Eutrophication
Eutrophication is defined as enrichment in the nutrient status of surface water bodies
largely due to excessive nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations. These nutrients promote algal
7
and macrophyte production, resulting in an unpleasant odor and an ‘earthy’ taste in drinking water. The eutrophication process can occur naturally; it can occur due to climate change; or it can
be a direct consequence of anthropogenic activities that drastically hasten the process (Chislock
et al., 2013; USGS, 2013).
Eutrophication gradually ‘ages’ water bodies as they become more biologically productive. Human activities accelerate this aging process exponentially (Schindler, 1974). Eutrophication promotes algal growth and anoxic conditions, raises pH levels, causes fish kills, and degrades overall water quality. In extreme cases, eutrophication kills livestock, causes public health
risks, and decreases property values (Chislock et al., 2013).
Eutrophication is categorized into four trophic states depending on the productivity of the
water body: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic, and hypereutrophic. Oligotrophic lakes have
the lowest nutrient concentrations and experience the lowest biological productivity for algae,
macrophytes, and biota higher in the food chain (Rawson, 1956; Lake Access, no date). Oligotrophic lakes tend to have the greatest depths, often greater than 30 meters. The hypolimnion,
i.e., the coldest layer of water located at the bottom of the lake, may remain well-oxygenated
compared to other classes of lakes (Rawson, 1956). Mesotrophic lakes have parameters similar
to those of oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes; however, mesotrophic lakes have depths between 10
to 30 meters and experience nearly complete oxygen depletion of the hypolimnion (Lake Access,
no date). Eutrophic and hypereutrophic lakes tend to have higher nutrient concentrations and biological productivity of algae and macrophytes and are shallower than the other classes of lakes
(Rawson, 1956).
Extensive research is required to categorize streams and rivers into trophic states (Dodds,
2006). A stream condition index is used to compare biological conditions of a stream to some
8
reference condition, for example a stream not impaired but occurring in a similar region (Green
et al., 2000).
Commercial fertilizers may impart a major effect on a stream or lake trophic states and
are the largest source of nitrogen and phosphorus in freshwater ecosystems. Midwestern states
input from 10,000 - 40,000 lbs/m2 of nitrogen and from 340 - 2,700 lbs/m2 phosphorus annually
(Caskey et al., 2013). In the White River, Indiana, fertilizers contribute 57,000 tons of total nitrogen -- 1,200 tons of ammonia and 40,000 tons as nitrate; and 2,900 tons of phosphorus in
streams annually (Martin, 1996). In 2010, Aaron Chalfant Farms (Randolph County, IN) was
declared responsible for killing over 107,000 fish as a result of fertilizing fields during a wet season in June. The excessive nutrient runoff entered Bear Creek and the Mississenewa River and
adversely affected downstream ecosystems (StarPress, 2012).
Land use directly impacts concentrations of nutrients in rivers and streams. A watershed
management plan was assembled to prioritize watershed concerns for Geist Reservoir and the
Upper Fall Creek in Indianapolis (White River Watershed Alliance, 2011). A major concern for
Geist Reservoir was the occurrence of blue-green algae due to excessive quantities of nutrients
from runoff. The input streams, i.e., Honey Creek, Flatfork Creek, Sly Fork, and Thorpe Creek,
contained higher than expected nutrient concentrations for nitrate + nitrite and total phosphorus,
which promoted eutrophication within Eagle Creek and Geist Reservoir (IDEM, 2005). To improve water quality it was necessary to filter nutrients from runoff, construct stream buffers and
artificial wetlands, remove debris, restrict livestock access to creeks and reservoirs, ban phosphorous from certain household products, and regulate nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer usage
(Upper White River Watershed Alliance, 2011; IDEM, 2005).
1.2.5 NUTRIENTS
9
1.2.5.1 Nitrogen
Nitrogen is an essential macronutrient for plant and animal nutrition. Nitrogen forms that
are readily used by plants include nitrate (NO3-), nitrite (NO2-), and ammonium (NH4+) (Ward,
1995).
Nitrogen is an essential macronutrient for all biota – it is necessary for forming nucleotides, i.e., a constituent of the nucleic acids deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid
(RNA), as well as proteins (Raven et al., 2008). Nitrogen in proteins occurs in amino groups
where nitrogen is bonded with hydrogen as (-NH2). Proteins have major functions in organisms
such as enzyme catalysis, immunity/defense, transport of biomolecules, support, motion, regulation, and storage (Raven et al., 2008).
Nitrogen enrichment of soils and water bodies occurs from multiple sources and includes
agricultural fertilizers, sewage, and animal manure (USGS, 2014). Improper usage of nitrogenrich fertilizer has increased significantly in the Mississippi River Basin over the past 25 years
(Goolsby and Battaglin, 1995). The nitrogen concentration in the Mississippi River has increased
four times over that of pre-industrial times (Anderson, 2012).
The global nitrogen cycle is predominately controlled by bacteria that consume and produce nitrogen compounds via mineralization, ammonification, nitrification, denitrification, and
nitrogen fixation (Ward, 1995). These organisms obtain nitrogen via atmospheric deposition of
nitrite and nitrate, and also as N2 gas. The former N compounds contribute 3 million tons of nitrogen into U.S. water bodies annually (USGS, 2014). Figure 1.1 illustrates nitrate ion concentrations throughout the U.S. resulting from atmospheric deposition (USGS, 2014).
10
Nitrates are produced via nitrification. In this process, aerobic nitrifying bacteria convert
ammonia to nitrite, and nitrite to nitrate (US EPA, 2002; Ward, 1995). The reactions are as follows:
1. 2 NH4+ + 3 O2 → 2 NO2− + 2 H2O + 4 H+
2. 2 NO2− + O2 → 2 NO3−
−
2
−
3. NH3 + O2 → NO2 + 3H + 2e
−
+
−
1
3
−
4. NO2 + H2O → NO3 + 2H + 2e
+
4
Nitrification can reduce pH and alkalinity, water’s ability to neutralize acids and resist pH
change, thus affecting water quality. In drinking water, the nascent acids can cause corrosion of
pipes and damage to concrete structures (US EPA, 2002).
Denitrification is the process where, under anoxic conditions, nitrates are reduced to nitrites, and nitrites to ammonia and/or N2 gas (Ward, 1996):
NO3− → NO2− → NO + N2O → N2 (g)
5
The complete denitrification process can be expressed as:
2 NO3− + 10 e− + 12 H+ → N2 + 6 H2O
6
Nitrogen compounds, specifically nitrates, are highly soluble and mobile in water; therefore, leaching is a critical problem for shallow groundwater wells (Naidenko et al., 2012). Nearly
50% of U.S. citizens obtain their drinking water from underground sources such as wells and
aquifers (Bernard et al., 2014). Nearly 39% of U.S. public water supplies originate from underground sources. Nitrate levels in shallow wells in agricultural fields have the highest concentrations of nitrate compared to all other wells, with concentrations often exceeding drinking water
11
quality standards of 10 mg/L (Bernard et al., 2014; Naidenko et al., 2012). Figure 1.2 illustrates
nitrate contamination risk in the U.S.
12
Figure 1.1. Nitrate ion concentrations in water caused by atmospheric deposition (National Atmospheric Deposition Program [NADP], 2014).
13
Figure 1.2. Contamination risks of shallow ground water (< 100 ft. deep). (Bernard et al,.
2014).
14
Ammonium, NH4+, is an inorganic nitrogen compound that is readily absorbed by plants
and algae. Common chemical forms are the ammonium ion and un-ionized ammonia, NH3 (US
EPA, 2013). Ammonia is rarely detected in non-polluted freshwater; however, it is introduced
via nitrogen fixation, in rainfall, lightning strikes, from agricultural runoff, and by decomposition
of proteins (US EPA, 2013; Oregon, 2000). The high solubility and mobility of ammonia allow it
to percolate through soils and contaminate groundwater (Oregon, 2000).
Ammonium is less toxic to biota compared with ammonia. The ammonium ion is positively correlated with photosynthesis and respiration rates in plants (Wurt, 2003). Ammonia
(NH3) is positively correlated with water pH and temperature; a 10:1 ratio of ammonia to ammonium correlates to a one pH unit increase; ammonia concentrations double with an increase of
10oC (US EPA, 2013). The proportion of ammonia in water increases as pH increases:
NH3 + H2O ↔ NH4+ + OH-
7
Ammonia is usually at its highest concentrations in late afternoon due to the consumption of carbon dioxide required for photosynthesis. Ammonia concentrations can be 63 times
higher in late afternoon compared to early morning concentrations, and are > 90% positively correlated with rise in pH (Wurt, 2003).
1.2.5.1.1 Drinking Water Standards for Nitrogen and Human Health Concerns
Municipal water treatment plants are required to comply with federal and state standards
limiting the presence of various contaminants to ensure safe drinking water for customers (US
EPA, 2013). The drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate is 10 mg/L and
for nitrite 1 mg/L. MCLs for ammonia vary with temperature (US EPA, 2013; IAC, 2012).
15
High nitrate and ammonia concentrations in drinking water impart negative effects on
human health. Pregnant women, babies, individuals suffering from methemoglobin reductase and
gastric acidity issues are at risk (Self, 2014; US EPA, 2013; Benton Franklin, 2002). Methemoglobinemia, i.e., ‘blue baby syndrome’ is linked with high nitrate concentrations in water. Symptoms include shortness of breath, stomach aches, and possible death (Self, 2014; US EPA, 2013;
Benton Franklin, 2002).
1.2.5.2. Phosphorus — Phosphorus is an essential macronutrient for plants and animals
(US EPA, 2012; Raven et al., 2008). Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) are composed of three specific
compounds: a phosphate group, organic nitrogenous base, and a pentose group (Raven et al.,
2008). The phosphate group binds with other nucleotides via phosphodiester bonds to construct
DNA and RNA. In addition, phosphorus is essential in the structure of phospholipids; it furthermore aids in energy storage (as adenosine triphosphate, ATP) and photosynthesis (Mullins, 2009;
Raven, 2008).
Plants convert inorganic phosphorus (as the phosphate molecule, PO43-) into organic
phosphorus (DNA, ATP, phospholipids, etc.), which is subsequently consumed by other organisms including decomposers (Oram, 2014; US EPA, 2012; Raven et al., 2008). Decomposition of
animal and plant biomass by bacteria returns organic P to the inorganic PO43- form.
Phosphorous is essential for supporting biological processes in aquatic ecosystems (US
EPA, 2012). Natural (non-polluted) freshwater ecosystems are phosphorous-deficient and may
experience algal blooms if phosphorous levels reach elevated concentrations (USGS, 2014; US
EPA, 2012). Total phosphorus reference levels, i.e., total P concentrations considered the ‘breakpoint’ for algae to bloom, may range from 0.01 to 0.075 milligrams per liter (mg/L) depending
on ecoregion (US EPA, 2012; 2002; Dodds and Welch, 2000).
16
Phosphorus is a common element in nature, derived from weathering of minerals such as
fluorapatite, Ca5(PO4)3F. In the manufacture of commercial agricultural fertilizers, such minerals
are physically and chemically converted to a soluble fertilizer material such as triple superphosphate, Ca(H2PO4)2.H2O (USGS, 2013; Raven et al., 2008).
Phosphorus is frequently detected in runoff from agricultural sites affected by manures or
fertilizers; in addition, it enters waterways in municipal, domestic, and industrial wastes in sewage (USGS, 2014). Decades ago in the United States, phosphorus entered waterways via domestic use of phosphate-containing detergents.
Animal manures may contain several percent phosphorus, depending on the type of livestock being raised. Confined feeding operations (CFOs) which raise poultry or swine contain
manure with greater phosphorus concentrations than do cattle operations. Such manures can be
land-applied to serve as a fertilizer material on agricultural fields; however, intensive land application of manures must be carefully monitored. Excessive soil phosphorus concentrations can be
carried to surface runoff. Furthermore, soil-bound phosphorus may be lost via erosion
(Domagalski et al., 2013; Mullin, 2009).
Phosphate adsorbs to sediment particulates and reacts with minerals such as iron, aluminum, and calcium to form insoluble compounds (US EPA, 2012; Mullins, 2009). Inorganic
phosphorus may be recycled back into the water column due to anthropogenic activity or animal
interaction with the environment (e.g., livestock churning the stream bed), wind action and/or
due to acidic soil conditions (Domagalski et al., 2013; US EPA, 2012).
When bound to iron, aluminum, and organic compounds, phosphorus is typically not mobile (Redmond et al., 2014); however, iron-, aluminum- and organic-bound phosphorus is sensitive to low dissolved oxygen levels and low pH (Redmond et al., 2014; Gray, 2008). Ferric
17
phosphate is insoluble under high dissolved oxygen levels but may be reduced to ferrous phosphate and released into the water column under conditions of low pH and reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations. These conditions can promote internal loading, i.e., reintroduction of nutrients that had previously adhered to sediments into the water column (Søndergaard et al. 2003).
An effective means to combat internal phosphorus loading is via aeration, which increases dissolved oxygen concentration and pH while restricting release of phosphorus from sediment
particles (Redmond et al. 2014). The reactions involved are as follows:
1.
HCO3- → H+ + CO32-
8
2.
HCO3- + H+ → H2CO3
9
3.
H2CO3 → CO2 + H2O
10
Although phosphorus is an important nutrient in biological processes, it is detrimental to
water quality when present in excess concentrations (USGS, 2014; USGS, 2013). Phosphorus
has the potential to cause algal blooms and explosive growth of bacteria, and consequently poor
water quality, eutrophication, poor aesthetic appeal and unpleasant odors (Redmond et al., 2014;
USGS, 2013; US EPA, 2012). Eutrophication caused by excess P has the tendency to lower pH
and reduce dissolved oxygen levels and redox potential, thus causing an unfavorable environment for fish and other aquatic biodiversity (Redmond et al. 2014; USGS 2014, 2013; US EPA
2012).
18
1.2.6. Discharge
Discharge is defined as the volume of water passing over a designated location for a specified period of time, usually measured in cubic feet per second (ft3/sec) (US EPA, 2012). Discharge changes seasonally; summer months normally experience lower velocities and volumes of
water due to lower rates of precipitation and greater evapotranspiration. The lowest flow months
in North America are typically August and September (US EPA, 2012).
Stream flow is affected by land use, precipitation, and other climatic factors (Ridgeway et
al., no date). Stream flow can be used to identify flooding, sediment discharge and long-term
trends in water movement, and can be used to indicate watershed changes, i.e., channelizing
streams/ditches.
Stormwater discharge and runoff can impart negative effects on water quality. These effects occur when precipitation, rain, or snowmelt flows over impervious surfaces (surface water
runoff) collecting chemicals, debris, sediments, or other pollutants, and discharges them untreated into receiving bodies of water (US EPA, 2015). Stormwater discharge is harmful to receiving
bodies of water due to buildup of solids, oxygen-demanding substances, nitrogen/phosphorus,
pathogens, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and synthetic organic compounds (US EPA, 2006).
These pollutants reduce water quality and adversely affect biological productivity, aesthetics and
drinking water.
1.2.7 Mass Balance
Calculating mass balance, whether of water volume or nutrient loads, helps to determine
the magnitude that sources impart upon water quality in a watershed. Mass balance calculations
also aid in empirical/mechanical modeling, provide a basis for tracking water distribution, and
can evaluate lake/reservoir response to the contributing watershed (Fetter, 2001; Walker, 1999).
19
A mass balance requires a water budget that includes precipitation, surface water runoff,
groundwater input, evapotranspiration rate, discharge inputs and losses, and groundwater outflow. Mass balance calculations may also be applied to nutrient loading in a watershed—the process includes measuring all nutrient load inputs, including sources such as atmospheric deposition (Jain et al., 2007; Fetter, 2001; Walker, 1999).
Land use within a watershed has a major impact on mass balance (Jain et al., 2007). A
mass balance study was conducted on Lake Michigan to determine spatial and temporal variability and atmospheric deposition of atrazine, total phosphorus and nitrogen (Miller et al., 2000). It
was found that atrazine concentrations were significantly higher in atmospheric deposition during the months it was applied to fields, i.e., from April – June. Nutrient concentrations did not
significantly differ spatially; however, total nutrient concentrations have decreased for the Lake
Michigan watershed between the 1970s – 1990s.
A nitrogen mass balance study was conducted on the Mississippi River (Blesh et al., 2013).
Surface water leaching from small, but intensively cropped grain farms was found to be the primary cause for hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. It was observed that crop rotation and use of legumes as a source of nitrogen decreased nitrogen concentrations entering the Mississippi River
compared to fertilizer-rich fields cultivated to corn and soybean (Blesh et al., 2013). Blesh et al.
(2013) recommends that farmers reduce nitrogen inputs and increase carbon availability by cultivating and incorporating nitrogen-fixing crops, e.g., legumes, into the soil.
1.2.8 Previous Studies and the Current Study
1.2.8.1 Prairie Creek Reservoir—The Prairie Creek Reservoir is located in Delaware
County, Indiana, and constitutes part of the northern watershed of the White River. The dam that
created the reservoir was completed in 1959. The reservoir covers 1,252 acres of land; it has a
20
16-mile shoreline, contains 7.2 billion gallons of water, and is located 990 ft. above sea level
(Haman, 1964). The reservoir is used as a secondary drinking water source for Muncie, Indiana.
It is privately owned by the Indiana American Water Company and is leased and maintained by
the Muncie Parks and Recreation Department (UMU, 2015). A 2,300-acre public park is available for recreational activities. The watershed is used for agriculture, residential dwellings and
recreation (Figure 1.3).
Haman (1964) conducted a study investigating various physical, chemical and biological
characteristics of Prairie Creek Reservoir. Water quality parameters analyzed included temperature, secchi disk transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen levels, and plankton levels. The study concluded that the reservoir was a common eutrophic lake. Turnover occurred in the spring and fall,
and vertical stratification occurred during summer.
Cescon (1997) studied micro-crustacean zooplankton at the reservoir, and compared her
findings to other published data for North American Lakes. Temperature, secchi disk transparency, and turbidity were measured. It was concluded that the reservoir was a typical North American eutrophic lake that contained a variety of zooplankton species common to Ecoregion 55.
The White River Watershed Project (WRWP) (IDEM, 2004) studied the Prairie Creek
Reservoir watershed to obtain baseline information so that informed decisions could be made to
reduce pollutant concentrations and to conserve water quality for future generations. The Project
monitored seven locations within the watershed; it was concluded that water quality at all locations did not significantly differ between 2005 and 2006. However, ammonia concentrations
were the most problematic parameter throughout the Prairie Creek Reservoir watershed due to
agricultural runoff and failing septic systems. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured in Huffman Ditch, Cecil Ditch, and Carmichael Ditch (IDEM, 2004).
21
Goward (2004) studied the links between nutrients and pesticides to the land use in the
Upper White River Watershed using three different subwatersheds, including Prairie Creek Reservoir Watershed. Samples were collected from 18 locations in three different subwatersheds. It
was determined that Prairie Creek Watershed had the second highest ammonia concentration and
the lowest nitrate and orthophosphate concentrations compared to Killbuck Creek and Buck
Creek Subwatersheds. Prairie Creek Reservoir Watershed is less developed compared to the other two watersheds. It is expected that faulty septic systems and combined sewer overflows contributed to elevated nutrient concentrations in Killbuck and Buck Creek Watersheds.
Barnard (2004) studied Escherichia coli in the same three sub-watersheds as part of the
White River Watershed Project. Prairie Creek watershed was studied for spatial distribution of E.
coli, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. There were six sampling locations: two within the
lake, three major tributaries, and the outfall. The study concluded that E. coli concentrations
were strongly correlated with land use and tended to increase downstream. Septic systems, confined swine feeding operations, and combined sewer overflow contributed to high levels of E.
coli. The highest concentrations of E. coli were found at the public boat launch on the east shore
of the reservoir and at the outfall.
22
Figure 1.3. Location for Prairie Creek Reservoir, sub-watersheds, and sampling locations.
23
Matheny (2007) analyzed spatial and temporal variability in sediment interstitial water
within Prairie Creek Reservoir. Excess phosphorus concentrations were detected in reservoir sediment, which was expected to contribute to internal loading during anoxic conditions. Nutrient
concentrations varied in the hypolimnion due to organic matter decomposition during the
sampling period. Total phosphorus concentrations were consistent throughout the reservoir and
did not differ spatially; however, concentrations of ammonia, total nitrogen, and nitrates differed
among sampling locations. It was concluded that external nutrient loads affected the southern
portion of the reservoir more strongly than the central and northern zones.
Celi (2008) conducted a water quality assessment of Prairie Creek Reservoir to determine
how nutrient concentrations influenced eutrophication. The study also analyzed water quality
parameters, determined trophic status, and identified limiting nutrients. Levels of dissolved
oxygen, transparency, pH, temperature, chlorophyll a, and nutrients were analyzed. Vertical
variations for pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen were detected between the hypolimnion
and epilimnion. It was found that the reservoir experienced anoxic conditions on multiple
occasions for about 50% of its depth. Re-oxygenation of the reservoir occurred throughout the
sampling period due to the action of strong winds mixing the water. Total nitrogen and total
phosphorus concentrations did not significantly differ throughout the sampling period; however,
P concentrations differed between the hypolimnion and epilimnion. The reservoir was
horizontally homogenous. Internal loading of phosphorous was evident and correlated with anoxic conditions occurring in the hypolimnion.
Popovicova (2008) studied Prairie Creek Reservoir from 2005-2006 in order to obtain
baseline information for water quality parameters, observe temporal changes, and provide future
researchers a basis to continue studies. The reservoir was analyzed for pH, dissolved oxygen,
24
temperature, conductivity, transparency, and concentrations of nitrates, orthophosphate, and
chlorophyll a. Weak thermal stratification was observed in mid-June throughout the reservoir,
thermal layering of the epilimion, thermocline, and hypolimnion was formed for a short period of
time. Turnovers occurred during spring and Fall.
Popovicova (2009) studied the effects of thermal and anoxic conditions on dispersal/variability of nutrients in Prairie Creek Reservoir and compared them to Ecoregion 55 reference guidelines. The analysis focused on pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, transparency, chlorophyll a, and nutrient concentrations. It was concluded that anoxic conditions as well
as re-oxygenation occurred in the hypolimnion due to water mixing from strong winds and boat
traffic. Internal nutrient loading exacerbated the eutrophic state of the reservoir, causing it to
change from eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic. Nitrogen was found to be the limiting nutrient, i.e.,
the nutrient required for algal blooms, due to high phosphorus loading within the watershed. Best
management practices were proposed to reduce internal and external loads of nutrients and included buffer strips, livestock fencing, and constructed wetlands at the reservoir inlets to protect
water quality.
1.2.8.2 Project Overview— The goals of the present study were to assess water quality
for five major tributaries of Prairie Creek Reservoir and the outfall into the White River; compare tributaries and outflow for nutrients and other water quality parameters; and identify potential watershed risks which may promote eutrophication within the reservoir. The methodology
includes: (1) providing baseline data regarding the physical-chemical properties of the tributaries
and outfall; (2) quantifying discharge for tributaries and outflow; (3) determining nutrient loads
for tributaries and outflow; and (4) identifying problematic areas within the watershed.
25
Figure 1.4. Sampling locations and tributary sub-watersheds for the reported study.
26
Prairie Creek Watershed includes the reservoir and five major tributaries that drain 17
square miles of New Castle Till Plains (IDEM, 2004). The watershed is composed mainly of
Crosby and Miamian soil series. Both soils have poor drainage and the topography is classified
as gently rolling, containing various small lakes, prairie pothole lakes, and wetlands (IDEM,
2004). Current land use is predominately agriculture (72.2%), green space (18.2%) and residential (6.3%) (IDEM, 2004). The five major tributaries of the watershed are James Huffman Ditch,
Cemetery Run, Chalfant/Cecil Ditch, Shave Tail Creek, and Carmichael Ditch. In addition to the
tributaries, the Prairie Creek Reservoir outfall was also monitored. Figure 1.4 illustrates the major tributary sub-watersheds.
1.2.8.1 The Outfall — The outfall is 6,133 ft. in length and located north of Prairie Creek
Reservoir where it converges with the White River. The riparian area is dominated largely by
woody and grassy vegetation providing cover throughout the site. The outfall discharge varies
depending on the release of water as controlled by the Indiana American Water Company.
1.2.8.2 Carmichael Ditch — Carmichael Ditch is located northeast of the reservoir. It extends 9,348 ft. in length and drains approximately 1,270 acres of land. The sub-watershed comprises agricultural uses (99.8%), recreation and conservation (0.2%). The riparian zone consists
mainly of woody and grassy vegetation. The nearest embankment to the road has been cleared of
most woody vegetation, reducing cover and allowing direct sunlight to reach the ditch. This location is affected by algal growth throughout the growing season. During the assessment, discharge
of the ditch was noticeably slow to almost nonexistent.
1.2.8.3 Shave Tail Creek — This creek is located due east of the reservoir and extends
24,630 ft. The watershed drains 1,975 acres of land which consists largely of agricultural fields
27
(88%), green space (10%), and residential (2%). The sampling site is west of C.R. 600 E and is
located downstream of a cattle farm. During the assessment, cattle had access to the creek just
upstream from the sampling point. This location encompasses woody and grassy vegetation
downstream of the sampling site. The upstream area lacked riparian coverage. The flow of this
creek was not always consistent and may experience backflow from the reservoir.
1. 2.8.4 James Huffman Ditch — This tributary is located southeast of the reservoir and
extends 17,506 ft. This sub-watershed covers an area of 1893 acres and consists of agricultural
(72%), residential (4%), green space (2%), and other (22%) land uses. The riparian zone is dominated by grassy vegetation with spotty coverage of woody vegetation throughout the ditch. The
sampling site was south of C.R. 600 S and was accessible via private property. This stream is
narrow, has a rocky bottom, and has a regular flow.
1. 2.8.5 Cemetery Run — This tributary is located south of C.R. 650 S, measures 7,880 ft.
in length and drains 400 acres. Sub-watershed land use is largely agricultural (36%), green space
(53%), and residential (11%). The riparian zone consists of woody vegetation, which serves to
filter runoff from the road. Water tends to pool just before entering the reservoir via a four foot
pipe. This tributary is exposed to direct sunlight and contains a muddy bottom. Discharge is inconsistent and is affected by both wind and water level of the reservoir. It has been observed that
the reservoir will back flow into the tributary. During the sampling process, high turbidity was
observed which may correlate to construction on the north side of the road.
1. 2.8.6 Cecil Ditch — This ditch is located southwest of the reservoir, intersecting a horse
trail and the Cardinal Greenway. This tributary is 7,690 ft. in length and drains approximately
768 acres. Land use consists of agricultural (42%), green space (52%), and residential (6%). The
sampling site was located north of C.R. 650 S and just north of the horse trail. The riparian zone
28
is largely wooded, providing coverage from direct exposure of sunlight. The tributary floor was
largely silt and sand, of sufficient depth to make it difficult to traverse. The embankments had
noticeable erosion, possibly contributing to the silty bottom of the stream.
1. 2.8.7 Field and Lab Procedures —Figure 1.4 shows locations which were sampled and
monitored on a weekly basis from June 16 through October 26, 2014. Samples were collected
from the center of the tributaries, which were accessible from public roads or private properties.
A grab sample technique was used to collect water samples, following U.S. Geological Survey
procedures (USGS, 2014). Glass containers were filled, sealed and transported on ice to the laboratory and analyzed within 24 hours of sampling. All instruments were calibrated according to
manufacturers’ specifications. Laboratory glassware was dosed three times with 10% HCl and
rinsed with deionized (DI) water to remove any contaminants that may have adhered to the container. Field rinsing was required when collecting multiple samples using the same instrument to
avoid cross-contamination from one stream to the next. A trip blank, lab blank, a duplicate sample, and a standard served as QC samples.
Temperature, turbidity, pH, specific conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentrations
were analyzed in-situ using a Hydrolab DS5 Sonde (HACH Hydromet 2011). The Sonde was
calibrated according to manufacturer’s specifications every two weeks. Discharge data for all
streams were collected from a SONTEK Flow Tracker (SONTEK, San Diego, CA). Discharge
measurements were collected every half-foot to one-foot using a measuring tape; velocity was
measured from right to left. The ‘60% rule’ was used to obtain maximum velocity measurements
– the flow tracker accurately analyzes velocity at 60% of water depth.
Total nitrogen concentration was analyzed using the Persulfate Digestion Method 10070;
nitrate by the Cadmium Reduction Method 8039; and ammonia by the Salicylate Method 8155
29
(HACH Company, Loveland, CO). Total phosphorus was analyzed by the Acid Persulfate Digestion Method 8190 (HACH); and unfiltered and filtered orthophosphate was measured using the
Ascorbic Acid Method 8048 (HACH). A DR/2400 spectrophotometer (HACH) was used to analyze nutrient concentrations in milligrams per liter (mg/L). All methods are either approved or
equivalent to current US EPA standards (HACH; EPA Compliant Methods-EPA, no date).
1. 2.8.8 Data Analysis — Data were analyzed using Minitab® software on a Windowsbased PC. A normal probability plot was used to determine normal sampling distribution, which
was not met. From there, the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test was performed on all parameters to
determine significant differences among sampling locations. A multiple comparison analysis was
used to determine where a significant difference occurred, i.e., whether it was between two tributaries or a tributary and outfall. A Spearman rho correlation analysis was conducted to determine
whether nutrient levels had any correlation with any of the water quality parameters. All analyses
were nonparametric due to an abnormal sampling distribution that violates parametric requirements.
30
1.3 Literature Cited
Anderson, D., P. Glibert, and J. Burkholder. 2002 Harmful Algal Blooms and Eutrophication:
Nutrient Sources, Composition, and Consequences. Estuaries. 25 (4): Pp. 704-726.
<http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/Anderson_etal_2002_Estuaries_29903.pdf>. (Accessed 4 April
2015)
Barnard, A.R. 2004. Assessment of Escherichia coli in three Subwatersheds of the Upper White
River, IN. Master Thesis, Ball State University, Muncie, IN
Benton Franklin Health District. 2002. What are nitrates? At:
<http://www.bfhd.wa.gov/info/nitrate-nitrite.php>. (Accessed 3 Apr. 2014.)
Bernard N.T., B.C. Ruddy, K.J. Hitt, and D.R. Helsel. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014.
Nutrients National Synthesis Project. Washington, D.C. At:
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nutrients/pubs/wcp_v39_no12/ (Accessed 8 January 2015).
Blesh, J., and L.E. Drinkwater, 2013. The impact of nitrogen source and crop rotation on nitrogen mass balances in the Mississippi River Basin. Ecological Applications, 23(5): 1017 – 1035.
At: http://www.esajournals.org.proxy.bsu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1890/12-0132.1. (Accessed 13 April
2015).
Bundy L.G. 2004. Corn Fertilization. Madison WI. At:
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/pubs/A3340.pdf (Accessed 6 January, 2015).
Cappiella, K. and L.F. McNeal. Center for Watershed Protection. 2007. The Importance of Protecting Vulnerable Streams and Wetlands at the Local Level. Ellicott City, Minnesota. At:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved
=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northinlet.sc.edu%2Ftraining%2Fmedia%2Fresourc
es%2FArticle6%2520Importance%2520of%2520Protecting%2520Local%2520Level.pdf&ei=N
nmxVIzCLMiZyATczYKQCQ&usg=AFQjCNFw-GHHxwILx0bXhJ5erHcIGOttbw. (Accessed
22 April 2014).
Caskey, B., A.R. Bunch, M.E. Shoda, J.W. Frey, S. Selvaratnam, and R.J. Miltner. USGS. 2013.
Identifying Nutrient Reference Sites in Nutrient-Enriched Regions: Using Algal, Invertebrate,
and Fish-Community Measures to Identify Stressor-Breakpoint Thresholds in Indiana Rivers and
Streams, 2005–9. At: <http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5243/pdf/sir2012-5243_web.pdf>. (Accessed 23 March 2014).
Celi, D.E. 2008. Water Quality Assessment of Prairie Creek Reservoir in Delaware County, Indiana. MS thesis, Ball State University. Muncie, IN.
Chislock, M.F., E. Doster, R.A. Zitomer, and A.E. Wilson. Nature. 2013. Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge. At:
<http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/eutrophication-causes-consequences-andcontrols-in-aquatic-102364466>. (Accessed 10 January 2015).
31
Cescon, C.T. 1997. 1996 Population Dynamics of Microcrustacean Zooplankton at Prairie Creek
Reservoir in Delaware County, Indiana. Master Thesis, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Dodds W.K. and E.B. Welch. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Final Report for
The North American Benthological Society, 19(1):186–196. Manhattan, KS and Seattle, WA.
At: http://www.k-state.edu/doddslab/journalarts/dodds%20and%20welch%20jnabs%202000.pdf
(Accessed 5 January 2015).
Dodds, W.K. 2006. Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. American Society of
Limnology and Oceanography, Inc. 51(1 of 2): 671-680. At:
<http://aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_51/issue_1_part_2/0671.pdf>. (Accessed 23 April 2014).
Domaglski J.L. and H. Johnson. USGS. 2013. Phosphorus and Ground Water: Establishing Links
Between Agricultural Use and Transport to Streams. At: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3004/ (Accessed 6 January, 2015).
Dowling, C.W. 1998. Seed and Seedling Tolerance of Cereal, Oilseed, Fibre and Legume Crops
to Injury from Banded Ammonium Fertilizers. Master Thesis. Griffith University, New England.
<https://www120.secure.griffith.edu.au/rch/file/89b00f94-df2e-9c33-245c59fb0edfd97d/1/01front.pdf>. Accessed (5 May 2015).
Fetter C.W. 2001. Applied Hydrogeology. 4th ed, Pp. 444-445 Prentice Hall Inc. Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Fipps, G. Texas A&M Agrilife Extension. 2013. Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity
Management Strategies. College Station, Texas. At: <http://soiltesting.tamu.edu/publications/B1667.pdf> (Accessed 12 January 2014).
Foundation for Water Research (FWR). 2010. Lakes and reservoirs. Bickinghamshire, United
Kingdom. At: <http://www.euwfd.com/html/ lakes_and_reservoirs.html>. (Accessed 12 April
2014).
Government of New Brunswick (GNB). 2015. Environment and Local Government: The Importance of Lakes. Brunswick, Canada. At:
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/elg/environment/content/water/content/lakes/the
_importance_oflakes.html (Accessed 13 January 2015).
Goolsby, D. A. and W. A. Battaglin. USGS. 1995. Effects of episodic events on the transport of
nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico. in Proceedings of First Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Management
Conference, Dec. 5-6, Kenner, LA, p. 8. On-line at:
http://pelican.gmpo.gov/gulfweb/hypoxia/hypoxia.html#abstract15. (Accessed 30 April 2015).
Goward, K. J. 2004. Relationship of Nutrients and Pesticides to Landuse Characteristics in Three
Subwatersheds of the Upper White River, Indiana. MS thesis, Ball State University. Muncie, Indiana.
32
HACH. 2015. EPA Compliant Methods. Loveland, Colorado. At: <http://www.hach.com/epa>.
(Accessed 28 January 2015).
Hach Hydromet. 2011 HYDROLAB SERIES 5. At:
<http://www.hachhydromet.com/web/ott_hach.nsf/gfx/934AA14379EBFA4BC1257AB1005607
38/$file/Hydrolab%20Series%205%20Brochure.pdf>. (Accessed 16 Nov. 2013).
Haman, R.L. 1964. A General Ecological Study of Prairie Creek Reservoir. Master Thesis, Ball
State University, Muncie, IN.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). 2005. Eagle Creek Watershed
Management Plan: An Integrated Approach To Improved Water Quality. At:
<http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/wmp_eaglecreek _98-002.pdf>. (Accessed 30 April 2014).
IDEM. 2004. White River Watershed Project. Indianapolis, Indiana. At:
http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/wmp_whiteriver-upper-delaware_co_00-206t.pdf. (Accessed
2014 May 7).
Iowa State University (ISU). 2013. A General Guide for Crop Nutrient and Limestone Recommendations in Iowa. Ames, Iowa. At:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved
=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstore.extension.iastate.edu%2FProduct%2FA-GeneralGuide-for-Crop-Nutrient-and-Limestone-Recommendations-in-IowaPDF&ei=Bs5sVePpA9HOsQTI94H4AQ&usg=AFQjCNGdiLOZfPLT5Z42ZZmA0uN8w7EDg&bvm=bv.94455598,d.cWc (Accessed 6 January 2015).
Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI). No date. Water Quality. At:
http://www.cees.iupui.edu/education/Workshops/Project_Seam/water_quality.htm (Accessed 6
January 2015).
Jain, C.K., D.C. Singhal, and M.K. Sharma. 2007. Estimating nutrient loadings using chemical
mass balance approach. Springer. At: http://downloadv2.springer.com.proxy.bsu.edu/static/pdf/444/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10661-007-96305.pdf?tken2=exp=1428935703~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F444%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252
Fs10661-007-96305.pdf*~hmac=4ee82e83c7a7865dcde06d63366f77f5910ec88da7a7f3666a92e50bb49faabc. (Accessed 13 April 2015).
Killpack, S.C. and D. Bucsholz. 1993. Nitrogen Cycle. Columbia, MO. At:
<http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=WQ252>. (Accessed 3 April
2014).
33
Kroh, K. Climate Progress. 2014. West Virginia Declares State Of Emergency After Coal Chemical Contaminates Drinking Water. At: <http://thinkprogress.org/ climate/2014/01/10/3145221/west-virginia-emergency-coal-chemical-spill/>. (Accessed 14 Apr.
2014).
Lake Access. No date. Biological Differences.
http://www.lakeaccess.org/ecology/lakeecologyprim18.html. (Accessed 29 April 2015).
Mackenzie, R.A., A.M. Strauch. and C. Heider. 2011. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Climate Change and Pacific Island Water Resources Progress Report. Pacific Southwest
Research Station.
<http://www.wildlifeadaptationstrategy.gov/pdf/Inland_Water_Ecosystems_Paper.pdf>. (Accessed 29 April 2015).
Martin, J.D., C.G. Crawford, J.W. Frey. and G.A. Hodgkins. USGS. 1996. Water Quality Assessment of the White River Basin, Indiana: Analysis of Selected Information of Nutrients,
1980-92. Indianapolis, Indiana. At: <http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1996/4192/report.pdf>. (Accessed
23 March 2014).
Matheny, S.E. 2007. Nutrient Analysis of Sediment Interstitial Water of the Prairie Creek Reservoir, Indiana. MS thesis, Ball State University. Muncie, IN.
McIntosh, M.D., M.E. Benbow, and A.J. Burky. 2003. Effect of water removal on introduced
caddisflies from a tropical mountain stream. Annals Limnology. 39(4): 297-306.
Meyer, J. L., L.A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D.L. Strayer, C.J. Woltemade, J.B. Zedler, R. Beilfuss,
Q. Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M.C. Watzin, and P.H. Zedler. 2003. Where Rivers Are Born: The
Scientific Imperative for Defending Small Streams and Wetlands. American Rivers and Sierra
Club. At: <http://www.sierraclub.org/watersentinels/downloads/WhereRiversAreBorn.pdf>.
(Accessed 22 April 2014).
Miller, S.M, C.W. Sweet, J.V. Depinto, and K.C. Hornbuckle. 2000. Atrazine and Nutrients in
Precipitation: Results from the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study. Environmental Science and
Technology. 34(1) pg. 55 – 61. At:
http://pubs.acs.org.proxy.bsu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1021/es990486n. (Accessed 13 April 2015).
Mullins G. 2009. Phosphorus, Agriculture & The Environment. At:
https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/424/424-029/424-029_pdf.pdf (Accessed 6 January, 2015).
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NAPD). 2014. Annual NTN Maps by Year. At:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ntn/annualmapsByYear.aspx#2013. (Acccessed 23 April 2015).
North Carolina State University [NCSU] Water Quality Group. ND. Phosphorus. Raleigh, North
Carolina. At: <http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/phos.html>. (Accessed 27 Apr.
2014).
34
Raven P. H., G.B. Johnson, J.B. Losos, K.A. Mason, and S.R. Singer. 2008. Biology 8th ed.
McGraw Hill New York NY. Pp. 28, 41, 43-45, 55-56.
Redmond M., Dr. M. Schreiber, Z. Munger, and Dr. C. Carey. 2014. Release Potential and Mobility of Sediment Phosphorus in a Periodically Oxygenated Reservoir. At:
http://agroecology.fiu.edu/students/current-students/fccage-fiu/mariah-redmond/redmond-paper7-31-2014.pdf. (Accessed 6 January 2015).
Roysdon, K. 2012. Muncie extends Prairie Creek Reservoir lease for another 60 years.
TheStarPress. At: <http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20120301/NEWS01/
203010331/Muncie-extends-Prairie-Creek-Reservoir-lease-another-60-years>. (Accessed 18
April 2014).
Ohio History Central. 2013. Cuyahoga River Fire. At:
<http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire?rec=1642>. (Accessed 2 April
2014).
Ongley, E. D. Food and Agriculture of the United Kingdom (FAO). Corporate Document Repository. 1996. In Control of water pollution from agriculture: Chapter 4: Pesticides as water pollutants. Burlington, Canada At: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w2598e/w2598e07.htm (Accessed 12
January 2015).
Oram, B. 2014. Total Phosphorus and Phosphate Impact on Surface Waters. B.F. Environmental
Consultants Inc. At: <http://www.water-research.net/index.php/phosphate-in-water>. (Accessed
24 April 2014)
Oregon Department of Human Services. 2000. Ammonia. Portland, Oregon At:
<http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/DrinkingWater/Monitoring/Documents/h
ealth/ammonia.pdf>. (Accessed 19 September 2014).
Popovicova, J. 2009. Water quality assessment and ecoregional comparison of a reservoir in east
central Indiana. Lake and Reservoir Management. 25(2): 155-166.
Popovicova, J. 2008. Water Quality Assessment of Prairie Creek Reservoir in Delaware
County, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. 117(2): 124-135
Popovicova, J. 2006 Water Quality Assessment of the Prairie Creek Reservoir WRWP.
<http://www.whiteriverwatershedproject.org/
PC_master_plan_docs/Printable%20Versions/Appendix%20A%20(printable).pdf>. (18 April
2014).
Rawson, D. S. 1956. Algal Indicators of Tropic Lake Types. University of Saskatchewan. 1(1):
18-25 <http://m.tube.aslo.net/lo/toc/vol_1/issue_1/0018.pdf>. (10 January 2014).
35
Ridgeway, J., and M. Graniczny. British Geological Survey. No date. STREAMFLOW GEOINDICATORS AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY. Keyworth, England. At:
<http://www.lgt.lt/geoin/files/ Ridgway&Graniczny-Streamflowandsurfacewaterquality.pdf>.
(20 September 2014).
Schindler, D.W. 1974. Eutrophication and Recovery in Experimental Lakes: Implications for
Lake Management. In Science, New Series. 4139(184): 897-899.
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/
docs/cmnt081712/sldmwa/schindler1974.pdf>. (20 April 2014).
Søndergaard, M., J.P. Jensen, and E. Jeppesen. 2003. Role of sediment and internal loading of
phosphorus in shallow lakes. Final Report for Hydrobiologia Pp. 506-509.1-3: 135-145. Silkeborg, Denmark. At: http://www.wwwalker.net/pdf/sondergaard_2003.pdf (Accessed 6 January
2015).
Thelin, G. P., and W.W. Stone. 2013. Estimation of Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use for Counties of Conterminous United States, 1992-2009. Sacremento, CA. At:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5009/pdf/sir20135009.pdf (Accessed 12 January 2015).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Economic Research Service. 2014. Corn: Trade.
Washington, D.C. At: <http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/trade.aspx#.UWbCQ7UXw5> (Accessed 12 January 2015).
USDA. 2013. Irrigation and Water Use. Economic Research Service. Washington D.C. At:
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use.aspx> (Accessed 12 January 2015)
USDA. 2013. Soybean and Oil Crops: Trade. Economic Research Service. Washington D.C. At:
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-oil-crops/trade.aspx#US> (Accessed 12 January 2015)
USDA. 2002. Nitrification. Washington, D.C. At: 1
<http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/tcr/upload/nitrification.pdf>. (1 May 2014).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA. 2014). Basic Information about Nitrate in
Drinking Water At: <http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm>.
(Accessed 27 April 2014).
US EPA. 2014. History of the Clean Water Act. Washington, D. C. At:
<http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act>. (Accessed 26 June 2014).
US EPA. 2014. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads. Washington, D.C. At:
<http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/>. (6 May 2014)
US EPA. 2014. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results - U.S. Washington,
D.C. At: < http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control>. (Accessed 19 Apr. 2014).
36
US EPA. 2014. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results – Indiana.
Washington, D.C. At: <http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_state.report_control?p_state=
IN&p_cycle=2010&p_report_type=A>. (Accessed 19 April 2014).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Washington, D.C. At: <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/>. (16 April 2014).
US EPA. 2013. AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR AMMONIA
– FRESHWATER. At:
<http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/ammonia/upload/AQUATICLIFE-AMBIENT-WATER-QUALITY-CRITERIA-FOR-AMMONIA-FRESHWATER2013.pdf> (Accessed 9 January 2015).
US EPA. 2013. Cuyahoga River. At: <http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/aoc/ cuyahoga/>. (Accessed 26 June 2014).
US EPA. 2013. Drinking Water Contaminants At: <http://water.epa.gov/
drink/contaminants/index.cfm>. (Accessed 3 April 2014).
US EPA. 2013. Streams. Washington, D.C. At: <http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/streams.cfm>. (22
April 2014).
US EPA. 2013. Ag 101: Land Use Overview. Washington, D.C. At:
<http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/landuse.html> (Accessed 12 January 2014).
US EPA. 2013. Ag 101: Major Crops Grown in the United States. Washington, D.C. At:
<http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html> (Accessed 12 January 2015).
US EPA. 2012. Phosphorus. Washington, D.C. At:
<http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms56.cfm>. (Accessed 5 May 2014).
US EPA. 2012. Stream Flow. Washington, D.C. At: <http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/
vms51.cfm>. (Accessed 12 April 2014).
US EPA. 2012. Water Quality Standards History. Washington D.C.
<http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/history.cfm>. (Accessed 2 April 2014).
US EPA. 2010. Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Agricultural Fertilizer
Application to Prevent Contamination of Drinking Water. Washington, D.C. At:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/pubs/fs_swpp_fertilizer.pdf (Accessed 12 January
2015).
University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC). 2013. Phosphorus. Baltimore, MD. At:
http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/phosphorus (Accessed 5 January 2015).
37
United Marine Underwriters. 2015. Prairie Creek Reservoir. At. 17 Apr. 2014. LA Grange, Kentucky. At: <http://www.unitedmarine.net/lakebrowser/indiana/prairie_creek_reservoir.asp>. (28
January 2015).
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). 2014. CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title
21. Silver Spring, Minnesota. At:
<http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1301>. (10
January 2015).
US Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS). 2010. Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. At: <https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/
FWATRPO.HTML>. (Accessed 2 April 2014).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Environmental Health – Toxic Substances At:
<http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/eutrophication.html>. (Accessed 19 April 2014).
USGS. 2014. How Streamflow is measured. Washington, D.C.
<https://water.usgs.gov/edu/measureflow.html> (Accessed 17 April 2014).
USGS. 2014. Nitrogen and Water. Washington, D.C. At: < http://water.usgs.gov/edu/
nitrogen.html>. (Accessed 30 April 2014).
USGS. 2014. Phosphorus and Water. Washington, D.C.
<https://water.usgs.gov/edu/phosphorus.html>. (Accessed 5 May 2014).
USGS. 2014. Water properties: Dissolved oxygen. At:
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/dissolvedoxygen.html (Accessed 6 January 2015
Upper White River Watershed Alliance (UWRWA) 2011. Geist Reservoir/Upper Fall Creek Watershed Management Plan. At: <http://www.uwrwa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/
Geist_WMP_web-version-final.pdf>. (Accessed 30 April 2014).
Walker W. 1997. Mass-Balance Modeling. At:
<http://www.wwwalker.net/onondaga/mass_bal_1998.pdf>. (Accessed 10 April, 2015)
Ward, B.B. 1996. Nitrification and Denitrification: Probing the Nitrogen Cycle in Aquatic Environments. Pp 247-261. In Microbial Ecology. Springer, Verlag, New York. At:
<https://www.princeton.edu/nitrogen/publications/pdfs/Ward_1996_Probing.pdf>. (Accessed 7
January, 2015).
Wurt, W.A. 2003. Daily pH Cycle and Ammonia Toxicity. In World Aquaculture, 34 (2). Pp.
20-21. At: <http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/pH-Ammonia.htm>. (Accessed 9 January 2015).
38
Chapter 2: Technical Paper
A WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF FIVE MAJOR TRIBUTARIES AND OUTFALL WITHIN PRAIRIE CREEK WATERSHED IN DELAWARE COUNTY, INDIANA
ABSTRACT. Water quality in agricultural watersheds tends to be more significantly impacted
by nutrient loading than occurs for other watersheds. Eutrophication, often the consequence of
excess nutrient loading, can produce hazardous algal blooms, degrade water quality for public
use and for aquatic organisms, and impair various designated uses. The Prairie Creek Reservoir
watershed is an agricultural watershed in east-central Indiana. The reservoir functions as a secondary drinking water supply for Muncie, IN, and offers numerous recreational activities. The
reservoir is eutrophic and has five major tributaries that drain predominantly agricultural land.
There are no published data concerning water quality and nutrient loads from the tributaries to
the reservoir. The reported study assessed basic chemical parameters and established baseline
information to support future management decisions. Sampling and monitoring occurred weekly
from June through October 2014. USGS protocols were followed to obtain outfall/stream discharge data. Discharge, and ammonia and total P concentrations were significantly different (p =
0.05) among the tributaries; the outfall differed in terms of ammonia, particulate P, and total P
concentrations. Shave Tail Creek had greatest contributions to the watershed of total N (1692
kg/yr.) and total P (601 kg/yr.). Based on nutrient data, Carmichael Ditch had poorest water quality within the Prairie Creek watershed. Total N contribution of these sub-watersheds to the White
39
River is estimated to be < 1%. It is recommended that future best management practices (BMPs)
be implemented on multiple sub-watersheds in the region.
Keywords. — Eutrophication, nutrients, monitoring, streams, reservoir
INTRODUCTION
As of 2014 a total of 43% of all U.S. lakes and reservoirs were classified as impaired for
their designated uses; nutrients were listed as the primary factor, and agriculture as the primary
source of these impairments (US EPA, 2014). Commercial agricultural fertilizers inadvertently
promote biological productivity in water that drains agricultural lands. Fertilizers contribute
nearly 57,000 tons of total nitrogen to the White River in Indiana annually (Martin, 1996), and
nearly 90 percent of the total N and P loads from the Mississippi River Basin enter the Gulf of
Mexico every year (USGS, 1997). Runoff from livestock feedlots also contribute substantial N
and P to surface waters. Animal manures may contain 2 - 5% N and P, depending on the type of
livestock being raised. Confined feeding operations (CFOs), which raise poultry or swine contain
manure with greater N and P concentrations than do cattle operations. Such manures are often
applied to serve as a fertilizer material on agricultural fields; however, intensive land application
of manures must be carefully monitored. Excessive soil N and P concentrations can be carried to
surface runoff. Furthermore, soil-bound P may be lost via erosion (Domagalski et al., 2013;
Mullin, 2009).
Eutrophication of water bodies, the result of a continuous supply of nutrients entering a
body of water, restricts commercial and recreational uses of water sources, reduces drinking water quality due to poor taste and odor, increases sedimentation and algal blooms, lowers or depletes dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations needed by aquatic species, reduces property values,
40
and increases costs of water treatment for domestic consumption (Redmond et al., 2014; USGS
2014, 2013; Chislock et al., 2013; U.S. EPA, 2012, 2002; Søndergaard et al., 2003; Carpenter,
2005; Dodds and Welch, 2000; Walker, 1983).
Water quality in Indiana has degraded between 2002 and 2010; the US Environmental
Protection Agency (2015) observed that 86 and 63% of assessed lakes/reservoirs and
streams/rivers, respectively, support full body contact; however, only 81 and 79%, respectively,
support use for a public water supply. Ecoregion 55, which extends across east-central Ohio
through central Indiana, ranked among the worst water quality conditions and levels of eutrophication compared to any other Indiana ecoregion. The main sources of water quality degradation
were agricultural and industrial runoff (US EPA, 2014). In those areas most affected by nutrient
pollution, BMPs must be implemented to protect water quality (US EPA, 2010; 2006; 2002).
41
Table 2.1. — Tributary sub-watershed characteristics of Prairie Creek Reservoir, IN.
Location
Stream Length
(ft.)
Drainage Area
(acres)
Land Use
Percentage of Land
Use
Outfall
6,133
n/a
n/a
n/a
Carmichael
Ditch
9,348
1,277.4
Agriculture
49%
Commercial
46%
Residential
5%
Agriculture
53%
Residential
41%
Commercial
6%
Agriculture
72%
Commercial
16%
Residential
12%
Agriculture
98%
Residential
2%
Agriculture
100%
Shave Tail
Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
24,633
17,506
7,879
7,694
1,975.2
1892.9
399.9
768
42
In Delaware County, Indiana, Prairie Creek Reservoir serves as a secondary source of
drinking water for the City of Muncie and provides recreational activities such as boating, fishing, and camping. The reservoir and its surrounding riparian land are owned by the IndianaAmerican Water Company that leases it for recreational purposes to the Muncie Department of
Parks and Recreation (Delaware Commission, 2007; Cescon, 1997). The Delaware MuncieMetropolitan Commission developed a Prairie Creek Reservoir Master Plan to address future
land development within the watershed, enhance park and reservoir value, and protect water
quality (Popovičová 2008; Delaware Commission 2007). In 2012, the City of Muncie renewed
the reservoir lease for 100 years (Dick, 2012).
The reservoir is significantly affected by agricultural land use and has shown signs of
degradation (Popovičová, 2008; Delaware Commission, 2007). Recent studies (Popovičová,
2009; Celi 2008; Goward, 2004; Cescon, 1997) have recorded obvious signs of eutrophication
and reduction in DO levels during summer.
43
Figure 2.1. Sampling locations and tributary sub-watersheds in the Prairie Creek
Watershed.
44
To prevent further degradation of reservoir water quality, long-term monitoring and implementation of BMPs must be performed within the watershed to reduce non-point source pollution (IDEM, 2004). Previous studies, however, have not conducted monitoring and assessment
of reservoir tributaries, which is essential for the implementation of BMPs. Analysis of reservoir
tributaries and the reservoir outfall for nitrate, ammonia, total N, particulate P and total P, and
chemical parameters such as temperature and DO levels can aid in implementing future land
management practices to safeguard reservoir water quality.
The reported study is the first to investigate water quality for all five tributaries of the
Prairie Creek Reservoir watershed. The objective was to measure and compile current data regarding water quality of the major tributaries in order to support future management decisions.
Specific objectives were to: (1) determine water quality of the tributaries and acquire baseline
data; (2) determine nutrient loads for each tributary; and (3) determine spatial differences, if any,
for nutrient concentrations among the tributaries.
45
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Study location. — Prairie Creek Watershed, located in Delaware County, Indiana, is
classified as gently rolling and contains small lakes, prairie pothole lakes, and wetlands. The watershed is composed mainly of Crosby and Miamian soil series; both soil series have poor drainage. The watershed is dominated by agricultural land use (72%), green space (18%), and residential (6%) (IDEM, 2004). The reservoir has five major tributaries, i.e., Carmichael Ditch, Shave
Tail Creek, James Huffman Ditch, Cemetery Run, and Cecil Ditch, draining 17 mi2 of New Castle Till Plains (Table 2.1; Figure 2.1) (Popovičová, 2008; IDEM, 2004). These streams obtain
water primarily from groundwater sources and precipitation. Riparian zones are dominated by
woody to grassy vegetation. Stream bottoms consist primarily of a silt to gravel substrate; silty
bottoms were located in multiple tributaries suggesting bank erosion with streams acting as
sinks.
Sampling and analysis. — Weekly sampling and monitoring was performed at each
tributary and outfall from June through October 2014 (Fig. 2.1). A SONTEK Flow Tracker
(SONTEK, San Diego, CA) measured discharge of each stream using US Geological Survey
protocols (USGS, 2013). A Hydrolab DS5 Sonde (Hydrolab Inc., Austin, TX) was used to measure pH, temperature, DO, and turbidity in-situ. Water samples for nutrient determination were
collected from the center of each tributary using a grab sample technique. Samples were collected in acid-washed glass containers, transported on ice and analyzed within 24 h of collection.
Samples were analyzed for nitrate using the Cadmium Reduction Method 8039; ammonia by the
Ammonia Salicylate Method 8155; total N by the Persulfate Digestion Method 10070; particulate and soluble orthophosphate by the Ascorbic Acid Method 8048 (Reactive Phos Ver3); and
total P by the Acid Persulfate Digestion Method (Hach, 2015). A Hach DR/2400 Spectropho46
tometer (Hach, Inc., Loveland, CO) was used to determine concentrations of each analyte. One
field duplicate, one lab blank, a field blank, and a laboratory fortified blank with deionized water
were used to verify precision and accuracy of analytical procedures for each sampling event.
All statistical analyses were performed using Minitab® 16.2.4 statistical software
(Minitab Inc., State College, PA) on a Windows-based PC. The effects of location (fixed factors)
for each water quality parameter (dependent variable) were determined by the use of nonparametric statistics including Spearman’s rho, Kruskal-Wallis, and multiple comparisons analysis.
The level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
Ranking Tributaries. —A stream quality ranking system was established based on mean concentration of nutrient parameters, with scores from 1 (best) to 6 (worst). The final ranking was
determined by adding the scores for each nutrient parameter; that tributary having the highest
total value was designated as the poorest quality tributary.
47
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Discharge. — The greatest discharge was measured at the outfall (6.89 ft3/s) (Table 2.2).
The Indiana-American Water Company controls the release of water at this location. Discharge
varied throughout the sampling period, from 0.42 to 6.89 ft3/sec. It is expected that ground water
and precipitation contribute to all tributaries due to the high water table in this watershed (NRCS,
2013). Shave Tail Creek had the highest discharge rate compared to the other tributaries (1.58
ft3/sec) (Table 2.2). Carmichael Ditch had the second highest discharge (1.15 ft3/sec) (Table 2.2),
and Cemetery Run had the lowest (0.36 ft3/sec). It was observed that the latter stream experienced reservoir backflow.
48
Table 2.2. — Discharge (CFS) measured at Prairie Creek Reservoir tributaries in 2014 (June to
October).
Location
n
Mean
St. Dev.
Min.
Max.
Outfall
13
6.89
15.47
0.03
56.65
Carmichael Ditch+
18
1.15
1.11
0.05
4.2
Shave Tail+ Creek
8
1.58
0.88
1.11
3.74
Huffman Ditch
18
0.66
0.76
0.16
3.2
Cemetery Run+
17
0.36
0.3
-0.1
0.96
Cecil Ditch+
17
0.42
0.46
0.15
1.9
+ = Significant difference at p < 0.05.
49
Discharge results were affected by rainfall events throughout the study period (Purdue
University, 2015). Rainfall for the sampling period was within the second quartile for 1994 –
2014 (NWS, 2014). June was the only month that had a higher mean precipitation (0.23 in.) than
average for 1994 – 2014 (0.16 in.). It was expected that nutrient concentrations were lower due
to higher discharge rates for this month. July and September mean precipitation for 2014 was
0.10 and 0.08 in, respectively, and was slightly less than mean precipitation for 1994 – 2014
(0.12 and 0.11 in., respectively) and nutrient concentrations were expected to be higher than
normal concentrations (NWS, 2014).
Chemical Characteristics. —The reservoir outfall had the highest mean temperature
(19.9oC) followed by Cemetery Run (17.2oC); the high temperature at the outfall was likely due
to the reservoir was exposed to direct sunlight (Table 2.3). Specific conductivity at the outfall
was lowest compared to all tributaries (324.4 uS/cm) (Table 2.3); the highest value (777.1
uS/cm) was measured at Cecil Ditch. This tributary, incidentally, had relatively high nitrate concentrations.
The outfall had the highest pH (7.6) and DO concentrations (5.69 mg/L). The high DO
concentration may be a result of agitation and subsequent aeration of water discharging directly
from the reservoir. pH and DO concentrations for this location were lower than those measured
by Goward (2004) (7.97 and 9.06 mg/L, respectively). The lower pH and DO concentration
measured in 2014 are attributed to decomposition of organic matter that had increased CO2 concentration within the reservoir (Cooke et al., 2005; Jørgensen et al., 2005).
50
Table 2.3. – Chemical parameters measured at Prairie Creek Reservoir tributaries in 2014 (June through October, 2014).
Parameter
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch Shave Tail Creek Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
pH
7.63 ± 0.53
6.68 ± 0.26
7.16 ± 0.34
7.42 ± 0.26
7.46 ± 0.33
7.12 ± 0.41
n
9
9
9
9
9
9
Median
7.53
6.69
7.22
7.47
7.51
7.23
Range
7.0 - 8.4
6.16 – 7.0
6.55 - 7.7
6.8 - 7.8
6.93 - 8.1
6.22 - 7.60
DO (mg/L)
5.69 ± 3.66
3.23 ± 2.54*
2.48 ± 2.36*
2.94 ± 1.66*
3.53 ± 3.21*
2.69 ± 2.34*
n
9
9
9
9
9
9
Median
5.85
3.17
2.92
3.08
3.64
2.45
Range
0 - 11.22
0 - 6.65
0 - 5.91
0 - 5.23
0 - 10.98
0 - 5.55
Turbidity (NTU)
21.73 ± 12.67
28.28 ± 10.78
20.42 ± 7.4
38.24 ± 44.07
24.39 ± 8.14
20.32 ± 5.71
n
6
7
6
7
7
6
Median
16.35
24.7
22
19.3
28.4
19.2
Range
14.8 - 47.2
18.6 - 49.9
10.5 - 29.7
8.6 - 135.2
8 - 30.3
13.6 - 30
51
Table 2.3. – Continued.
Parameter
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch Shave Tail Creek Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
Temperature (oC)
19.92 ± 5.29
15.87 ± 3.95
15.73 ± 4.14
16.31 ± 3.19
17.24 ± 5.33
16.12 ± 4.49
n
9
9
9
9
9
9
Median
20.23
16.73
17.92
17.43
18.25
17.18
Range
12.1 - 25.85
10.07 - 20.96
9.8 - 20.12
10.22 - 19.25
8.81 - 25.74
9.37 - 21.29
Specific Conductivity
(uS/cm)
324.4 ± 132.6
687.1 ± 116.5
647.4 ± 75.9
665.7 ± 60.0
577.8 ± 162.9
777.1 ± 32.2
n
8
9
8
9
8
7
Median
349.5
690.6
667.3
670.5
643.8
780.8
Range
0.1 - 471.9
410.2 - 814.9
460.8 - 685.5
532.6 - 766.5
339.5 - 754.9
738.7 - 833.6
* = Concentrations are below Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) Standards.
52
Table 2.4. —Nutrient concentrations for Prairie Creek Reservoir tributaries in 2014 (June through October, 2014).
Parameters (mg/L)
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch Shave Tail Creek Huffman Ditch Cemetery Run
Nitrate
0.45 +/- 0.21
1.15 +/- 1.11
0.67 +/- 0.43
1.07 +/- 0.8
0.58 +/- 0.32
1.02 +/- 0.76
n=
15
15
15
15
4
15
Median
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.55
0.9
Range
0.2 - 0.9
0 - 4.2
0.2 - 1.6
0.2 - 3.2
0.1 - 1.4
0 - 2.7
Ammonia
0.04 +/- 0.05
0.05 +/- 0.02
0.04 +/- 0.06
0.01 +/- 0.02
0.02 +/- 0.02
0.04 +/- 0.03
n=
17
17
17
17
17
17
Median
0.03
0.05
0.02
0
0.03
0.03
Range
0 - 0.14
0 - 0.24
0 - 0.08
0.07
0 - 0.1
Total N
0.66 +/- 0.84
1.61 +/- 1.5
1.2 +/- 1.33
1.44 +/- 1.3
0.68 +/- 1.04
1.55 +/- 1.81
n=
15
15
15
15
14
15
Median
0.2
1.3
0.9
1
0.2
0.9
Range
0 - 2.3
0 - 4.7
0 - 4.4
0-4
0 - 3.6
0 - 5.4
0 - 0.07
53
Cecil Ditch
Table 2.4. — Continue.
Parameters (mg/L)
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch Shave Tail Creek Huffman Ditch Cemetery Run
Particulate P
0.01 +/- 0.02
0.03 +/- 0.06
0.01 +/- 0.02
0.02 +/- 0.04
0.00 +/- 0.00
0.01 +/- 0.00
n=
18
18
18
18
18
17
Median
0
0
0
0
0
0
Range
0 - 0.12
0 – 0.15
0 - 0.05
0 - 0.14
0 - 0.01
0 - 0.05
Total P
0.04 +/- 0.06
0.09 +/- 0.09
0.13 +/- 0.15
0.09 +/- 0.08
0.06 +/- 0.07
0.04 +/- 0.05
n=
18
18
18
18
18
18
Median
0
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.01
Range
0 - 0.19
0 - 0.28
0 - 0.60
0 - 0.22
0 - 0.22
0 - 0.16
54
Cecil Ditch
Carmichael Ditch had lowest pH (6.68) and second-highest specific conductivity (687.1
uS/cm), possibly a result of algal productivity and decomposition, and mineralization of detritus;
this was also evident for Cecil Ditch that had highest specific conductivity (780.8 uS/cm) (Table
2.3) (Matheny, 2007; Cooke et al., 2005; Jørgensen et al. 2005). Fertilizer runoff likely contributed to high conductivity readings.
Water pH and DO concentrations at all locations were lower than those for the Geist Reservoir Watershed in Indianapolis (8.5 mg/L and 7.9 respectively), Buck Creek Watershed (9.85
mg/L and 7.6 respectively), and Killbuck Creek Watershed (7.72 mg/L and 7.2 respectively)
(UWRWA, 2011; Goward, 2004). Huffman Ditch had the highest turbidity readings for all Prairie Creek Reservoir tributaries (38.2 NTU); this level was higher than that of the Honey Creek
Watershed located east of Middletown (36.8 NTU) and lower than concentrations found in
Thorpe Creek Watershed located northeast of McCordsville (43.4 NTU) (UWRWA, 2011). Cecil
Ditch had the lowest turbidity (20.3 NTU), which was lower than that of Geist Reservoir Watershed (28.9 NTU); however, these concentrations were higher than those of Foster Branch Watershed located northwest of Pendleton (15.9 NTU) (UWRWA, 2011).
Nutrient Concentrations. — Carmichael Ditch had the highest concentrations of total N
(1.61 mg/L), nitrate (1.15 mg/L), and ammonia (0.05 mg/L) (Table 2.3); however, ammonia and
nitrate concentrations for the sub-watershed (0.095 and 1.4 mg/L, respectively) were lower than
concentrations measured a decade earlier (Goward, 2004). Nitrate + nitrite concentrations increased between 2004 – 2011 (1.4 mg/L) (UWRWA, 2011) and again from 2011 - 2014 (Table
2.4).
Cecil Ditch had the highest mean concentrations of nitrite (0.78 mg/L) followed by Shave
Tail Creek (0.68 mg/L). Atmospheric deposition via precipitation was found to contribute 0.8
55
mg/L of nitrate to the local watershed (NAPD, 2014). Concentrations for nitrate at multiple
sampling locations were < 0.8 mg/L in the outfall, Shave Tail Creek, and Cemetery Run (Table
2.4). Nitrite concentrations were highest during warm summer months, generated in stream
channels with sediments such as silt, or from nitrate-rich groundwater that discharges to the surface; alternatively, nitrites may be formed via denitrification (USGS, 2011; 2009).
According to the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), concentrations of N species were
within acceptable limits; however, the presence of dense algal growth in Carmichael Ditch suggested that IAC limits may be too high. Leaching from surface soil, use of tile drains, bank erosion, and stormwater runoff may have contributed to elevated N and P concentrations (Domagalski et al., 2013; Mullin, 2009).
Shave Tail Creek had the highest total P concentration (0.13 mg/L), which may be caused
by fertilizer runoff, soil erosion, and agitation of the stream bed by cattle (Goward, 2004). This
sub-watershed consisted largely of agricultural fields (88%). Multiple tributaries had similar total
P concentrations compared to 2011 data (0.06 mg/L) (UWRWA, 2011). Soluble orthophosphate
concentration was highest at Shave Tail Creek (0.1 mg/L) and particulate P was highest at
Carmichael Ditch (0.03 mg/L) (Table 2.3).
56
Figure 2.2. Concentrations for N species in the five tributaries and outfall.
‘+’ indicates a significant difference among paired tributaries.
57
Total nitrogen concentrations for tributaries and outfall
0.7
Concentrations (mg/L)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
tfa
Ou
ll
r
Ca
m
ae
ich
i tc
lD
h
e
av
h
S
T
re
lC
i
a
ek
ffm
Hu
an
h
tc
Di
Figure 2.2. Continued.
58
m
Ce
y
er
et
n
Ru
C
h
itc
D
il
ec
Figure 2.3. Concentrations of phosphorus species.
‘+’ and ‘++’ indicates significant differences among paired tributaries and “*” is for outliers.
59
Figure 2.3. Continued.
60
Table 2.4. —Nutrient loads for each sampling location in Prairie Creek watershed (kg/yr).
Nutrients
Carmichael
Ditch
Shave Tail
Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery
Run
Cecil Ditch
Outfall
Tributary
Sum Total
Total nitrogen
940
1692
849
212
575
4056
4267
Total
phosphorus
163
601
167
72
44
709
1046
61
Comparison of Tributary Properties and Indiana Watersheds. — Shave Tail Creek
had significantly (p < 0.05) higher discharge, and total P, and NH3 concentrations compared to
Carmichael Ditch, Cemetery Run, and Cecil Ditch (Table 2.2; Fig. 2.2). Total P concentrations
significantly differed between Carmichael Ditch-Cecil Ditch, and Shave Tail Creek-Cemetery
Run and Cecil Ditch (p = 0.01) (Fig. 2.2). Ammonia-N concentrations were significantly different between Carmichael Ditch and Huffman Ditch (p = 0.02) (Fig. 2.2); however, ammonia
comprises only a fraction of total N, which did not significantly differ throughout the watershed
(p = 0.13) (Fig. 2.2).
Prairie Creek Reservoir Watershed had lower concentrations of ammonia and nitrate
(0.05 and 1.15 mg/L) (Table 2.4) compared to Buck Creek (0.07 and 2.3 mg/L respectively) and
Killbuck Creek (0.14 and 2.4 mg/L respectively) Watersheds (Goward, 2004). Likewise, PCRW
tributaries had lower concentrations of nitrate + nitrite compared to the Geist Watershed (8.84
mg/L) (UWRWA, 2011). Soluble orthophosphate concentrations measured 0.08 mg/L each for
Carmichael Ditch, Huffman Ditch, and Cecil Ditch in Prairie Creek Reservoir Watershed, which
was twice the values of the nearby Buck Creek (0.04 mg/L) but an order of magnitude less than
Killbuck Creek (0.75 mg/L) (Goward, 2004). Geist Watershed had higher concentrations of total
P (0.2 mg/L) compared to all sub-watersheds in PCRW (Fig. 2.4) (UWRWA, 2011).
The PCRW was less developed compared to Buck Creek, Killbuck Creek, and Geist Reservoir watersheds — residential use comprised 15.4, 12.9, and 16.5 %, respectively, compared to
6 % for PCRW (Goward, 2004; UWRWA 2011). Agricultural land use predominated in the
PCRW (72%) (Goward, 2004; UWRWA, 2011). PCRW has the highest percentage of green
space (19%) compared to the other watersheds (Buck Creek, 13%; Killbuck Creek, 7%; and
62
Geist, 9%). This may account for PCRW having better water quality than the other watersheds
(UWRWA, 2011; Goward, 2004).
63
Table 2.5. —Ranking of tributaries and outfall based on parameter results.
Parameters
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
Nitrate
1
6
3
5
2
4
Ammonia
3
6
3
1
2
3
Total N
1
6
3
4
2
5
Particulate P
1
6
4
5
2
2
Total P
1
3
6
5
3
2
Total:
7
27
19
20
11
16
Rank
1
6
4
5
2
3
64
Correlations and Nutrient Loads. — Concentrations of nitrate-N were strongly correlated with discharge at Carmichael Ditch (r = 0.77). Total P had a moderately positive correlation with discharge at Carmichael Ditch (r = 0.66). Huffman Ditch had a moderate positive correlation for discharge and total P (r = 0.63). These correlations were expected, as nitrate-N is
highly soluble in water; furthermore, particulate concentrations often increase in water when discharge increases.
The outfall had a moderately negative correlation with ammonia concentration and pH (r
= - 0.63) and a strong negative correlation with DO level (r = -0.83). This suggested that the
dominant form of ammonia was ammonium (NH4+). Carmichael Ditch had a strongly negative
correlation between ammonia and DO (r = - 0.75) which may have been caused by denitrification and respiration of algae throughout the sampling period (Cooke et al., 2005; Jørgensen et al.,
2005). The outfall had a strongly positive correlation (r = 0.88) and Huffman Ditch a moderately
positive correlation (r = 0.61) for pH and discharge. Higher rates of discharge could incorporate
greater quantities of DO, have reduced concentrations of CO2, and increased pH levels and nutrient concentrations within the tributaries (Araoye, 2009). Higher discharge rates were capable of
carrying greater quantities of particulates and ions, which resulted in a positive correlation between turbidity and specific conductivity.
Comparing the sum total nutrient loads for the tributaries to the outfall, it is evident that
Prairie Creek Reservoir is becoming more eutrophic due to influx of total N and P from the watershed (Table 2.6). This study did not establish a water budget for the watershed and cannot determine an accurate mass balance for the reservoir (Fetter, 2001; Walker, 1999); however, it is
possible that the reservoir is acting as a nutrient sink for the watershed. The eutrophication of the
reservoir could impair aquatic biodiversity and drinking water quality for Muncie.
65
The tributary that contributed the greatest annual nutrient loads was Shave Tail Creek (total N = 1692 kg/yr. and total P = 601 kg/yr.). It was recommended that BMPs be implemented in
this sub-watershed (Table 2.4).
Prairie Creek Reservoir Watershed contributes < 1% of the total nutrient load within the
White River Basin (Martin, 1996). However, data obtained for the White River dates to 1995 and
it was likely that nutrient loads have changed since then.
Ranking Tributaries and Best Management Practices. — Carmichael Ditch was
ranked the worst tributary within the watershed. This suggests that Carmichael Ditch obtained
the greatest concentrations of nutrients compared to any other tributary. This effect was possibly
due to more agricultural activities occurring in the sub-watershed, or fewer management practices implemented for this sub-watershed that allowed runoff and erosion of agricultural fertilizers
to enter the ditch. BMPs that should be implemented in this sub-watershed include soil analysis
pre-planting to determine soil N and P concentrations. This would allow for accurate determination of fertilizer application rates (Hartz, 2009; 2006). Another suggested BMP was to use a N
fertilization template; monitoring N in soil could provide a basis for determining fertilizer application rates for a specific crop (Hartz, 2006).
Given watershed data, a drip irrigation system was suggested to provide optimal results,
i.e., uniform application of nutrients throughout the growing season (Hartz, 2009; 2006). The use
of cover crops could reduce nutrient loss from soils by rotating shallow-rooted crops with deeprooted crops, which would allow nitrates to re-concentrate in shallower soils (Smuckler et al.,
2012; Hartz, 2006). To increase irrigation efficiency, it could be wise to implement a catchment
pond constructed with a pump to recycle runoff onto fields, as another option (Smukler et al.,
2012). The installation of vegetative buffer strips and constructed wetlands could possibly be the
66
best option for future land management practices due to current bank instability, and having the
capability to filter sediment/nutrients from entering the stream (DNR, 2007; US EPA, 2006).
EPA (2006) recommended at least a 100-foot buffer strip to efficiently remove 50% of the
nutrients that may enter a stream. For a buffer strip to be efficient, EPA (2006) advised an increase of at least 2 ft. of buffer width per 1% slope increase.
67
LITERATURE CITED
Araoye, P. A. 2009. Seasonal variation of pH and Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Asa Lake
Llorin, Nigeria. International Journal of Physical Sciences. 4(5): 271 - 274.
http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380621785_Araoye.pdf. (Accessed 28 April
2015).
Carpenter, S. R. 2005. Eutrophication of Aquatic Ecosystems: Bistability and Soil Phosphorus.
PNAS, 102(29): 10002-10005. Madison Wisconsin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1177388/pdf/pnas-0503959102.pdf
Celi, D. E. 2008. Water Quality Assessment of Prairie Creek Reservoir in Delaware County, Indiana. MS thesis, Ball State University. Muncie, IN.
Chislock, M. F., E. Doster, R. A. Zitomer, and A. E. Wilson. 2013. Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences, and Controls in Aquatic Ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4): 10.
<http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/eutrophication-causes-consequences-andcontrols-in-aquatic-102364466>.
Cooke, G. D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson, and P.R. Newroth. 2005. Restoration and management
of lakes and reservoirs 3rd ed. Pp. 606. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Fl.
Delaware Muncie-Metropolitan Plan Commision. 2007. Prairie Creek Reservoir Master Plan.
<http://157.91.22.196/watershed/PC_master_plan_docs/Printable%20Versions/Prairie%20Creek
%20Master%20Plan%20%28printable%29.pdf>. (Accessed 23 February, 2015)
Dick, Gerry. 2012. Muncie Renews Reservoir Lease. Inside Indiana Business.
<https://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=52466>. (Accesed 23 February,
2015)
Dodds W.K. and E. B. Welch. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Final Report for
The North American Benthological Society, 19(1): 186–196. Manhattan, KS; and Seattle, WA.
<http://www.k-state.edu/doddslab/journalarts/dodds%20and%20welch%20jnabs%202000.pdf>
Domaglski J. L. and H. Johnson. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. Phosphorus and Ground
Water: Establishing Links Between Agricultural Use and Transport to Streams. At:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3004/ (Accessed 6 January, 2015).
Fetter C. W. 2001. Applied Hydrogeology. 4th ed. Pp. 444-445 Prentice Hall Inc. Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Goward, K. J. 2004. Relationship of Nutrients and Pesticides to Landuse Characteristics in Three
Subwatersheds of the Upper White River, Indiana. MS thesis, Ball State University. Muncie, IN.
68
Hargreaves, J. A. and C. S. Tucker. 2004. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Managing
Ammonia in Fish Ponds. < http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/ManagingAmmonia.pdf>. (Accessed
2015 February 20).
Hartz T.K. and R.F. Smith 2009. Controlled-release Fertilizer for Vegetable Production: The
California Experience: HortTechnology 2022 (19). 20-22.
<http://horttech.ashspublications.org/content/19/1/20.full>. Accessed (13 April 2015).
Hartz, T.K. 2006. Vegetable Production Best Management Practices to Minimize Nutrient Loss:
HortTechnology 16(3): 398-403
IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 2004. White River Watershed Project. Indianapolis, Indiana. < http://www.in.gov/idem/nps/files/wmp_whiteriver-upperdelaware_co_00-206t.pdf.> (Accessed 2014 May 7).
Jørgensen, S., Loffler, H., Rast, W., and M. Straskraba. 2005. Lake and reservoir Management.
Vol. 54, Developments in Water Science, Elsevier Publishers. Pp. 502. Amsterdam.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007. Vegetation Buffer Strips in Agricultural Areas. <http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=
0CCsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.dnr.state.mn.us%2Fpublications%2Fwaters%2Fbuffer
_strips.pdf&ei=SFz2VOW1NsyrgwTUyIHIAw&usg=AFQjCNFKDh-o9g288b54d3BZR8065
g3fg&bvm=bv.87269000,d.eXY> (Accessed 3 March 2015).
Matheny, S. E. 2007. Nutrient Analysis of Sediment Interstitial Water of the Prairie Creek Reservoir, Indiana. MS thesis, Ball State University. Muncie, IN.
Mullins G. 2009. Phosphorus, Agriculture & The Environment. At:
https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/424/424-029/424-029_pdf.pdf (Accessed 6 January, 2015).
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NAPD). 2014. Annual NTN Maps by Year. At:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/ntn/annualmapsByYear.aspx#2013. (Acccessed 23 April 2015).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Web Soil Survey. Washington D.C.
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (Accessed 13 April 2015).
National Weather Service (NWS). 2014. NOWData – NOAA Online Weather Data. Indianapolis, IN. < http://www.weather.gov/climate/xmacis.php?wfo=ind> (Accessed 6 April 2015).
Oram, B. 2014. Ammonia in Groundwater, Runoff, and Streams. Water Research Watershed
Center. Dallas, PA. http://www.water-research.net/index.php/ammonia-in-groundwater-runoffand-streams. (Accessed 28 April 2015).
Popovicova, J. 2008. Water Quality Assessment of Prairie Creek Reservoir in Delaware
County, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science. 117(2): 124-135
69
Popovicova, J. 2006. Water Quality Assessment of the Prairie Creek Reservoir WRWP.
<http://www.whiteriverwatershedproject.org/
PC_master_plan_docs/Printable%20Versions/Appendix%20A%20(printable).pdf>. (18 April
2014).
Purdue Agriculture. 2015. National Weather Service Data. West Lafayette, IN.
<https://ag.purdue.edu/arp/pac/Pages/DPAC-Weather-Service-Station-Data.aspx> (Accessed
April 7, 2015).
Redmond M., Dr. M. Schreiber, Z. Munger., and Dr. C Carey. 2014. Release Potential and Mobility of Sediment Phosphorus in a Periodically Oxygenated Reservoir.
<http://agroecology.fiu.edu/students/current-students/fccage-fiu/mariah-redmond/redmondpaper-7-31-2014.pdf>
Smukler S.M., A.T. O’Green, and L.E. Jackson. 2012. Assessment of best management practices
for nutrient cycling: A case study on an organic farm in a Mediterranean-type climate: Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 67(1): 16-31.
Søndergaard, M., J. P. Jensen, and E. Jeppesen. 2003. Role of sediment and internal loading of
phosphorus in shallow lakes. Final Report for Hydrobiologia, 506-509: 135-145. Silkeborg,
Denmark. <http://www.wwwalker.net/pdf/sondergaard_2003.pdf>
Upper White River Watershed (UWRWA). 2011. Geist Reservoir/Upper Fall Creek Watershed
Management Plan. http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/fwGeist_Reservoir_Upper_Fall_Creek_Wtrshd_Mgmt_Plan_Del_Ham_Han_Hen_Mad_Mar_Coun
ties_Feb_2011.pdf. (Accessed 28 April 2015).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2012a. 5.5 Turbidity. Washington D.C.
http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm
US EPA. 2012b. Phosphorus. Washington, D.C.
<http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms56.cfm>.
US EPA. 2002a. Nitrification. Washington, D.C.
<http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/tcr/upload/nitrification.pdf>.
US EPA. 2002b. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results – U.S. Washington,
D.C. <http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_state.report_control?p_state=IN&p_cycle2002&p_report_type=A>.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Report as of FY2008 for 2008WI191B: “Occurrence and
Generation of Nitrite in Ground and Surface Waters in an Agricultural Watershed”. Washington,
D.C. http://water.usgs.gov/wrri/08grants/progress/2008WI191B.pdf > (Accessed 5 May 2015).
Walker, W.W. Jr. 1983. Significance of Eutrophication in Water Supply Reservoirs. Journal of
American Water Works Association: 38-42. <http://h2o.wwwalker.net/pdf/awwa.pdf>.
70
Walker W. 1997. Mass-Balance Modeling. At:
<http://www.wwalker.net/onondaga/mass_bal_1998.pdf>. (Accessed 10 April, 2015).
Ward, B. B. 1996. Nitrification and Denitrification: Probing the Nitrogen Cycle in Aquatic Environments. Pp 247-261. In Microbial Ecology. Springer, Verlag, New York.
<https://www.princeton.edu/nitrogen/publications/pdfs/Ward_1996_Probing.pdf>. (Accessed 7
January, 2015)
71
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
This thesis was the first to analyze water quality and nutrient loading of the five major
tributaries of Prairie Creek Reservoir in order to determine the potential impact of each
sub-watershed. This study assisted in identifying which BMPs should be implemented to improve water quality throughout the watershed to the reservoir. Based upon the reported results, it
is considered particularly important to implement intensive practices on Shave Tail Creek, as it
had the greatest nutrient loads; however, Carmichael Ditch should also be subject to BMPs due
to having the highest nutrient concentrations compared to the other tributaries. It was expected
that nutrient concentrations in these two sub-watersheds may be have been contributed by extensive agricultural activities drained via tile drainage, septic system failures, and bank erosion/instability due to the removal of riparian zones. Cecil Ditch had the highest specific conductivity and further research is needed to determine its source(s). It is unknown whether the high
conductivity may have arisen from dissolved ions from nutrients, the presence of dissolved metals due to groundwater recharge, contamination of brine due to oil rigs (which occur nearby), or
contamination caused by surface water runoff from Highway 35.
To limit degradation of water quality, it will be necessary to determine the precise
sources of pollution within each sub-watershed to better understand what management practices
are need to be implemented. Such an analysis was not conducted during this study. However,
72
analyzing the confluences of each tributary can aid in identifying certain areas within the tributary sub-watersheds that contribute the largest nutrient concentrations so that BMPs can be better
utilized. It is also important to conduct an analysis of Cecil Ditch to determine sources causing
high specific conductivity levels.
One suggested BMP involves using manure from selected livestock animals, e.g., cattle,
as fertilizer; cattle can better metabolize N and P compared to poultry or swine thus reducing the
amounts of nutrients lost via leaching and runoff from agricultural fields (Mullin, 2009). It is essential, however, that livestock and their manures be managed properly so as not to contribute to
local water pollution. For example, access of livestock to water bodies must be controlled. One
or more tributaries from the current study are affected by direct livestock traffic. In addition, it is
necessary to control runoff from barnyards and feedlots. Clean runoff can be diverted to reduce
the amount of water that runs through these areas. Some states suggest that roof runoff from
barns be diverted away from barnyards and feedlots. This will minimize the volume of runoff
enriched with nutrients. The manure-related pollutants that run off barnyards and feedlots can be
controlled with filter strips, i.e., grass areas below the barnyards and feedlots, and/or settling basins.
Vegetative buffer strips and constructed wetlands could possibly be the best option for
future land management practices due to current bank instability; buffer strips have the capability
to filter sediment/nutrients from entering the stream, thus reducing turbidity and increasing dissolved oxygen levels (DNR, 2007; US EPA, 2006). EPA (2006) recommends at least a 100-foot
buffer strip to efficiently remove fifty percent of the nutrients that may enter the stream. For a
buffer strip to be efficient, EPA (2006) advises an increase of at least 2 ft. of width per 1% in-
73
crease in slope. It is also beneficial to replace grassy riparian zones with woody ones to restrict
sunlight exposure, thus reducing stream temperatures and increasing DO concentrations.
Barnyards and feedlots can be also managed to minimize concentrations of manure. For
example, timely cleaning and removal of manure will reduce buildup and retain nutrients. Likewise, pastures can be managed to reduce concentrations of manure. Careful placement of livestock watering facilities and herd management areas and paddock layout can reduce concentrations of manure and associated impact on water bodies.
When practical, it is suggested that manures be composted. This will reduce the volume
of material requiring land application. Composting converts nutrients into organic forms that are
more slowly available to plants when incorporated into soil. The leaching potential of nutrients is
reduced when using compost. Composted material has little odor and is suitable for use as a soil
amendment in residential areas.
Regarding application of commercial fertilizer, it is recommended that farmers within the
watershed use soil tests to determine background levels of nutrients and soil pH. Knowing the
amount of available nutrients in the soil reduces the need for applying extra nutrients for crop
production. Over-application causes potential leaching into groundwater and added expense for
crop production. Proper soil pH allows better utilization of soil nutrients.
Nutrient application rates must be based on realistic yield goals. Landowners are urged to
use crop yield and soil potential information from published county soil survey reports until
yield experience data is compiled. Only realistic goals based on recent yield experience or published soil potential information will allow accurate determination of optimum nitrogen and
phosphorus application rates for crop production. It is strongly recommended that growers develop and maintain accurate recording systems for crop yield.
74
Farmers and homeowners are encouraged to use split fertilizer applications where possible. Using smaller applications on a more frequent basis will decrease potential for nutrient loss
to ground or surface waters. Home lawns, depending on the quality of turf desired, may receive
between one and three applications of fertilizer annually with three applications being the maximum for most situations. A good guideline for a three application schedule includes use of a
starter type fertilizer in May (1-2-1 ratio), a slow release high nitrogen fertilizer (having a 4-1-2
ratio) in July, and balanced fertilizer (1-1-1 ratio) in September. If a single application is to be
applied, the September application is preferred (New Hampshire, 2011).
Sources of fertilizer nitrogen can be either readily-available (i.e., water-soluble) or slowrelease. Fertilizer particles may also be coated to provide another means of controlled release of
nutrients. Homeowners are encouraged to use slow-release nitrogen sources, which become
available to plants gradually. As mentioned above, if highly soluble N sources are used they
should be applied in several smaller split applications. Phosphate (P2O5) is not particularly soluble in the soil. Phosphate application on established lawns is usually only needed at low rates.
Phosphate should be avoided entirely when soil test results for P are high or when steep slopes
might carry particles to nearby surface water.
Accurate fertilizer and manure application records and crop yield records should be maintained to help determine proper manure and fertilizer rates. Applying proper rates of manure and
fertilizer can minimize risk of manure- and fertilizer-related pollutants to ground and surface waters. Using worksheets and keeping long-term records help predict realistic crop yield goals to
plan nutrient application rates.
Farmers should plant cover crops on fields after harvesting annual crops. This practice
can be used in those situations where a crop is harvested early enough in the growing season to
75
establish a cover crop. The use of cover crops will reduce nutrient loss from soils by rotating
shallow-rooted crops with deep-rooted crops; this will allow nitrates to re-concentrate in shallower soils and prevent soil erosion (Smuckler et al., 2012; Hartz, 2006). In addition, wind and
water erosion rates are decreased by the cover crop, reducing the potential for nutrient transport
to surface water bodies.
Some BMPs are more subtle than those suggested above. For example, it is recommended to maintain good soil structure to reduce runoff from areas that receive manure.
Maintaining good soil structure will reduce the amount of runoff by increasing infiltration.
This will reduce the potential for off-site transport of manure-related contaminants.
Aeration of water, although expensive, can aid in increasing DO levels, increase pH, and
in turn, restrict P from reentering the water column (Redmond et al. 2014); it can also aid in regulating ammonia-ammonium concentrations that can trigger eutrophication in streams/rivers and
lakes/reservoirs (Wurt, 2003).
Irrigation using a catchment pond and a pump to recycle runoff onto fields is another
possible BMP option (Smukler et al., 2012).
Future studies to conduct in the watershed include formulation of a water budget to track
water flow throughout the watershed and determine whether the watershed is gaining or losing
water. Such data can help in designing a mass budget that can determine an increase/decrease in
nutrient concentrations throughout the watershed. This can help determine if the reservoir is acting as a nutrient sink. A water budget can aid in tracking the movements of nutrients throughout
the watershed. Thorough soil analysis can aid in determining how well soil retains N and P and
whether it has an impact on ground water quality.
76
LITERATURE CITED
Goward, K. J. 2004. Relationship of Nutrients and Pesticides to Landuse Characteristics in Three
Subwatersheds of the Upper White River, Indiana. MS thesis, Ball State University. Muncie, IN.
Hartz, T.K. 2006. Vegetable Production Best Management Practices to Minimize Nutrient Loss:
HortTechnology 16(3): 398-403
Hartz T.K. and R.F. Smith 2009. Controlled-release Fertilizer for Vegetable Production: The
California Experience: HortTechnology 2022 (19). 20-22.
<http://horttech.ashspublications.org/content/19/1/20.full>. Accessed (13 April 2015).
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2007. Vegetation Buffer Strips in Agricultural Areas.
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCsQFjAB&
url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.dnr.state.mn.us%2Fpublications%2Fwaters%2Fbuffer_strips.pdf&ei
=SFz2VOW1NsyrgwTUyIHIAw&usg=AFQjCNFKDho9g288bE54d3BZR8065g3fg&bvm=bv.87269000,d.eXY> (Accessed 3 March 2015).
Mullins G. 2009. Phosphorus, Agriculture & The Environment. At:
https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/424/424-029/424-029_pdf.pdf (Accessed 6 January, 2015).
New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food. 2011. Manual of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Agriculture in New Hampshire. Concord, NH.
Popovicova, J. 2009. Water quality assessment and ecoregional comparison of a reservoir in east
central Indiana. Lake and Reservoir Management. 25(2): 155-166.
Redmond M., Dr. M. Schreiber, Z. Munger., and Dr. C Carey. 2014. Release Potential and Mobility of Sediment Phosphorus in a Periodically Oxygenated Reservoir.
<http://agroecology.fiu.edu/students/current-students/fccage-fiu/mariah-redmond/redmondpaper-7-31-2014.pdf>
Smukler S.M., A.T. O’Green, and L.E. Jackson. 2012. Assessment of best management practices
for nutrient cycling: A case study on an organic farm in a Mediterranean-type climate: Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 67(1): 16-31.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006. Economic Benefits of Wetlands.
<http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/upload/EconomicBenefits.pdf> (Accessed 3 March
2015).
US EPA. 2012. Turbidity. Washington D.C. http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm
US EPA. 2012. Phosphorus. Washington, D.C.
<http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms56.cfm>.
77
Wurt, W.A. 2003. Daily pH Cycle and Ammonia Toxicity. In World Aquaculture, 34 (2). Pp.
20-21. At: <http://www2.ca.uky.edu/wkrec/pH-Ammonia.htm>. (Accessed 9 January 2015).
78
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Table 1A. Discharge Calculations for Dam.
Date
Location Away from Shore
(Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
6/15/2014
----
----
----
------
6/22/2014
----
----
----
------
7/6/2014
----
----
----
------
7/13/2014
----
----
----
------
7/20/2014
----
----
----
------
7/27/2014
1
0.5
0.3
-0.08
2
0.8
0.48
-0.2
3
1.02
0.61
0.08
4
1.2
0.72
0.09
5
1.3
0.78
0.08
6
1.42
0.85
0.07
7
1.52
1.22
0.16
0.3
0.07
1.26
0.09
0.31
0.12
1.3
0.11
0.32
0.16
1.52
0.1
0.38
0.1
1.52
0.04
0.38
0.1
1.46
0.09
8
1.55
9
1.63
10
1.9
11
1.9
12
1.82
79
13
1.75
0.37
0.07
1.4
0.08
0.35
0
14
1.49
0.88
0.08
15
1.37
0.82
0.09
16
1.3
0.78
0.08
17
1.37
0.82
0.07
18
1.44
0.86
0.06
19
1.49
0.88
0.07
20
1.49
0.88
0.07
24
1.1
0.66
0.08
25
0.98
0.58
0.06
26
0.65
0.39
0.02
1.99 CFS
0.78 ft/s
“----“ = no data.
80
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/3/2014
1
0.4
0.24
-0.04
2
0.8
0.48
-0.02
3
0.95
0.57
0
4
1.03
0.62
-0.02
5
1.13
0.65
0
6
1.25
0.75
-0.01
7
1.28
0.77
-0.02
8
1.38
0.89
-0.01
9
1.6
1.28
0.02
0.32
-0.03
1.28
0.02
0.32
-0.03
1.24
0.03
0.31
-0.02
10
11
1.6
1.55
12
1.44
0.86
-0.01
13
1.1
0.66
0.02
14
1.17
0.7
0.01
15
1.05
0.63
0.01
16
1.15
0.69
0.01
17
1.17
0.7
0.02
18
1.3
0.78
0.01
19
1.2
0.72
0
20
1.2
0.72
0.01
21
1.1
0.66
0.01
22
1.1
0.66
0.01
81
23
1
0.6
0.01
24
1
0.6
0.01
25
0.82
0.49
0
26
0.49
0.29
-0.01
.0291 CFS
0.001 ft/s
82
Table 1A. continued
Location Away from
Date
Shore (Ft)
8/10/2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.65
12
1.52
Change in Depth
0.312
0.432
0.54
0.59
0.66
0.72
0.75
0.96
0.99
1.26
0.314
1.32
0.33
1.22
1.4
1.15
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1
0.98
0.8
0.7
0.304
0.84
0.69
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.66
0.66
0.72
0.66
0.6
0.59
0.48
0.42
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Depth
0.52
0.72
0.9
0.98
1.1
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.57
0.082 cfs
0 ft/s
83
Velocity
-0.01
-0.01
0
0.03
0.03
0
-0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
-0.02
0.02
-0.02
0.02
-0.02
-0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0
0
0
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0
0.03
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/17/2014
1
0.4
0.24
0
2
0.8
0.48
-0.03
3
0.85
0.51
-0.01
4
0.9
0.54
-0.03
5
0.97
0.58
0
6
1.1
0.66
0
7
1.2
0.72
0
8
1.25
0.75
0
9
1.35
0.81
0
10
1.4
0.84
0
11
1.4
0.84
-0.01
12
1.52
1.216
0
0.3
0.03
0.912
0
1.28
-0.01
0.32
0.03
0.96
0
1.34
-0.01
0.33
0.04
1
-0.02
1.24
0
0.31
0.03
0.93
0
1.2
0
0.3
0.02
13
14
15
16
1.6
1.67
1.55
1.5
84
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
0.9
-0.01
17
1.4
0.84
0.01
18
1.2
0.72
0.02
19
1.2
0.72
0
20
1.15
0.69
0.01
21
1.2
0.72
0
22
1.2
0.72
0
23
1.2
0.72
0
24
1.02
0.61
0
25
1
0.6
0
0.156 CFS
0.0017 Ft/s
85
Table 1A. Continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/24/2014
1
0.7
0.42
0.02
2
2.05
1.64
0.24
0.4
0.08
1.23
0.28
1.84
0.53
0.47
0.32
1.4
0.28
2.04
0.65
0.51
0.53
1.53
0.59
2.2
0.72
0.55
0.6
1.65
0.81
2.3
0.91
0.57
0.74
1.72
1
2.36
1.07
1.77
1.15
3
4
5
6
7
2.33
2.55
2.75
2.87
2.95
0.59
8
9
10
3.05
2.15
3.27
86
2.44
1.29
0.61
0.59
1.83
1.07
2.52
1.25
0.62
0.64
1.89
1.15
2.62
1.17
0.065
11
12
13
3.3
3.4
3.45
87
1.96
1.15
2.64
1.04
0.66
0.79
2
0.96
2.72
0.97
0.68
0.72
2.04
0.81
2.76
0.8
0.7
0.65
2.07
0.69
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
8/24/2014
14
15
16
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
3.45
2.76
0.57
0.7
0.61
2.07
0.48
2.68
0.48
0.67
0.59
2.01
0.46
2.64
0.47
0.65
0.52
3.35
3.3
1.98
17
18
19
20
21
22
3.1
3
3
2.95
3
3
88
2.48
0.54
0.62
0.46
1.86
0.57
2.4
0.57
0.6
0.58
1.8
0.63
2.4
0.59
0.6
0.62
1.8
0.61
2.36
0.57
0.59
0.6
1.77
0.53
2.4
0.58
0.6
0.48
1.8
0.55
2.4
0.54
23
24
25
26
3
2.75
2.75
2.6
89
0.6
0.41
1.8
0.51
2.4
0.54
0.6
0.37
1.8
0.5
2.2
0.56
0.55
0.52
1.65
0.55
2.2
0.68
0.55
0.57
1.65
0.68
2.08
0.75
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
8/24/2014
27
28
29
2.6
2.1
1.95
Change in
Depth
Velocity
0.52
0.56
1.56
0.77
2.08
0.8
0.52
0.35
1.56
0.79
1.68
0.81
0.42
0.56
1.26
0.76
1.56
0.94
0.39
0.63
1.17
0.65
30
1.1
0.66
0.88
31
1
0.6
0.31
56.645
CFS
0.68
ft/s
90
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/31/2014
1
0.75
0.45
0.06
2
0.95
0.57
0.14
3
1.25
0.75
0.21
4
1.45
0.87
0.26
5
1.6
1.28
0.47
0.32
0.36
0.96
0.49
1.4
0.52
0.35
0.43
1.05
0.57
1.44
0.54
0.36
0.31
1.08
0.45
1.54
0.63
0.384
0.28
1.15
0.51
1.6
0.51
0.4
0.35
1.2
0.55
1.68
0.55
0.42
0.33
1.26
0.55
1.76
0.44
0.44
0.34
1.32
0.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.75
1.8
1.92
2
2.1
2.2
91
12
13
14
15
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
92
1.84
0.36
0.46
0.34
1.38
0.39
1.38
0.26
1.38
0.28
1.38
0.28
1.38
0.29
1.38
0.32
1.38
0.26
1.76
0.25
0.44
0.25
1.32
0.27
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
8/31/2014
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.1
1.68
0.25
0.42
0.16
1.26
0.24
1.44
0.28
0.36
0.17
1.08
0.26
1.48
0.28
0.37
0.21
1.11
0.28
1.44
0.24
0.36
0.18
1.08
0.26
1.44
0.24
0.36
0.18
1.08
0.26
1.62
0.22
0.38
0.18
1.14
0.22
1.14
0.22
1.14
0.22
1.14
0.19
1.26
0.21
0.33
0.16
0.99
0.2
1.26
0.18
1.8
1.85
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.65
1.65
93
1.26
0.14
1.26
0.18
25
1.49
0.89
0.18
26
1.49
0.89
0.18
27
1.2
0.72
0.13
28
0.99
0.59
0.12
29
0.7
0.42
0.09
14.37
CFS
94
0.29 Ft/s
Table 1A. continued
Date
9/7/2014
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1
0.55
0.33
0.03
2
0.8
0.48
0.15
3
1
0.6
0.18
4
1.2
0.72
0.2
5
1.4
0.84
0.21
6
1.49
0.89
0.19
7
1.7
1.36
0.27
0.34
0.17
1.02
0.22
1.36
0.34
0.34
0.17
1.02
0.32
1.36
0.33
0.34
0.26
1.02
0.31
1.44
0.26
0.36
0.23
1.08
0.27
1.6
0.19
0.4
0.19
1.2
0.2
1.6
0.16
0.4
0.19
1.2
0.18
1.68
0.16
8
1.7
9
1.7
10
1.8
11
2
12
2
13
2.1
95
14
1.95
15
1.8
16
1.5
96
0.42
0.17
0.26
0.18
1.56
0.13
0.39
0.11
1.17
0.13
1.44
0.13
0.36
0.08
1.08
0.13
1.2
0.15
0.3
0.06
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
9/7/2014
17
1.55
18
1.55
19
1.65
20
1.65
21
1.65
Change in
Depth
Velocity
0.9
0.12
1.24
0.14
0.31
0.04
0.93
0.12
1.24
0.15
0.31
0.06
0.93
0.14
1.32
0.13
0.33
0.05
0.99
0.09
1.32
0.12
0.33
0.08
0.99
0.11
1.32
0.12
0.33
0.07
0.99
0.12
22
1.49
0.89
0.12
23
1.49
0.89
0.13
24
1.4
0.84
0.11
25
1.25
0.75
0.08
26
1
0.6
0.08
27
0.7
0.42
0.06
6.34
CFS
97
0.16 Ft/s
98
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/14/2014
1
0.6
0.36
-0.02
2
0.9
0.54
0.07
3
1.1
0.66
0.12
4
1.25
0.75
0.11
5
1.35
0.79
0.11
6
1.49
0.87
0.09
7
1.49
0.87
0.13
8
1.65
1.32
0.24
0.33
0.12
0.99
0.21
1.36
0.18
0.34
0.17
1.02
0.23
1.44
0.17
0.36
0.18
1.08
0.22
1.44
0.16
0.39
0.15
1.17
0.19
1.6
0.14
0.4
0.14
1.2
0.15
1.6
0.12
0.4
0.14
1.2
0.14
9
1.7
10
1.8
11
1.95
12
2
13
2
99
14
1.85
15
1.7
1.48
0.13
0.37
0.11
1.11
0.1
1.36
0.11
0.34
0.09
1.02
0.12
16
1.48
0.89
0.1
17
1.48
0.89
0.11
18
1.45
0.87
0.11
19
1.6
1.28
0.13
0.32
0.04
0.96
0.11
100
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
9/14/2014
20
21
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1.6
1.28
0.12
0.32
0.06
0.96
0.1
1.28
0.11
0.32
0
1.28
0.08
1.6
22
1.49
0.87
0.09
23
1.4
0.84
0.09
24
1.3
0.78
0.1
25
1.2
0.72
0.09
26
1.1
0.66
0.08
27
0.9
0.54
0.9
28
0.78
0.47
0.09
4.765
CFS
101
0.12 Ft/s
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/21/2014
1
0.45
0.27
0
2
0.9
0.54
-0.01
3
0.99
0.59
0.03
4
1.15
0.69
0.04
5
1.3
0.78
0.06
6
1.4
0.84
0.06
7
1.48
0.89
0.09
8
1.55
1.24
0.13
0.31
0.07
0.93
0.11
1.44
0.11
0.36
0.08
1.08
0.11
1.52
0.08
0.38
0.06
1.14
0.08
1.44
0.07
0.36
0.05
1.08
0.07
1.36
0.05
0.34
0.05
1.02
0.04
9
1.8
10
1.9
11
1.8
12
1.7
13
1.3
0.78
0.07
14
1.3
0.78
0.07
15
1.35
0.81
0.07
102
16
1.45
0.87
0.07
17
1.4
0.84
0.06
18
1.45
0.87
0.06
19
1.4
0.84
0.06
20
1.3
0.78
0.05
21
1.2
0.72
0.03
22
1.1
0.66
0.06
23
0.9
0.54
0.05
24
0.8
0.48
0.48
25
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.964 CFS
0.06 Ft/s
103
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/28/2014
1
0.5
0.3
-0.03
2
0.6
0.36
-0.01
3
0.85
0.51
0
4
0.98
0.59
0.02
5
1.1
0.66
0.01
6
1.2
0.72
0.03
7
1.3
0.78
0.02
8
1.4
0.84
0.01
9
1.4
0.84
0.02
10
1.55
1.24
0.03
0.31
-0.01
0.93
0.03
1.32
0
0.33
0
0.99
0
1.32
0.03
0.33
-0.01
0.99
0.02
1.24
0.03
0.31
-0.02
0.93
0.03
11
1.65
12
1.65
13
1.55
14
1.35
0.81
0.02
15
1.1
0.66
0.02
16
1.1
0.66
0.03
17
1.15
0.69
0.04
104
18
1.2
0.72
0
19
1.2
0.72
-0.02
20
1.3
0.78
0.04
21
1.2
0.72
0.04
22
1.1
0.66
0.02
23
1
0.6
0.02
24
1
0.6
0
25
0.9
0.54
-0.01
26
0.6
0.36
-0.02
0.385 CFS
0.01 ft/s
105
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
10/12/2014
1
0.4
0.24
0.01
2
0.6
0.36
-0.03
3
0.8
0.48
-0.04
4
1
0.6
-0.03
5
1.15
0.69
-0.03
6
1.3
0.78
0
7
1.35
0.81
0.03
8
1.4
0.84
0.02
9
1.49
0.89
0.03
10
1.73
1.38
0.03
0.35
0.01
1.04
0.02
1.38
0.02
0.35
0.02
1.04
0.02
1.38
0.03
0.35
-0.01
1.04
0.03
1.2
0.03
0.3
0.01
0.9
0.03
11
1.73
12
1.73
13
1.5
14
1.15
0.69
0.04
15
1.2
0.72
0.04
16
1.2
0.72
0.03
17
1.3
0.78
0.04
106
18
1.35
0.81
0.03
19
1.25
0.75
0.01
20
1.2
0.72
-0.02
21
1.05
0.63
-0.03
22
0.95
0.57
-0.03
23
0.7
0.42
-0.03
24
0.55
0.33
-0.05
0.385 CFS
10/19/2014
0.01 Ft/s
1
0.5
0.3
-0.03
2
0.9
0.54
-0.03
3
0.98
0.59
-0.05
107
Table 1A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
4
1.15
0.69
0.03
5
1.3
0.78
0.04
6
1.4
0.84
0.04
7
1.45
0.87
0.06
8
1.55
1.24
0.07
0.31
0.04
0.93
0.08
1.32
0.08
0.33
0.04
0.99
0.09
1.44
0.08
0.36
0.03
1.08
0.06
1.52
0.07
0.38
0.03
1.14
0.05
1.52
0.07
0.38
0.03
1.14
0.05
1.44
0.07
0.36
0.03
1.08
0.05
1.36
0.06
0.34
0.02
1.02
0.05
9
1.65
10
1.8
11
1.9
12
1.9
13
1.8
14
1.7
108
15
1.3
0.78
0.04
16
1.4
0.84
0.05
17
1.4
0.84
0.03
18
1.49
0.89
0.04
19
1.49
0.89
0.07
20
1.49
0.89
0.04
21
1.4
0.84
0.05
22
1.35
0.81
0.06
23
1.2
0.72
0.04
24
1.1
0.66
0
25
1
0.6
0.01
26
0.7
0.42
-0.03
1.40 CFS
10/26/2014
0.04 Ft/s
1
0.4
109
0.24
0
Table 2A. Discharge Calculations for Carmichael Ditch.
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
6/15/2014
0.5
0.65
0.39
0.1
1
0.65
0.39
0.23
1.5
0.6
0.36
0.31
2
0.6
0.36
0.48
2.5
0.65
0.39
0.6
3
0.7
0.42
0.68
3.5
0.7
0.42
0.46
4
0.7
0.42
0.28
4.5
0.7
0.42
0.56
5
0.7
0.42
0.48
5.5
0.6
0.46
0.29
6
0.65
0.39
0.29
6.5
0.55
0.33
0.04
7
0.55
0.33
-0.02
7.5
0.4
0.24
-0.05
1.52 CFS
6/22/2014
0.34 Ft/s
0.5
0.6
0.36
0.17
1
0.6
0.36
0.41
1.5
0.6
0.36
0.56
2
0.6
0.36
0.8
2.5
0.65
0.39
0.76
3
0.65
0.39
0.67
3.5
0.7
0.42
0.66
110
4
0.75
0.45
0.77
4.5
0.75
0.45
0.81
5
0.8
0.48
0.52
5.5
0.8
0.48
0.53
6
0.75
0.45
0.5
6.5
0.75
0.45
0.24
7
0.7
0.42
0.06
7.5
0.7
0.42
0.02
8
0.5
0.3
-0.03
2.573 CFS
0.45 Ft/s
111
Table 2A. Continued
Date
Location Away from Shore
(Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
7/6/2014
0.5
0.3
0.18
0.02
1
0.38
0.22
0.05
1.5
0.35
0.21
0.07
2
0.3
0.18
0.09
2.5
0.4
0.24
0.11
3
0.35
0.21
0.11
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.14
4
0.45
0.27
0.21
4.5
0.49
0.294
0.15
5
0.49
0.294
0.14
5.5
0.49
0.294
0.09
6
0.47
0.282
0.09
6.5
0.47
0.282
0.05
7
0.4
0.24
0.03
7.5
0.4
0.24
0.03
8
0.25
0.169
0.02
0.299 CFS
7/13/2014
0.09 ft/s
0.5
0.35
0.21
0
1
0.39
0.23
0.04
1.5
0.35
0.21
0.1
2
0.35
0.21
0.14
2.5
0.35
0.21
0.16
3
0.4
0.24
0.19
112
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.21
4
0.45
0.27
0.2
4.5
0.45
0.27
0.16
5
0.51
0.31
0.16
5.5
0.51
0.31
0.08
6
0.49
0.29
0.06
6.5
0.52
0.31
0.05
7
0.48
0.29
0.03
7.5
0.48
0.29
0.04
8
0.4
0.24
0
8.5
0.3
0.18
0
0.344 CFS
0.09 Ft/s
113
Table 2A. Continued
Date
Location Away from Shore
(Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
7/20/2014
1
0.37
0.22
0.05
1.5
0.37
0.22
0.07
2
0.32
0.19
0.09
2.5
0.32
0.19
0.11
3
0.339
0.23
0
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.09
4
0.4
0.24
0.06
4.5
0.45
0.27
0.05
5
0.5
0.3
0.04
5.5
0.48
0.29
0.04
6
0.48
0.29
0.01
6.5
0.48
0.29
0
7
0.48
0.29
0.02
7.5
0.4
0.24
0.1
8
0.4
0.24
0
8.5
0.3
0.18
0
0.128 CFS
7/27/2014
0.04 Ft/s
0.5
0.35
0.21
0.1
1
0.35
0.21
0.17
1.5
0.35
0.21
0.15
2
0.35
0.21
0.14
2.5
0.35
0.21
0.05
3
0.4
0.24
0.07
114
3.5
0.4
0.24
0
4
0.4
0.24
0.05
4.5
0.45
0.243
0
5
0.45
0.243
-0.01
5.5
0.45
0.243
0
6
0.49
0.29
0
6.5
0.49
0.29
0
7
0.49
0.29
0.01
7.5
0.45
0.243
0
8
0.3
0.18
0
0.13 CFS
0.05 Ft/s
115
Table 2A. Continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
8/3/2014
Depth
Velocity
0.5
0.4
0.24
0.11
1
0.4
0.24
0.07
1.5
0.4
0.24
0.05
2
0.4
0.24
0
2.5
0.4
0.24
0
3
0.4
0.24
0.01
3.5
0.4
0.24
0
4
0.45
0.27
0
4.5
0.45
0.27
0
5
0.5
0.3
0
5.5
0.5
0.3
0
6
0.5
0.3
0
6.5
0.5
0.3
0.01
7
0.5
0.3
0
7.5
0.5
0.3
0
8
0.4
0.24
0
0.048 CFS
8/10/2014
Change in
Depth
0.01 Ft/s
0.5
0.4
0.24
0
1
0.4
0.24
0.02
1.5
0.4
0.24
0.03
2
0.4
0.24
0
2.5
0.4
0.24
0.01
3
0.4
0.24
0.01
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.04
116
4
0.4
0.24
0.02
4.5
0.5
0.3
0.01
5
0.5
0.3
0.01
5.5
0.5
0.3
0.01
6
0.5
0.3
0.01
6.5
0.5
0.3
0
7
0.5
0.3
0.01
7.5
0.4
0.24
0.01
0.4 cfs
117
0.01 ft/s
Table 2A. Continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/172014
0.5
0.35
0.21
0
1
0.35
0.21
-0.01
1.5
0.35
0.21
-0.01
2
0.35
0.21
0
2.5
0.35
0.21
0.01
3
0.4
0.24
0.01
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.02
4
0.4
0.24
0.01
4.5
0.4
0.24
0.01
5
0.5
0.3
0.02
5.5
0.5
0.3
0.03
6
0.5
0.3
0.02
6.5
0.42
0.25
0.03
7
0.4
0.24
0.01
7.5
0.4
0.24
0
0.035 CFS
8/24/2014
0.01 Ft/s
1
0.9
0.54
0.63
1.5
0.9
0.54
0.47
2
0.9
0.54
0.52
2.5
0.9
0.54
0.66
3
0.9
0.54
0.87
3.5
0.9
0.54
0.999
4
1
0.6
0.94
118
4.5
1
0.6
1.14
5
1
0.6
0.96
5.5
1
0.6
0.83
6
1.05
0.63
0.85
6.5
1
0.6
0.74
7
1
0.6
0.52
7.5
0.95
0.57
0.31
8
0.9
0.54
0.09
8.5
0.8
0.48
0
5.066 CFS
0.658 Ft/s
119
Table 2A. Continued
Date
8/31/2014
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
0.5
0.3
0.18
0
1
0.3
0.18
0
1.5
0.3
0.18
0.04
2
0.3
0.18
0.03
2.5
0.4
0.24
0.04
3
0.4
0.24
0.05
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.08
4
0.4
0.24
0.09
4.5
0.4
0.24
0.07
5
0.4
0.24
0.07
5.5
0.4
0.24
0.07
6
0.4
0.24
0.04
6.5
0.4
0.24
0.01
7
0.4
0.24
0
0.115 CFS
9/7/2014
0.04 Ft/s
0.5
0.3
0.18
0
1
0.3
0.18
0.01
1.5
0.3
0.18
0.01
2
0.3
0.18
0.03
2.5
0.3
0.18
0.02
3
0.4
0.24
0.02
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.03
4
0.5
0.3
0.06
120
4.5
0.5
0.3
0.05
5
0.5
0.3
0.05
5.5
0.5
0.3
0.03
6
0.5
0.3
0.02
6.5
0.5
0.3
0
0.073 CFS
0.03 Ft/s
121
Table 2A. Continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/14/2014
0.5
0.4
0.24
0
1
0.4
0.24
0
1.5
0.4
0.24
0
2
0.4
0.24
0
2.5
0.45
0.27
0
3
0.45
0.27
0.08
3.5
0.5
0.3
0.24
4
0.5
0.3
0.24
4.5
0.55
0.33
0.24
5
0.55
0.33
0.14
5.5
0.55
0.33
0.03
6
0.5
0.3
0.01
6.5
0.5
0.3
0
0.253 CFS
9/21/2014
0.08 Ft/s
0.5
0.4
0.24
0
1
0.4
0.24
0
1.5
0.4
0.24
0
2
0.4
0.24
0.01
2.5
0.4
0.24
0
3
0.45
0.27
0.07
3.5
0.45
0.27
0.08
4
0.5
0.3
0.14
4.5
0.5
0.3
0.13
122
5
0.5
0.3
0.01
5.5
0.5
0.3
0
6
0.5
0.3
-0.01
0.101 CFS
0.03 Ft/s
123
Table 2A. Continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/28/2014
0.5
0.3
0.18
0.01
1
0.3
0.18
0.04
1.5
0.35
0.21
0.01
2
0.4
0.24
0.05
2.5
0.35
0.21
0.06
3
0.4
0.24
0
3.5
0.45
0.27
0.04
4
0.45
0.27
0.06
4.5
0.5
0.3
0.04
5
0.5
0.3
0.04
5.5
0.4
0.24
0
0.71 CFS
10/12/2014
0.03 Ft/s
0.5
0.35
0.21
0.02
1
0.35
0.21
0.07
1.5
0.4
0.24
-0.01
2
0.4
0.24
0.06
2.5
0.4
0.24
0.05
3
0.4
0.24
0.05
3.5
0.4
0.24
0.04
4
0.5
0.3
0.03
4.5
0.5
0.3
0.03
5
0.5
0.3
0
5.5
0.5
0.3
0
124
6
0.5
0.3
0
6.5
0.5
0.3
-0.03
0.059 CFS
0.02 Ft/s
125
Table 2A. Continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
10/19/2014
0.5
0.5
0.3
0
1
0.5
0.3
0.05
1.5
0.5
0.3
0.06
2
0.5
0.3
0.05
2.5
0.6
0.36
0.07
3
0.6
0.36
0.04
3.5
0.5
0.3
0.12
4
0.6
0.36
0.19
4.5
0.6
0.36
0.28
5
0.6
0.36
0.26
5.5
0.6
0.36
0.1
6
0.5
0.3
0.05
6.5
0.5
0.3
0.06
7
0.5
0.3
0.03
0.388 CFS
10/26/2014
0.1 Ft/s
0.5
0.4
0.24
0.01
1
0.4
0.24
0
1.5
0.4
0.24
0
2
0.4
0.24
0.05
2.5
0.5
0.3
0.04
3
0.5
0.3
0.01
3.5
0.5
0.3
-0.01
126
4
0.55
0.33
0.08
4.5
0.55
0.33
0.06
5
0.55
0.33
0.16
5.5
0.6
0.36
0.1
6
0.5
0.3
0.05
6.5
0.4
0.24
0
0.149 CFS
0.05 Ft/s
127
Table 3A. Discharge Calculations for Shave Tail Creek.
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
6/15/2014
----
----
----
----
6/22/2014
----
----
----
----
7/6/2014
----
----
----
----
7/13/2014
----
----
----
----
7/20/2014
----
----
----
----
7/27/2014
----
----
----
----
8/10/2014
0
2.4
1.92
0.09
0.48
0
2
0.01
0.5
-0.03
1.92
0.01
0.48
-0.03
1.92
0.13
0.48
0.01
1.92
0.13
0.48
0.02
2
0.12
0.5
0.04
2.16
0.11
0.54
0.01
2.32
0.03
0.58
0
2.32
0.1
0.58
-0.01
2.48
0.07
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.1
128
10
3
1.284 CFS
0.62
0.06
2.4
0.08
0.6
0.01
0.04 Ft/s
“----“ not measured.
129
Table 3A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
8/17/2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.33
1.86
0.07
0.47
0
1.38
0.02
2.04
0.02
0.51
0.02
1.53
0.05
2
0.13
0.5
0.05
1.5
0.14
1.92
0.08
0.48
-0.02
1.44
0.07
1.92
0.07
0.48
0
1.44
0.05
1.98
0.08
0.49
0.04
1.48
0.12
2.2
0.11
0.55
0
1.65
0.07
2.42
0.04
0.61
-0.01
1.82
0.07
2.54
0.1
2.55
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.47
2.75
3.03
3.17
130
9
10
3.01
2.55
3.739 CFS
0.62
-0.02
1.9
0.1
2.46
0.1
0.61
0
1.84
0.13
2
0.1
0.51
0.02
1.53
0.04
0.613 Ft/s
131
Table 3A. continued.
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/31/2014
----
----
----
----
9/7/2014
0
1.85
1.48
0.01
0.37
0
1.11
-0.02
1.68
-0.01
0.42
0
1.26
0
1.68
0.06
0.42
-0.01
1.26
0.03
1.6
0.08
0.4
0.06
1.2
0.07
1.64
0.1
0.41
0.05
1.23
0.09
1.68
0.1
0.42
0.02
1.26
0.09
2.24
0.05
0.56
0
1.68
0.03
2.32
0.07
0.58
0.01
1.74
0.06
1
2.1
2
2.1
3
2
4
2.05
5
2.1
6
2.8
7
2.9
132
8
2.9
9
3
10
2.3
1.124 CFS
2.32
0.08
0.58
0.02
1.74
0.07
2.4
0.08
0.6
0.02
1.8
0.06
1.84
0.06
0.46
0
1.38
0.02
0.05 Ft/s
“----“ not measured
133
Table 3A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
9/14/2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1.75
1.42
-0.01
0.35
-0.01
1.05
0.02
2
0.06
0.5
0.01
1.5
0.05
2
0.09
0.5
-0.01
1.5
0.11
2
0.08
0.5
0.01
1.5
0.07
2
0.04
0.5
0.03
1.5
0.06
2.08
0.04
0.52
0.04
1.56
0.05
2.22
0.09
0.55
0.05
1.65
0.1
2.3
0
0.57
0.03
1.71
0.08
2.38
0.05
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.75
2.85
2.95
134
9
10
3.3
2.65
1.341 CFS
0.59
-0.02
1.77
0.03
2.64
0.05
0.66
0
1.98
0.07
2.12
0.06
0.53
0
1.68
0.02
0.041 Ft/s
135
Table 3A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
9/21/2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.2
1.76
-0.01
0.44
-0.01
1.32
0.02
2
-0.1
0.5
0.01
1.5
-0.04
2
0.05
0.5
0.04
1.5
0.05
2
0.1
0.5
0.03
1.5
0.05
2
0.12
0.5
0.09
1.5
0.12
2.08
0.08
0.53
0.06
1.56
0.1
2.44
0.03
0.56
0.04
1.68
0.04
2.44
0
0.56
0.01
1.68
0.06
2.32
-0.02
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.9
136
9
10
3.1
2.5
1.225 CFS
0.58
0.01
1.74
0.01
2.48
0.07
0.62
0
1.86
0.11
2
0.06
0.5
-0.02
1.5
0.05
0.04 Ft/s
137
Table 3A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
10/12/2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.2
1.76
-0.01
0.44
-0.01
1.32
-0.01
1.96
0.03
0.49
-0.04
1.47
-0.02
1.92
0.09
0.48
0.05
1.44
0.06
1.92
0.06
0.48
0.08
1.44
0.07
1.96
0.07
0.49
0.05
1.47
0.09
2.04
0.07
0.51
0.05
1.53
0.08
2.12
0.08
0.53
0.03
1.59
0.04
2.16
0.05
0.54
0.01
1.62
0.04
2.24
0.03
2.45
2.4
2.4
2.45
2.55
2.65
2.7
2.8
138
9
10
2.8
2.85
1.106 CFS
0.56
0.02
1.68
0
2.24
0.04
0.56
0.03
1.68
0.04
2.28
0.07
0.57
-0.03
1.71
0.03
0.04 Ft/s
139
Table 3A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
10/19/2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.25
1.8
0
0.45
0.02
1.35
-0.02
2.08
0.03
0.52
0
1.56
0.06
1.96
0.05
0.49
0.02
1.47
0.08
1.96
0.04
0.49
0.02
1.47
0.04
2
0.05
0.5
0.03
1.5
0.03
2.08
0.07
0.52
0.07
1.56
0.09
2.16
0.08
0.54
0.07
1.62
0.1
2.24
0.04
0.56
0.05
1.68
0.07
2.32
0.07
2.6
2.45
2.45
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
140
9
10
2.9
2.5
1.439 CFS
0.58
0.04
1.74
0.06
2.32
0.06
0.58
0.01
1.74
0.07
2
0.07
0.5
0
1.5
0.02
0.05 Ft/s
141
Table 3A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
10/24/2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.35
1.88
-0.03
0.47
0.04
1.41
0.02
2.04
-0.03
0.51
0.01
1.53
-0.01
1.96
0.05
0.5
0.05
1.5
0.05
1.96
0.09
0.5
0.07
1.5
0.11
1.96
-0.02
0.5
0.06
1.5
0.08
2.04
0
0.51
0.04
1.53
-0.01
2.2
0.1
0.55
0.08
1.65
0.08
2.24
0.07
0.56
0.04
1.68
0.13
2.4
-0.01
2.55
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.55
2.75
2.8
3
142
9
10
3.1
2.7
1.392 CFS
0.6
0.03
1.8
0.05
2.48
0
0.62
0.05
1.86
0.03
2.16
0.18
0.54
0.03
1.72
0.07
0.05 Ft/s
143
Table 4A. Discharge Calculations for Huffman Ditch
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
6/15/2014
Depth
Velocity
0.5
0.75
0.45
0.32
1
1.1
0.68
0.36
1.5
1
0.6
0.38
2
0.85
0.51
0.38
2.5
1
0.6
0.37
3
0.95
0.57
0.44
3.5
0.8
0.48
0.4
4
0.75
0.45
0.33
4.5
0.7
0.42
0.3
5
0.7
0.42
0.26
5.5
0.5
0.3
0.23
6
0.45
0.27
0.24
1.69 CFS
6/22/2014
Change in
Depth
0.35 Ft/s
0.5
0.85
0.51
0.58
1
1
0.6
0.52
1.5
1.1
0.66
0.6
2
1.1
0.66
0.54
2.5
1
0.6
0.55
3
0.95
0.57
0.51
3.5
0.95
0.57
0.47
4
0.85
0.51
0.43
4.5
0.8
0.48
0.45
5
0.8
0.48
0.42
144
5.5
0.45
0.27
0.37
6
0.4
0.24
0.35
2.57 CFS
0.56 Ft/s
145
Table 4A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
7/6/2014
Depth
Velocity
0.5
0.79
0.474
0.16
1
0.82
0.492
0.21
1.5
0.72
0.432
0.2
2
0.82
0.492
0.21
2.5
0.8
0.28
0.25
3
0.7
0.42
0.22
3.5
0.72
0.432
0.21
4
0.7
0.42
0.17
4.5
0.52
0.312
0.11
5
0.45
0.27
0.13
5.5
0.35
0.21
0.09
6
0.25
0.15
0.06
0.728 CFS
7/13/2014
Change in
Depth
0.18 Ft/s
1
0.8
0.48
0.18
1.5
0.75
0.45
0.18
2
0.85
0.51
0.21
2.5
0.8
0.48
0.2
3
0.7
0.42
0.19
3.5
0.7
0.42
0.2
4
0.7
0.42
0.2
4.5
0.55
0.33
0.18
5
0.55
0.33
0.19
5.5
0.45
0.27
0.13
146
6
0.3
0.66 CFS
0.18
0.33 Ft/s
147
0.1
Table 4A.- continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
7/20/2014
Depth
Velocity
1
0.72
0.43
0.09
1.5
0.82
0.49
0.15
2
0.79
0.47
0.17
2.5
0.65
0.39
0.15
3
0.77
0.46
0.13
3.5
0.71
0.43
0.17
4
0.62
0.37
0.18
4.5
0.6
0.36
0.15
5
0.52
0.31
0.14
5.5
0.48
0.29
0.11
6
0.4
0.24
0.1
0.49 CFS
7/27/2014
Change in
Depth
0.14 Ft/s
1/2
0.65
0.39
0.12
1
0.8
0.48
0.12
1.5
0.7
0.42
0.14
2
0.63
0.38
0.16
2.5
0.7
0.42
0.12
3
0.7
0.42
0.14
3.5
0.6
0.36
0.14
4
0.6
0.36
0.14
4.5
0.5
0.3
0.13
5
0.5
0.3
0.1
148
5.5
0.4
0.24
0.09
6
0.3
0.18
0.06
0.45 CFS
0.12 Ft/s
149
Table 4A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
8/3/2014
Depth
Velocity
1/2
0.4
0.24
0.06
1
0.6
0.36
0.07
1.5
0.65
0.39
0.11
2
0.65
0.39
0.1
2.5
0.6
0.36
0.1
3
0.7
0.42
0.13
3.5
0.6
0.36
0.12
4
0.55
0.33
0.11
4.5
0.49
0.29
0.1
5
0.49
0.29
0.08
5.5
0.35
0.21
0.07
0.30 cfs
8/10/2014
Change in
Depth
0.1 ft/s
1/2
0.65
0.39
0.08
1
0.55
0.33
0.1
1.5
0.6
0.36
0.1
2
0.45
0.27
0.12
2.5
0.6
0.36
0.12
3
0.6
0.36
0.12
3.5
0.6
0.36
0.1
4
0.55
0.33
0.09
4.5
0.5
0.3
0.09
5
0.4
0.24
0.1
150
0.29 cfs
0.1 ft/s
151
Table 4A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
8/17/2014
1/2
0.6
0.36
1
0.6
0.36
1.5
0.65
0.39
2
0.6
0.36
2.5
0.6
0.36
3
0.65
0.39
3.5
0.55
0.33
4
0.47
0.28
4.5
0.4
0.24
5
0.3
0.18
0.23 CFS
8/24/2014
Velocity
0.08 Ft/s
1/2
0.9
0.54
0.59
1
1.1
0.66
0.55
1.5
1.1
0.66
0.54
2
1
0.6
0.55
2.5
1
0.6
0.46
3
1
0.6
0.52
3.5
0.9
0.54
0.52
4
0.8
0.48
0.47
4.5
0.7
0.42
0.45
5
0.7
0.42
0.46
5.5
0.6
0.36
0.38
152
2.48 CFS
0.50 Ft/s
153
Table 4A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/31/2014
1/2
0.8
0.48
0.11
1
0.7
0.42
0.08
1.5
0.7
0.42
0.12
2
0.7
0.42
0.15
2.5
0.7
0.42
0.13
3
0.7
0.42
0.12
3.5
0.7
0.42
0.11
4
0.5
0.3
0.12
4.5
0.4
0.24
0.07
5
0.4
0.24
0.04
0.35 CFS
9/7/2014
0.11 Ft/s
0.5
0.7
0.42
0.07
1
0.8
0.48
0.11
1.5
0.7
0.42
0.11
2
0.8
0.48
0.12
2.5
0.7
0.42
0.11
3
0.6
0.36
0.1
3.5
0.5
0.3
0.1
4
0.45
0.27
0.09
4.5
0.4
0.24
0.06
0.29 CFS
0.1 Ft/s
154
Table 4A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/14/2014
0.5
0.6
0.36
0.07
1
0.7
0.42
0.07
1.5
0.8
0.48
0.11
2
0.7
0.42
0.1
2.5
0.7
0.42
0.11
3
0.6
0.36
0.11
3.5
0.6
0.36
0.11
4
0.5
0.3
0.08
4.5
0.45
0.27
0.09
5
0.4
0.24
0.05
0.28 CFS
9/21/2014
0.09 Ft/s
0.5
0.4
0.24
0
1
0.7
0.42
0.05
1.5
0.8
0.48
0.09
2
0.75
0.45
0.1
2.5
0.5
0.3
0.12
3
0.6
0.36
0.1
3.5
0.6
0.36
0.09
4
0.5
0.3
0.08
4.5
0.45
0.27
0.08
5
0.4
0.24
0.08
0.23 CFS
0.08 Ft/s
155
Table 4A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/28/2014
0.5
0.6
0.36
0.04
1
0.6
0.36
0.08
1.5
0.6
0.36
0.08
2
0.7
0.42
0.09
2.5
0.55
0.33
0.07
3
0.5
0.3
0.08
3.5
0.45
0.27
0.06
4
0.4
0.24
0.05
4.5
0.35
0.21
0.04
0.16 CFS
10/12/2014
0.07 Ft/s
0.5
0.7
0.42
0.06
1
0.8
0.48
0.08
1.5
0.55
0.33
0.08
2
0.7
0.42
0.11
2.5
0.7
0.42
0.09
3
0.65
0.39
0.08
3.5
0.6
0.36
0.08
4
0.6
0.36
0.08
0.23 CFS
0.08 Ft/s
156
Table 4A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
10/19/2014
0.5
0.8
0.48
0.12
1
0.8
0.48
0.1
1.5
0.75
0.45
0.1
2
0.75
0.45
0.11
2.5
0.65
0.39
0.08
3
0.5
0.3
0.06
3.5
0.5
0.3
0.06
4
0.5
0.3
0.07
4.5
0.45
0.27
0.04
0.25 CFS
10/26/2014
0.09 Ft/s
0.5
0.75
0.45
1
0.8
0.48
1.5
0.7
0.42
2
0.7
0.42
2.5
0.65
0.39
3
0.6
0.36
3.5
0.5
0.3
4
0.45
0.27
0.21 CFS
0.08 Ft/s
157
Table 5A. Discharge Calculations for Cemetery Run
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
6/15/2014
----
----
----
----
6/22/2014
0
2.45
1.96
-0.02
2.45
0.49
0.04
2.6
2.08
-0.02
2.6
0.52
0.1
3
2.4
0.07
3
0.6
0.12
2.8
2.24
-0.06
2.8
0.56
0.16
2.45
1.96
-0.02
2.45
0.49
0.18
2.8
2.24
0.08
2.8
0.56
0.08
1
2
3
4
5
0.73 CFS
7/6/2014
0
1
2
3
0.06 Ft/s
2.15
2.3
2.4
2.23
158
1.72
0.03
0.43
0.05
1.84
-0.09
0.46
0.03
1.92
-0.31
0.48
0.25
1.78
0.24
0.45
0.28
4
-0.1
2.3
CFS
159
2.04
-0.17
0.46
-0.09
-0.1
Ft/s
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
7/13/2014
0
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.1
1.68
0
0.42
0.06
1.92
-0.29
0.48
0.19
1.92
-0.05
0.48
0.07
1.92
0.09
0.48
0.08
1.82
-0.11
0.45
0.13
1
2.4
2
2.4
3
4
2.4
2.27
0.18 CFS
0.02 Ft/s
7/20/2014
0
1.9
1.52
0.38
1
2.31
1.85
0.46
2
2.4
1.92
0.48
3
2.4
1.92
0.48
4
160
2.22
1.77
0.44
0.45
CFS
161
0.04 Ft/s
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
7/27/2014
0
1
2
3
4
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1.9
1.52
-0.05
0.38
0.08
1.68
-0.09
0.42
0.04
1.84
0.01
0.46
0
1.92
0.06
0.48
0.16
1.68
0.11
0.42
0.07
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.1
0.39 CFS
8/3/2014
0
1
2
3
4
0.04 Ft/s
1.85
2.2
2.28
2.2
2
.389 CFS
1.48
0.03
0.39
0.06
1.76
-0.05
0.44
0.03
1.84
-0.01
0.46
0.12
1.76
0.04
0.44
0.13
1.64
0
0.4
0.04
.04 ft/s
162
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
8/10/2014
0
1
2
3
4
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1.8
1.44
0.01
0.36
-0.01
1.68
-0.09
0.42
0.01
1.68
0.02
0.42
0.08
1.68
-0.02
0.42
0.08
1.68
-0.04
0.42
0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.03 CFS
8/17/2014
0
1
2
3
0 Ft/s
1.7
2
2.3
2.2
163
1.36
0
0.34
0.01
1.02
0.01
1.6
0.01
0.4
0.05
1.2
0.04
1.84
0.03
0.46
0.07
1.38
0.07
1.76
0.02
0.44
0.09
4
2.1
0.96 CFS
1.32
0.07
1.68
0.02
0.42
0.04
1.26
0.02
0.05 Ft/s
164
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
8/24/2014
0
1
2
3
4
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2.4
1.92
0.02
0.48
0
2.32
0.04
0.58
0.06
2.32
0.01
0.58
0.17
1.74
0.02
2.4
0.04
0.6
0.08
1.8
0.08
1.84
0
0.52
0
1.56
-0.01
2.9
2.9
3
2.6
0.51 CFS
8/31/2014
0
1
2
0.04 Ft/s
1.6
2.3
2.6
165
1.6
0
0.4
0
1.2
0.03
1.84
0
0.46
0.07
1.38
0.03
2.08
-0.03
0.52
0.15
1.56
0.04
3
4
2.6
2.3
0.36 CFS
2.08
-0.05
0.52
0.06
1.56
0.15
1.84
-0.02
0.46
0.04
1.38
0.03
0.04 Ft/s
166
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
9/7/2014
0
1
2
3
4
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1.95
1.56
0.01
0.39
-0.02
1.17
0
1.96
-0.01
0.49
0.06
1.47
0.02
2
-0.09
0.5
0.14
1.5
0.02
2
-0.03
0.5
0.15
1.5
0.08
1.52
-0.05
0.38
0.04
1.14
0.04
2.45
2.5
2.5
1.9
0.34 CFS
9/14/2014
0
1
0.03 Ft/s
2
2.2
167
1.6
0.01
0.05
-0.05
1.2
0.01
1.76
0.02
0.44
0.08
1.32
0.1
2
3
4
2.4
2.4
1.8
0.18 CFS
1.92
0.12
0.48
0.1
1.44
-0.1
1.92
-0.14
0.48
0.15
1.44
0.08
1.44
-0.02
0.36
0.04
1.08
-0.11
0 Ft/s
168
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
9/21/2014
0
1
2
3
4
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1.9
1.52
0.06
0.38
0.01
1.14
0.12
1.88
0.01
0.47
-0.22
1.41
-0.18
1.96
0.14
0.49
0.12
1.47
0.36
1.92
-0.06
0.48
-0.25
1.44
-0.08
1.52
-0.11
0.38
0.13
1.14
0.17
2.35
2.45
2.4
1.9
0.30 CFS
9/28/2014
0
1
2
0.02 Ft/s
1.85
2.1
2.4
169
1.48
0
0.37
0.01
1.11
0
1.68
0
0.42
0.07
1.26
0.01
1.92
-0.02
3
4
2.2
1.7
0.28 CFS
0.48
0.08
1.44
0.02
1.76
0.04
0.44
0.01
1.32
0.07
1.36
0.01
0.34
-0.01
1.02
0.02
0.03 Ft/s
170
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
10/12/2014
0
1
2
3
4
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
1.9
1.52
-0.02
0.38
0.01
1.14
-0.01
1.64
0.07
0.41
-0.06
1.25
0.09
1.84
0.02
0.46
0.06
1.38
0.08
1.64
-0.04
0.41
0
1.25
-0.06
1.48
-0.03
0.87
0.11
1.11
0.07
2.05
2.3
2.05
1.85
0.96 CFS
10/19/2014
0
1
2
0.02 Ft/s
2.05
2.1
2.4
171
1.64
0.03
0.41
0.03
1.23
0.03
1.68
0
0.42
0.02
1.26
0.01
1.92
0.09
3
4
2.05
1.8
0.07 CFS
0.48
0.01
1.44
0.02
1.64
-0.05
0.41
0.04
1.23
0
1.44
-0.11
0.36
0.05
1.08
-0.01
0.01 Ft/s
172
Table 5A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
10/26/2014
0
1
2
3
4
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
2
1.6
0.02
0.4
0.06
1.2
0.07
1.68
-0.12
0.42
-0.03
1.2
-0.12
1.88
0.14
0.47
0.09
1.41
0.14
1.68
-0.02
0.42
-0.06
1.26
-0.05
1.44
0.05
0.36
-0.01
1.08
0.01
2.1
2.35
2.1
1.8
0.1 CFS
0.01 Ft/s
173
Table 6A. Discharge Calculations for Cecil Ditch
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
6/15/2014
----
----
----
----
6/22/2014
1
0.55
0.33
0.02
2
0.7
0.42
0.09
3
0.7
0.42
0.08
4
0.7
0.42
0.14
5
0.8
0.48
0.14
6
0.8
0.48
0.12
7
0.8
0.48
0.12
8
0.65
0.39
0.13
9
0.6
0.36
0.12
10
0.5
0.3
0.1
11
0.4
0.24
0.1
11.5
0.3
0.18
0.01
1.17 CFS
7/6/2007
0.11 Ft/s
1
0.25
0.15
0.05
2
0.25
0.15
0.02
3
0.3
0.18
0.01
4
0.39
0.23
0.06
5
0.45
0.27
0.12
6
0.48
0.288
0.11
7
0.48
0.288
0.15
8
0.45
0.27
0.12
9
0.35
0.21
0.1
174
10
0.28
0.208
0.07
11
0.2
0.12
0.03
1.69 CFS
0.08 Ft/s
175
Table 6A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
7/13/2014
1
0.25
0.15
0
2
0.25
0.15
0.02
3
0.25
0.15
0.1
4
0.4
0.24
0.13
5
0.4
0.24
0.04
6
0.5
0.3
0.13
7
0.47
0.28
0.1
8
0.41
0.25
0.07
9
0.32
0.19
0.04
10
0.28
0.17
0.11
0.296 cfs
0.08 ft/s
7/20/2014
1
0.3
0.18
0.02
2
0.3
0.18
0.05
3
0.25
0.15
0.1
4
0.37
0.22
0.12
5
0.39
0.23
0.13
6
0.39
0.23
0.1
7
0.39
0.23
0.11
8
0.35
0.21
0.1
9
0.28
0.17
0.1
1.43 CFS
0.16 Ft/s
176
Table 6A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
7/27/2014
1
0.2
0.12
0
2
0.2
0.12
0.02
3
0.2
0.12
0.05
4
0.3
0.18
0.08
5
0.4
0.24
0.11
6
0.4
0.24
0.14
7
0.4
0.24
0.07
8
0.4
0.24
0.01
9
0.3
0.18
0.13
10
0.2
0.12
0.06
0.192 CFS
8/3/2014
0.07 Ft/s
3
0.32
0.19
0
3.5
0.32
0.19
0.08
4
0.32
0.19
0.1
4.5
0.32
0.19
0.1
5
0.32
0.19
0.12
5.5
0.32
0.19
0.14
6
0.39
0.23
0.19
6.5
0.39
0.23
0.17
7
0.35
0.21
0.09
7.5
0.32
0.19
0.08
8
0.3
0.18
0.08
8.5
0.25
0.15
0
177
0.198 CFS
0.08 Ft/s
178
Table 6A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/10/2014
4
0.3
0.18
0.09
4.5
0.3
0.18
0.12
5
0.3
0.18
0.18
5.5
0.4
0.24
0.15
6
0.4
0.24
0.09
6.5
0.4
0.24
0.05
0.167 CFS
8/17/2014
0.1 Ft/s
1
0.3
0.18
0
2
0.4
0.24
0.01
3
0.5
0.3
0.05
4
0.45
0.27
0.06
5
0.55
0.33
0.04
6
0.55
0.33
0.04
7
0.6
0.36
0.03
8
0.65
0.39
0.03
9
0.55
0.33
0.03
10
0.35
0.21
0.05
0.18 CFS
0.03 Ft/s
179
Table 6A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
8/24/2014
1
0.9
0.54
0.06
2
1
0.6
0.07
3
1
0.6
0.07
4
1
0.6
0.08
5
1.1
0.66
0.08
6
1.1
0.66
0.09
7
1.1
0.66
0.07
8
1.2
0.72
0.05
9
1.2
0.72
0.07
10
1
0.6
0.04
0.754 CFS
8/31/2014
0.07 Ft/s
1
0.6
0.36
0.03
2
0.6
0.36
0.03
3
0.7
0.42
0.04
4
0.7
0.42
0.03
5
0.7
0.42
0.05
6
0.7
0.42
0.05
7
0.7
0.42
0.05
8
0.8
0.48
0.03
9
0.9
0.54
0.01
10
0.7
0.42
0.05
0.28 CFS
0.04 Ft/s
180
Table 6A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
9/21/2014
1
0.5
0.3
0.04
2
0.5
0.3
0.02
3
0.6
0.36
0.03
4
0.6
0.36
0.06
5
0.6
0.36
0
6
0.6
0.36
0.04
7
0.7
0.42
0.01
8
0.6
0.36
0.05
9
0.6
0.36
0.08
10
0.4
0.24
-0.01
0.19 CFS
9/28/2014
0.03 Ft/s
1
0.5
0.3
0
2
0.5
0.3
0.06
3
0.5
0.3
0.05
4
0.5
0.3
0.04
5
0.6
0.36
0.02
6
0.6
0.36
0.01
7
0.6
0.36
0.06
8
0.65
0.39
0.04
9
0.7
0.42
0.04
10
0.45
0.27
0.04
0.21 Ft/s
0.04 Ft/s
181
Table 6A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
10/12/2014
1
0.5
0.3
2
0.4
0.24
3
0.45
0.27
4
0.4
0.24
5
0.5
0.3
6
0.6
0.36
7
0.6
0.36
8
0.6
0.36
9
0.6
0.36
0.15 CFS
10/19/2014
Velocity
0.03 Ft/s
1
0.5
0.3
-0.02
2
0.5
0.3
0.05
3
0.5
0.3
0.04
4
0.5
0.3
0.03
5
0.5
0.3
0.04
6
0.5
0.3
0.06
7
0.65
0.39
0.06
8
0.65
0.39
0.05
9
0.65
0.39
0.03
10
0.5
0.3
0.04
0.21 CFS
0.04 Ft/s
182
Table 6A. continued
Date
Location Away from
Shore (Ft)
Depth
Change in
Depth
Velocity
10/26/2014
1
0.55
0.33
0.04
2
0.55
0.33
0.06
3
0.55
0.33
0.05
4
0.55
0.33
0.04
5
0.55
0.33
0.04
6
0.6
0.36
0.06
7
0.6
0.36
0.05
8
0.6
0.36
0.06
9
0.6
0.36
0.06
10
0.6
0.36
0.02
0.28 CFS
0.05 Ft/s
183
APPENDIX B
Table 1B. Nitrate Concentrations (mg/L) for Tributaries.
Dates
Outfall
Duplicate
Carmichael Ditch
Duplicate
Shave Tail Creek
Duplicate
Huffman
Ditch
Duplicate
6/15/2014
0.4
----
4.2
----
1.6
----
3.2
----
6/22/2014
0.2
----
2.8
2.9
1.4
----
2
----
7/6/2014
0.7
----
1.1
----
0.9
1
1.5
----
7/13/2014*
0.2
----
1.4
----
0.9
----
1
----
7/20/2014
0.3
----
1.5
----
0.9
----
0.8
----
7/27/2014
0.6
0.5
0
----
0.6
----
0.7
----
8/3/2014*
1
----
0.1
----
0.5
----
1.8
1.7
8/10/2014
0.9
----
0.7
----
1.1
----
2.1
----
8/17/2014*
0.5
----
0.9
----
----
----
1.7
----
184
8/24/2014
0.5
----
1.5
----
0.5
0.6
0.5
----
8/31/2014
0.4
----
0.7
0.7
0.4
----
0.7
----
9/7/2014
0.3
----
0.3
----
0.2
----
0.7
----
9/14/2014
0.5
----
0.8
----
0.3
----
0.8
0.8
9/21/2014
0.2
----
0.1
----
0.3
0.3
0.4
----
9/28/2014
0.3
----
0.6
----
0.6
----
0.8
----
10/12/2014
0.8
0.8
0.5
----
0.7
----
0.8
----
10/19/2014
0.4
----
1.8
----
0.4
----
0.8
----
10/26/2014
0.3
----
0.6
----
0.2
0.2
0.2
----
“----“ signifies no data and “*” is for erroneous standards
185
Table 1B. continued
Dates
Cemetery Run
Duplicate
Cecil Ditch
Duplicate
Trip Blank
Lab Blank
6/15/2014
0.7
----
2
----
0
0
9.1
6/22/2014
0.4
----
2.7
----
0
0
9.4
7/6/2014
0.7
----
0.8
----
0
0
9.1
7/13/2014*
0.3
----
0.9
1
0
0
0.48
7/20/2014
0.9
0.8
0.6
----
0
0
9.8
7/27/2014
0.6
----
1
----
0
0
9.3
8/3/2014*
0.6
----
1.3
----
0
0
7.1
8/10/2014
1.4
----
1.6
----
0
0
9.3
8/17/2014*
1.3
1.4
1.9
----
0
0
8.9
8/24/2014
0.3
----
0.7
----
0
0
9
186
Standard
8/31/2014
0.4
----
1.2
----
0
0
9
9/7/2014
0.7
----
0.3
0.2
0
0
9.1
9/14/2014
0.4
----
0.4
----
0
0
9.2
----
0.1
----
0
0
9.5
9/21/2014
9/28/2014
0.7
0.7
1.9
----
0
0
9
10/12/2014
0.5
----
1.1
----
0
0
10.7
10/19/2014
0.1
----
0.9
----
0
0
10.2
10/26/2014
0.3
----
0
----
0
0
9.3
187
Appendix C
Table 1C. Nitrite Concentrations (mg/L) for tributaries.
Date
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch Shave Tail Creek Huffman Ditch Cemetery Run
6/15/2014
0
0.03
0.44
0
0
0
7/6/2007
1.3
1.47
0.57
1.32
0
1.18
7/20/2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
8/10/2014
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
8/24/2014
0
0.86
0.35
0
0
2.45
8/31/2014
0
0.18
0
0
0
0
9/7/2014
2
2.37
4.2
1.5
2.89
2.73
9/14/2014
1.17
0.63
0
0
0
0
9/21/2014
0
0
0
0.58
0
0
9/28/2014
0.5
0.16
2.98
2.8
1.3
3.5
10/12/2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
10/19/2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
10/26/2014
0.24
1.33
1.15
0.8
0
0.86
188
Cecil Ditch
APPENDIX D
Table 1D. Ammonia Concentrations (mg/L) for Tributaries.
Dates
Outfall
Duplicate
Carmichael Ditch
Duplicate
Shave Tail Creek
Duplicate
Huffman
Ditch
Duplicate
0.06
----
0.02
----
6/15/2014
0
0
0.07
6/22/2014*
0
----
0.07
0.06
0.04
----
0.05
----
7/6/2014
0
----
0.03
----
0.03
0.03
0.08
----
7/13/2014
0
----
0.05
----
0.02
----
0.01
----
7/20/2014
0.03
----
0.07
----
0.24
----
0.06
----
7/27/2014
0
0.01
0.02
----
0
----
0
----
8/3/2014
0.1
----
0.04
----
0
----
0.02
0.01
8/10/2014
0.05
0.05
0
----
0
----
0
----
8/17/2014
0.08
----
0.04
----
0.05
----
0
----
189
8/24/2014
0
----
0.02
----
0.09
0.09
0.02
----
8/31/2014
0
----
0.03
0.01
0
----
0
----
9/7/2014
0.03
----
0.07
----
0.03
----
0
----
9/14/2014
0.13
----
0.05
----
0.02
----
0.02
----
9/21/2014
0
----
0.04
----
0.02
0.03
0
----
9/28/2014
0.14
----
0.07
----
0.08
----
0.01
----
10/12/2014
0.07
0.09
0.05
----
0.01
----
0
----
10/19/2014
0.06
----
0.07
----
0.05
----
0
----
10/26/2014
0.04
----
0.06
----
0.02
----
0
----
“----“ signifies no data and “*” is for erroneous standards.
190
Table 1D. continued
Dates
Cemetery Run
Duplicate
Cecil Ditch
Duplicate
6/15/2014
0.03
----
0.07
----
0
0
0.47
6/22/2014*
0.01
----
0.07
----
0
0
0.39
7/6/2014
0.06
----
0.02
----
0
0
0.46
7/13/2014
0.07
----
0.06
0.06
0
0
0.45
7/20/2014
0.03
0.04
0.1
----
0
0
0.49
7/27/2014
0
----
0
----
0
0
0.45
8/3/2014
0.05
----
0.03
----
0
0
0.5
8/10/2014
0
----
0
----
0
0
0.45
8/17/2014
0.02
0.01
0.05
----
0
0
0.45
8/24/2014
0.04
----
0.07
----
0
0
0.47
191
Trip Blank
Lab Blank
Standard
8/31/2014
0.01
----
0.07
----
0
0
0.48
9/7/2014
0
----
0
0
0
0
0.49
9/14/2014
0.01
----
0.02
----
0
0
0.48
9/21/2014
----
----
0
----
0
0
0.46
9/28/2014
0.04
0.04
0.07
----
0
0
0.5
10/12/2014
0
----
0.02
----
0
0
0.45
10/19/2014
0.03
----
0.04
0.04
0
0
0.49
10/26/2014
0.01
----
0.01
----
0
0
0.47
“----“ signifies no data and “*” is for erroneous standards.
192
APPENDIX E
Table 1E. Total Nitrogen Concentrations (mg/L) for Tributaries.
Shave Tail
Creek
Duplicate
Huffman
Ditch
Duplicate
2.1
----
2
----
4.9
1.7
----
4
----
2.6
----
1.5
1.4
2.9
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
0
----
0.2
----
0.6
----
0.5
----
7/27/2014*
0
----
0
----
0
----
0
----
8/3/2014
1.7
----
1.3
----
0.9
----
1.9
2.1
8/10/2014
0.6
0.5
0.8
----
0.9
----
1.4
----
Dates
Outfall
Duplicate
Carmichael Ditch
6/15/2014
0
0
4.3
6/22/2014
0.2
----
4.7
7/6/2014
2
----
7/13/2014*
----
7/20/2014
8/17/2014
----
Duplicate
----
193
----
----
8/24/2014
0
----
2.4
----
0.9
0.8
0.3
----
8/31/2014
0
----
0.9
0
0
----
0
----
9/7/2014
2.3
----
2.7
----
4.4
----
2.2
----
9/14/2014
1.7
----
1.5
----
0
----
0.7
0.9
9/21/2014
0
----
0
----
0
0.2
1
9/28/2014
0.8
----
0.8
----
3.6
----
3.6
----
10/12/2014
0
0
0
----
0
----
0.1
----
10/19/2014
0
----
0
----
0
----
0
----
10/26/2014
0.6
----
2
----
1.4
1.6
1
----
“----“ signifies no data and “*” is for erroneous standards.
194
Table 1E. continued
Dates
Cemetery Run
Duplicate
Cecil Ditch
6/15/2014
0
----
6/22/2014
1.3
7/6/2014
Duplicate
Trip Blank
Lab Blank
Standard
0.9
0
0
9.1
----
4.9
0
0
9.5
0.6
----
2
0
0
9
7/13/2014
----
----
----
----
----
----
7/20/2014
0.8
0.8
0.1
0
0
9.5
7/27/2014*
0
----
0
0
0
0
9.45
8/3/2014
0.8
----
1.3
----
0
0
9.6
8/10/2014
0.04
----
1.2
----
0
0
9
8/17/2014
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
8/24/2014
0
----
3.2
----
0
0
9.2
8/31/2014
0
----
0
0
0
10.2
9/7/2014
3.6
----
3.1
2.9
0
0
10.9
9/14/2014
0
----
0
----
0
0
9.5
9/21/2014
----
----
0
----
0
0
9.8
9/28/2014
2
1.9
5.4
----
0
0
9.8
10/12/2014
0
----
0.2
----
0
0
10
----
195
10/19/2014
0
----
0
0
0
0
9.6
10/26/2014
0
----
0.9
----
0
0
10.3
“----“ signifies no data.
196
Appendix F
Table 1F. Particulate phosphorus concentrations for the tributaries. “----“ result was out of range.
Date
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
6/15/2014
0
0.009783
0.143484
0
0
0
7/6/2007
0.42393
0.479367
0.185877
0.430452
0
0.384798
7/20/2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
8/10/2014
0.3261
0.410886
0.09783
0.384798
0.048915
0.088047
8/24/2014
0
0.03261
0
0
0
0
8/31/2014
0
0.280446
0.114135
0
0
0.798945
9/7/2014
0
0.058698
0
0
0
0
9/14/2014
0.6522
0.772857
1.36962
0.48915
0.942429
0.890253
9/21/2014
0.381537
0.205443
0
0
0
0
197
9/28/2014
0
0
0
0.189138
0
0
10/12/2014
0.16305
0.052176
0.971778
0.91308
0.42393
1.14135
10/19/2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
10/26/2014
0
0
0
0
0
-0.29349
198
APPENDIX G
Table 1G. Soluble Orthophosphate Concentrations (mg/L) for Tributaries. “----“signifies no data.
Dates
Outfall Duplicate
Carmichael
Ditch
Duplicate
Shave Tail
Creek
Duplicate
Huffman
Ditch
Duplicate
----
----
----
0.51
----
6/15/2014
----
----
----
----
----
6/22/2014
0
----
0.63
0.68
0.29
7/6/2014
0.19
----
0.31
----
0.26
0.23
0.13
----
7/13/2014
0.32
----
0.24
----
0.29
----
0.29
----
7/20/2014
0.01
----
0.29
----
0.29
----
0.24
----
7/27/2014
0.07
0.06
0.06
----
0.25
----
0.17
----
8/3/2014
0.25
----
0.13
----
0.33
----
0.23
0.22
8/10/2014
0.06
0.07
0.04
----
0.18
----
0.06
----
8/17/2014
0.09
----
0.23
----
0.21
----
0.17
----
8/24/2014
0.22
----
0.99
----
1.87
1.87
0.75
----
199
8/31/2014
0.09
----
0.18
0.2
0.26
----
0.22
----
9/7/2014
0.08
----
0.11
----
0.18
----
0.67
----
9/14/2014
0.12
----
0.25
----
0.39
----
0.36
0.35
9/21/2014
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
9/28/2014
0.26
----
0.57
----
0.33
----
0.42
----
10/12/2014
0.01
0
0.1
----
0.11
----
0.11
----
10/19/2014
0.05
----
0.28
----
0.24
----
0.29
----
10/26/2014
0.1
----
0.24
----
0.21
0.21
0.43
----
“----“ signifies no data.
200
Table 1G. continued
Dates
Cemetery Run
Duplicate
Cecil Ditch
Duplicate
Trip Blank
Lab Blank
Standard
6/15/2014
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
6/22/2014
0.14
----
0.18
----
0
0
0.92
7/6/2014
0.06
----
0.04
----
0
0
0.98
7/13/2014
0.24
----
0.21
0.19
0
0
0.98
7/20/2014
0.17
0.16
OR
----
0
0
1
7/27/2014
0.35
----
0.2
----
0
0
1.09
8/3/2014
0.14
----
0.17
----
0
0
1.02
8/10/2014
0.19
----
0.07
----
0
0
0.92
8/17/2014
0.1
0.09
0.47
----
0
0
1.05
8/24/2014
0.15
----
1.35
----
0
0
1
8/31/2014
0.33
----
0.21
----
0
0
1
9/7/2014
0.27
----
0.17
0.16
0
0
0.98
9/14/2014
0.23
----
0.39
----
0
0
1
9/21/2014
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
9/28/2014
0.18
----
0.48
----
0
0
0.99
10/12/2014
0.17
----
0.1
----
0
0
0.9
10/19/2014
0.13
----
0.17
0.17
0
0
1.01
201
10/26/2014
0.39
----
0.6
----
“----“ signifies no data.
202
0
0
1.02
APPENDIX H
Table 1H. Total Phosphorus Concentrations (mg/L) for Tributaries. “----“signifies no data.
Dates
Outfall Duplicate
Carmichael
Ditch
Duplicate
Shave Tail
Creek
Duplicate
Huffman
Ditch
Duplicate
----
0.68
----
0.68
----
6/15/2014
0
0.47
0.5
----
0.78
6/22/2014
0
----
0.54
0.68
1.83
7/6/2014
0.08
----
0.12
----
0.17
0.16
0.16
----
7/13/2014
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
7/20/2014
0
----
0
----
0.02
----
0
----
7/27/2014
0.18
0.19
0.15
----
0.28
----
0.17
----
8/3/2014
0.11
----
0.27
----
0.12
----
0.15
0.15
8/10/2014
0.07
0.06
0
----
0.13
----
0.1
----
8/17/2014
0
----
0.2
----
0.1
----
0.13
----
8/24/2014
0
----
0.87
----
0.89
0.94
0.52
----
203
8/31/2014
0.19
----
0.12
0.11
0.64
----
0.62
----
9/7/2014
0.03
----
0.27
----
0.11
----
0.14
----
9/14/2014
0.46
----
0.52
----
0.68
----
0.46
0.46
9/21/2014
0
----
0
----
0.09
----
0
----
9/28/2014
0
----
0
----
0.14
----
0.23
----
10/12/2014
0
0.01
0.08
----
0.21
----
0.15
----
10/19/2014
0.59
----
0.87
----
0.6
----
0.45
----
10/26/2014
0.25
----
0.24
----
0.45
0.45
0.18
----
204
Table 1H. continued
Dates
Cemetery Run
Duplicate
Cecil Ditch
Duplicate
Trip Blank
Lab Blank
Standard
6/15/2014
0.66
----
0.48
----
0
0
1.39
6/22/2014
0.68
----
0.13
----
0
0
0.97
7/6/2014
0.14
----
0.28
----
0
0
1.06
7/13/2014
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
7/20/2014
0.04
0.05
0.03
----
0
0
1
7/27/2014
0.18
----
0.11
----
0
0
1.1
8/3/2014
0.09
----
0
----
0
0
1.03
8/10/2014
0.08
----
0.02
----
0
0
0.9
8/17/2014
0.19
0.18
0
----
0
0
1.03
8/24/2014
0.24
----
0.32
----
0
0
0.93
8/31/2014
0.15
----
0.01
----
0
0
0.9
9/7/2014
0.15
----
0.16
0.14
0
0
0.93
9/14/2014
0.25
----
0.04
----
0
0
1.02
9/21/2014
----
----
0
----
0
0
0.92
9/28/2014
0
0
0
----
0
0
0.94
10/12/2014
0
----
0.07
----
0
0
0.98
10/19/2014
0.59
----
0.31
0.28
0
0
0.97
205
10/26/2014
0.13
----
0.04
----
“----“ signifies no data.
206
0
0
0.94
APPENDIX I
Table 1I. Results of in-situ measurements: pH Concentrations for Tributaries.
Date
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
7/13/2014
8.16
6.8
7.22
7.38
7.47
7.29
7/27/2014
7.54
6.99
7.33
7.56
7.54
7.42
8/3/2014
7.08
6.64
7.24
7.52
7.51
7.56
8/24/2014
8.36
6.6
7.4
7.5
7.53
7.23
8/31/2014
8.38
7.02
7.72
7.75
7.47
7.38
9/14/2014
7.53
6.69
7.2
7.46
8.11
7.23
9/21/2014*
7.5
6.62
7.2
7.47
7.48
7.26
9/28/2014
7
6.76
6.88
7.35
7.54
6.87
10/19/2014
7.28
6.48
6.87
7.47
7.07
6.86
10/26/2014
7.37
6.16
6.55
6.8
6.93
6.22
“*” Signifies erroneous reading.
207
APPENDIX J
Table 4J. Results of in-situ measurements: Temperature for Tributaries. “*” signifies erroneous reading
Date
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
7/13/2014
24.92
18.22
17.92
18.09
19.07
21.29
7/27/2014
23.32
18.87
18.92
18.43
18.16
20.61
8/3/2014
17.97
16.73
18.1
17.43
20.21
17.18
8/24/2014
25.85
20.96
20.08
19.14
25.74
19.31
8/31/2014
25.25
19.36
20.12
19.25
19.07
19.66
9/14/2014
20.23
13.47
12.1
12.7
16.75
12.98
9/21/2014*
20.14
16.12
17.28
17.36
17.81
17.13
9/28/2014
16.55
14.88
14.05
14.2
18.25
14.21
10/19/2014
13.06
10.31
9.8
17.36
9.11
9.37
10/26/2014
12.1
10.07
10.49
10.22
8.81
10.51
208
APPENDIX K
Table 1K. Results of in-situ measurements: Turbidity for Tributaries. "N/A" signifies
no data.
Date
Dam Carmichael Shave Tail Huffman Cemetary Cecil
7/13/2014
14.8
20.3
29.7
19.3
30.3
N/A
8/24/2014
17.4
24.6
27.7
135.2
29.2
17.1
8/31/2014
20.6
18.6
16.4
8.6
30.3
17.7
9/14/2014
15.3
34.6
10.5
18.4
24.6
20.6
9/28/2014
47.2
49.8
489
27.1
28.4
30
10/19/2014
15.1
24.7
22
42.7
8
13.6
10/26/2014
N/A
25.3
16.2
16.4
19.9
22.9
APPENDIX L
Table 1L. Results of in-situ measurements: Specific Conductivity for Tributaries.
"N/A" signifies no data and "IE" signifies instrument error.
Date
7/13/2014
7/27/2014
8/3/2014
8/24/2014
8/31/2014
9/14/2014
Dam
0.1
355.3
471.9
313
307
328.2
Carmichael
690.6
676.9
664.9
410.2
671.3
749.9
Shave Tail
677.3
660.8
665.5
460.8
0.6
667.3
Huffman
677
660.2
658.3
532.6
670.5
673
Cemetary
643.8
658.9
IE
409.1
643.8
339.5
Cecil
N/A
N/A
738.7
784.9
795.1
750
9/28/2014
10/19/2014
10/26/2014
420.2
349.5
374.6
720.2
814.9
785.4
676.2
685.4
685.5
662.5
766.5
691
422.3
749.7
754.9
756.4
833.6
780.8
209
Appendix M
Table 1M. Surface water quality parameters measured for Prairie Creek Reservoir Tributaries in 2014 (June through October).
Parameter
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
pH
7.63
6.68
7.16
7.42
7.46
7.12 ± 0.41
std.
0.53
0.26
0.34
0.26
0.33
0.41
n=
9
9
9
9
9
9
Median
7.53
6.69
7.22
7.47
7.51
7.23
Range
7 - 8.4
6.16 - 7
6.55 - 7.7
6.8 - 7.8
6.93 - 8.1
6.22 - 7.6
Dissolved Oxygen
5.69
3.23
2.48
2.94
3.53
2.69
std.
3.66
2.54
2.36
1.66
3.21
2.34
n=
9
9
9
9
9
9
Median
5.85
3.17
2.92
3.08
3.64
2.45
Range
0 - 11.22
0 - 6.65
0 - 5.91
0 - 5.23
0 - 10.98
0 - 5.55
Turbidity
21.73
28.28
20.42
38.24
24.39
20.32
std.
12.67
10.78
7.4
44.07
8.14
5.71
n=
6
7
6
7
7
6
210
Median
16.35
24.7
22
19.3
28.4
19.2
Range
14.8 - 47.2
18.6 - 49.9
10.5 - 29.7
8.6 - 135.2
8 - 30.3
13.6 - 30
Temperature
19.92
15.87
15.73
16.31
17.24
16.12
std.
5.29
3.95
4.14
3.19
5.33
4.49
n=
9
9
9
9
9
9
Median
20.23
16.73
17.92
17.43
18.25
17.18
Range
12.1 - 25.85
10.07 - 20.96
9.8 - 20.12
10.22 - 19.25
8.81 - 25.74
9.37 - 21.29
211
Table 1M. continued
Parameter
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
Specific Conductivity (uS/cm)
324.4
687.1
647.4
665.7
577.8
777.1
std.
132.6
116.49
75.92
60.02
162.85
32.22
n=
8
9
8
9
8
7
Median
349.5
690.6
667.3
670.5
643.8
780.8
Range
0.1 - 471.9
410.2 - 814.9
460.8 - 685.5
532.6 - 766.5
339.5 - 754.9
738.7 - 833.6
Table 2M. Tributary and outfall discharge characteristics
from June to October 2014.
Location
n
Mean
St. Dev.
Min.
Max.
Outfall
13
6.89
15.47
0.03
56.65
Carmichael Ditch
18
1.15
1.11
0.05
4.2
Shave Tail Creek
8
1.58
0.88
1.11
3.74
Huffman Ditch
18
0.66
0.76
0.16
3.2
Cemetery Ditch
17
0.36
0.3
-0.1
0.96
212
Cecil Ditch
17
0.42
0.46
0.15
1.9
Table 3M. Surface water nutrient concentration for Prairie Creek Reservoir Tributaries in 2014 (April through October).
Parameters
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
Nitrate
0.45
1.15
0.67
1.07
0.58
1.02
StDev
0.21
1.11
0.43
0.8
0.32
0.76
N
15
15
15
15
14
15
median
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.55
0.9
range
0.2 - 0.9
0 - 4.2
0.2 - 1.6
0.2 - 3.2
0.1 - 1.4
0 - 2.7
Ammonia
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.04
StDev
0.05
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.03
N
17
17
17
17
16
17
median
0.03
0.05
0.02
0
0.03
0.03
range
0 - 0.14
0 - 0.07
0 - 0.24
0 - 0.08
0.07
0 - 0.1
Total N
0.66
1.2
1.44
0.68
1.55
StDev
0.84
1.33
1.3
1.04
1.81
1.61
1.5
213
N
15
15
15
15
14
15
median
0.2
1.3
0.9
1
0.2
0.9
range
0 - 2.3
0 - 4.7
0 - 4.4
0-4
0 - 3.6
0 - 5.4
Particulate P
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.03
StDev
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.02
N
18
18
18
18
17
18
median
0
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.03
range
0 - 0.13
0.01 - 0.21
0 - 0.15
0 - 0.18
0 - 0.1
0 - 0.08
0.08
An abbreviation "ODL" signifies the level over detection limit
214
Table 3M. continued
Parameters
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail
Creek
Soluble Orthophosphate
0.03
0.08
0.1
0.08
0.05
0.08
StDev
0.03
0.08
0.13
0.07
0.03
0.1
N
18
18
18
18
17
18
Median
0.02
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.06
Range
0 - 0.10
0 - 32
0 - 0.61
0 - 0.24
0 - 0.11
0 - ODL
Total Phosphprus
0.04
0.09
0.13
0.09
0.06
0.04
StDev
0.06
0.09
0.15
0.08
0.07
0.05
N
18
18
18
18
17
18
Median
0
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.01
Range
0 - 0.19
0 - 0.28
0 - 0.60
0 - 0.22
0 - 0.22
0 - 0.16
215
Huffman Ditch Cemetery Run Cecil Ditch
APPENDIX N
Table 1N. Nutrient loads contributed by each tributary and exported to the White River
Nutrient Loads (lbs/yr) Outfall
Carmichael
Ditch
Shave Tail
Creek
Huffman
Ditch
Cemetery
Run
Cecil
Ditch
Nitrate
6150
1470
2100
1390
414
838
Ammonia
584
590
132
183
178
304
Total Nitrogen
8964
2076
3744
1872
468
1272
Particulate Orthophosphate
905
316
412
256
54
78
Soluble Orthophosphate
136
31
92
34
12
22
Total Phosphorus
130
30
111
31
13
8
216
APPENDIX O
Table 1O. Ranking Tributaries and outfall based on parameter results.
Parameters
Outfall
Carmichael
Ditch
Shave Tail
Creek
Discharge
1
3
2
4
6
5
Nitrate
1
6
3
5
2
4
Ammonia
3
6
3
1
2
3
Total Nitrogen
1
6
3
4
2
5
Particulate Phosphorus
1
6
4
5
2
2
Soluble Orthophosphate
1
3
6
4
2
4
Total Phosphorus
1
3
6
5
3
2
pH
6
3
2
4
5
1
Dissolved Oxygen
1
3
6
4
2
5
Temp
6
2
1
4
5
3
Turbidity
3
5
2
6
4
1
Specific Conductivity
1
5
3
4
2
6
Total:
26
51
41
50
37
41
Rank
1
6
3
5
2
3
217
Huffman Ditch Cemetery Run Cecil Ditch
Table 2O. Ranking Tributaries and outfall based on nutrient median concentrations.
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
Nitrate
1
4
3
5
2
6
Ammonia
4
6
2
1
3
4
Total Nitrogen
1
6
3
5
1
3
Particulate Phosphorus
1
6
4
5
2
3
Soluble Orthophosphate
1
4
6
5
2
3
Total Phosphorus
1
5
6
4
3
2
Total
9
31
24
25
13
21
Rank
1
6
4
5
2
3
Parameters
218
APPENDIX P
Table 1P. Spearman Correlations for tributary parameters (r).
Parameters
Outfall
Carmichael Ditch
Shave Tail Creek
Huffman Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
Nitrate vs. Discharge
-0.64
0.77
-0.24
0.372
-0.10
0.00
Ammonia vs. Discharge
-0.22
-0.13
0.56
0.59
-0.19
0.14
Total N vs. Discharge
-0.22
0.43
-0.16
0.18
0.10
0.32
Particulate P. vs.
Discharge
-0.10
-0.02
-0.08
0.13
-0.25
-0.13
Soluble P vs. Discharge
0.37
0.76
0.20
0.44
-0.17
-0.09
Total P vs. Discharge
-0.18
0.66
-0.23
0.63
0.02
0.06
219
Nitrate vs. pH
-0.86
-0.52
0.47
-0.04
0.66
0.43
Ammonia vs. pH
-0.63
-0.42
-0.34
-0.12
-0.13
-0.06
Total N vs. pH
-0.63
-0.10
-0.28
-0.54
0.37
0
Particulate P vs pH
-0.20
-0.22
-0.31
0.11
-0.45
-0.19
Soluble P vs. pH
0.12
-0.16
0.30
-0.30
-0.19
-0.22
Total P vs. pH
-0.29
-0.41
0.22
0.45
-0.24
-0.05
Nitrate vs. Dissolved
Oxygen
-0.70
0.08
0.46
-0.03
0.36
0.45
Ammonia vs. Dissolved
Oxygen
-0.83
-0.75
-0.15
-0.13
0.58
0.49
220
Table 1P. continued
Parameter
Outfall
Carmichael
Ditch
Shave Tail
Creek
Huffman
Ditch
Cemetery
Run
Cecil Ditch
Total Nitrogen vs. Dissolved
Oxygen
-0.83
0.55
-0.23
-0.77
0.51
0.18
0.14
-0.41
-0.42
Particulate Orthophosphate vs
Dissolved Oxygen
-0.20
-0.38
0.49
Soluble Orthophosphate vs.
Dissolved Oxygen
0.10
0.40
0.58
0.21
-0.38
0.18
Total Phosphorus vs. Dissolved Oxygen
-0.19
0.17
0.36
0.61
-0.25
0.10
pH vs. Discharge
0.88
-0.33
-0.66
0.61
0.42
0.22
Dissolved Oxygen vs. Discharge
0.82
0.30
-0.66
0.73
0.75
0.39
221
Specific Conductivity vs. Discharge
-0.09
0.11
0.72
-0.50
-0.38
0.63
Stream Turbidity vs. Discharge
0.73
-0.34
1.0
-0.58
0.62
-0.27
Temp vs. pH
0.83
0.6
0.97
0.8
0.24
0.73
Temp vs. Dissolved Oxygen
0.82
0.75
0.95
0.87
0.95
0.86
Nitrate vs. Turbidity
0.56
-0.36
0.74
0.04
0.71
0.38
Ammonia vs. Turbidity
0.15
0.51
0.54
-0.25
0.27
0.04
Total Nitrogen vs. Turbidity
0.15
-0.14
0.29
0.08
0.29
0.69
222
Table 1P. continued
Parameter
Outfall
Carmichael
Ditch
Total Phosphorus vs.
Turbidity
-0.43
-0.20
-0.34
-0.16
-0.81
-0.70
Particulate Phosphorus
vs. Turbidity
-0.20
-0.24
-0.11
0.81
-0.89
-0.58
Soluble Orthophosphate vs. Turbidity
0.31
0.27
0.43
-0.37
0.21
0.02
Nitrite vs. Discharge
-0.31
-0.05
-0.32
0.10
-0.37
0.30
Nitrite vs. Ph
0.53
0.41
0.92
0.62
-0.30
0.25
Nitrite vs. Dissolved
oxygen
0.30
-0.62
0.55
0.70
-0.17
0.48
223
Shave Tail
Creek
Huffman
Ditch
Cemetery Run
Cecil Ditch
Nitrite vs. Turbidity
-0.12
-0.48
-0.29
-0.87
0.48
-0.36
Nitrite vs. Total N.
-0.29
0.01
-0.29
-0.21
-0.21
-0.17
224
APPENDIX Q
Table 1Q Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Nitrate concentration of the tributaries and the outfall.
Locations
N
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
Carmichael
Ditch
18
0.7
51.7
1.1
Cecil Ditch
18
0.9
53.7
1.43
Cemetery Run
17
0.55
37.4
-1.2
Huffman
Ditch
18
0.8
56.4
1.88
Outfall
18
0.4
29.1
-2.61
Shave Tail
Creek
18
0.6
41.2
-0.62
H = 12.95
DF = 5
p =
0.24
(adjusted for
ties)
225
Table 2Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing ammonia Concentrations of the tributaries and the
outfall.
Location
N
Median
Ave. Rank
Z-score
Outfall
17
0.03
53.4
0.37
Carmichael Ditch
17
0.05
66.6
2.41
Shave Tail Creek
17
0.02
52.4
0.21
Huffman Ditch
17
0
32.2
-2.9
Cemetery Run
16
0.03
45.9
-0.76
Cecil Ditch
17
0.03
55.2
0.65
H = 13.23
DF = 5
p = 0.021
226
(adjusted for ties)
Table 3Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Discharge Concentrations of the tributaries and the
outfall.
Location s
N
Median
Ave. Rank
Z-Score
Carmichael Ditch
18
0.14
32.8
-2.36
Cecil Ditch
17
0.22
38.4
-1.32
Cemetery Run
17
0.34
39.8
-1.07
Huffman Ditch
18
0.30
49.3
0.59
Outfall
13
1.4
60.2
2.09
Shave Tail Creek
8
1.31
74.5
3.2
H = 20.19
DF = 5
p = 0.001
227
(adjusted for ties)
Table 4Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Total Nitrogen
concentrations of the tributaries and the outfall.
Location s
n
Carmichael
Ditch
15
1.3
53.4
1.38
Cecil Ditch
15
0.9
49
0.66
Cemetery Run
14
0.2
33.6
-1.79
Huffman
Ditch
15
1
52.5
1.24
Outfall
15
0.2
35
-1.64
Shave Tail
Creek
15
0.9
45.6
0.1
H = 8.43
DF = 5
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
(adjusted for
ties)
0.134
228
Table 5Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing nitrite
concentrations of the tributaries and the outfall.
Location
n
median
ave.
Rank
Z
Carmichael
Ditch
13
0
46.5
1.21
Cecil Ditch
13
0
40
0.08
Cemetery Run
13
0
32.2
-1.27
Outfall
13
0
38.1
-0.24
Huffman Ditch
13
0
39.5
0
Shave Tail
Creek
13
0
40.8
0.22
H = 2.67
P=
0.652
Df = 5
229
Table 6Q. Kruskal Wallis Test: comparing particulate
P concentrations of the tributaries and outfall
Location
n
median
ave.
Rank
Z
Carmichael
Ditch
16
0
58.5
1.68
Cecil Ditch
16
0
46
-0.31
Cemetery Run
16
0
42.7
-0.85
Outfall
16
0
46.2
-0.29
Huffman Ditch
16
0
48.9
0.14
Shave Tail
Creek
16
0
45.6
-0.38
H = 7.58
P=
0.181
DF = 5
230
Table 7Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Soluble P concentrations of the tributaries and the outfall. * signifies median value
above actual median.
Location
n
Carmichael
Ditch
18
0.24
51.2
0.51
Cecil Ditch
18
0.2
49.6
0.24
Cemetery Run
17
0.18*
43.2
-0.77
Huffman Ditch
18
0.27*
58.3
1.64
Outfall
18
0.09
25.2
-3.62
Shave Tail
Creek
18
0.26
60.7
2.01
DF = 5
p=
0.004
H = 17.32
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
(adjusted for
ties)
231
Table 8Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Total P concentrations of the tributaries and the outfall.
Locations
n
Carmichael
Ditch
17
0.2
55.3
0.66
Cecil Ditch
17
0.04
37.9
-2.02
Cemetery Run
16
0.15
53.3
0.34
Huffman
Ditch
17
0.17
60.2
1.42
Outfall
17
0.03
33.6
-2.68
Shave Tail
Creek
17
0.21
65.8
2.29
DF = 5
p=
0.007
H = 15.99
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
(adjusted for
ties)
232
Table 9Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing pH of the tributaries and the outfall.
Locations
n
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
SE
MSD
Conclusion
Carmichael
Ditch
9
6.69
8.2
-4.4
5.24
15.42
N.s.
Cecil Ditch
9
7.23
23.6
-0.81
5.24
15.42
N.s.
Cemetery Run
9
7.51
36.8
1.95
5.24
15.42
N.s.
Huffman
Ditch
9
7.47
35.5
1.67
5.24
15.42
N.s.
Outfall
9
7.53
37.7
2.14
5.24
15.42
N.s.
Shave Tail
Creek
9
7.22
23.2
-0.91
5.24
15.42
N.s.
H = 24.13
DF = 5
p=0
(adjusted for
ties)
“S.D." signifies a Significant Difference and "N.s." means no difference.
233
Table 10Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Dissolved Oxygen concentrations of the tributaries and the outfall.
Locations
n
Carmichael
Ditch
9
3.17
26.4
-0.12
Cecil Ditch
9
2.45
23.6
-0.73
Cemetery Run
9
3.64
26.4
-0.12
Huffman
Ditch
9
3.08
24.5
-0.53
Outfall
9
5.85
36.7
2.07
Shave Tail
Creek
9
2.96
24
-0.6
DF = 5
p=
0.466
H = 24.13
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
(adjusted for
ties)
234
Table 11Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Temperature of
the tributaries and the outfall.
Locations
n
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
Carmichael
Ditch
9
16.73
24.6
-0.62
Cecil Ditch
9
17.18
27.1
-0.08
Cemetery
Run
9
18.25
28.7
0.24
Huffman
Ditch
9
17.43
24.7
-0.59
Outfall
9
20.23
36.1
1.79
Shave Tail
Creek
9
17.92
23.9
-0.74
H = 3.78
DF = 5
p=
0.581
(adjusted for
ties)
235
Table 12Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Specific Conductivity of the tributaries and the outfall.
Locations
n
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
SE
MSD
Carmichael
Ditch
9
690.6
34.1
1.8
5.24
15.42
Cecil Ditch
9
780.8
45.4
3.72
5.24
15.42
Cemetery Run
9
643.8
20.9
-1.06
5.24
15.42
Huffman
Ditch
9
670.5
27.7
0.37
5.24
15.42
Outfall
9
349.5
7.1
-4.2
5.24
15.42
Shave Tail
Creek
9
667.3
24.6
-0.32
5.24
15.42
H = 24.13
DF = 5
p=0
(adjusted for
ties)
236
Table 13Q. Kruskal-Wallis Test: Comparing Turbidity of
the tributaries and the outfall.
Locations
n
Carmichael
Ditch
7
24.7
25.8
1.48
Cecil Ditch
6
19.15
16.9
-0.72
Cemetery Run
7
28.4
23.9
1.01
Huffman
Ditch
7
19.3
20.5
0.13
Outfall
6
16.35
14.4
-1.3
Shave Tail
Creek
6
19.2
16.8
-0.76
DF = 5
p=
0.414
H = 5.01
Median Ave. Rank
Z-Score
(adjusted
for ties)
237
APPENDIX R
Table 1R. Multiple comparison test for ammonia concentrations for the tributaries.
Comparison
(R1 - R2) n1
n2
SE
MSD
Conclusion
Carmichael Ditch -outfall
13.2
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - outfall
-1
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - outfall
-21.2
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Cemetery Run -outfall
-7.5
16
17
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Cecil Ditch - outfall
1.8
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Shave Tail
Creek
14.2
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Huffman
Ditch
34.4
17
17
10.05
29.55
S.D.
Carmichael Ditch - Cemetery Run
20.7
17
16
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cecil Ditch
11.4
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Huffman
Ditch
20.2
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cemetery Run
6.5
17
16
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cecil Ditch
-2.8
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cemetery Run
-13.7
17
16
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cecil Ditch
-23
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Cemetery Run - Cecil Ditch
-9.3
16
17
10.21
30.02
N.s.
"S.D." signifies a Significant Difference and "N.s." means no difference.
238
Table 2R. Multiple comparison test for discharge of the tributaries and outfall.
Comparison
(R1 - R2)
n1
n2
SE
MSD
Conclusion
outfall - Carmichael Ditch
27.4
13
18
9.61
28.25
N.s.
outfall - Shave Tail Creek
-14.3
13
8
11.87
34.9
N.s.
outfall - Huffman Ditch
10.9
13
18
9.61
28.25
N.s.
outfall - Cemetery Run
20.4
13
17
9.73
28.61
N.s.
outfall - Cecil Ditch
21.8
13
17
9.73
28.61
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Huffman
Ditch
-16.5
18
17
8.93
26.25
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cemetery
Run
-7
18
17
8.93
26.25
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cecil Ditch
-5.6
18
17
8.93
26.25
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Carmichael
Ditch
41.7
18
8
11.87
34.9
S.D.
Shave Tail Creek - Huffman
Ditch
14.3
8
17
11.87
34.9
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cemetery
Run
34.7
8
17
11.87
34.9
S.D.
Shave Tail Creek - Cecil Ditch
36.1
8
17
11.87
34.9
S.D.
Huffman Ditch - Cemetery Run
9.5
18
17
8.93
26.25
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cecil Ditch
10.9
18
17
8.93
26.25
N.s.
Cemetery Run - Cecil Ditch
1.4
17
17
9.06
26.64
N.s.
"S.D." signifies a Significant Difference and "N.s." means no difference.
239
Table 3R. Multiple comparison test for particulate orthophosphate concentrations for
the tributaries.
Comparison
(R1 - R2) n1
n2
SE
MSD
Conclusion
Carmichael Ditch -outfall
43.8
18
18
10.34
30.4
S.D.
Shave Tail Creek - outfall
25.2
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - outfall
38.5
18
18
10.34
30.4
S.D.
Cemetery Run -outfall
10
17
18
10.5
30.87
N.s.
Cecil Ditch - outfall
19.2
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Shave Tail
Creek
18.6
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Huffman
Ditch
5.3
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cemetery Run
33.8
18
17
10.5
30.87
S.D.
Carmichael Ditch - Cecil Ditch
24.6
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Huffman
Ditch
-13.3
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cemetery Run
15.2
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cecil Ditch
6
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cemetery Run
28.5
18
17
10.5
30.87
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cecil Ditch
19.3
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Cemetery Run - Cecil Ditch
-9.2
17
18
10.5
30.87
N.s.
"S.D." signifies a Significant Difference and "N.s." means no difference.
240
Table 4R. Multiple comparison test for soluble orthophosphate concentrations for the tributaries.
Comparison
(R1 - R2)
n1
n2
SE
MSD
Conclusion
Carmichael Ditch -outfall
26
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - outfall
35.5
18
18
10.34
30.4
S.D.
Huffman Ditch - outfall
33.1
18
18
10.34
30.4
S.D.
Cemetery Run -outfall
18
18
17
10.5
30.87
N.s.
Cecil Ditch - outfall
24.4
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Shave Tail
Creek
-9.5
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Huffman
Ditch
-7.1
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cemetery
Run
8
18
17
10.5
30.87
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cecil Ditch
1.6
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Huffman
Ditch
2.4
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cemetery
Run
17.5
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cecil Ditch
17.5
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cemetery Run
15.1
18
17
10.5
30.87
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cecil Ditch
8.7
18
18
10.34
30.4
N.s.
Cemetery Run - Cecil Ditch
-6.4
17
18
10.5
30.87
N.s.
“S.D." signifies a Significant Difference and "N.s." means no difference.
241
Table 5R. Multiple comparison test for Specific Conductivity concentrations for the tributaries.
Comparison
Conclusion
Carmichael Ditch -outfall
S.D.
Shave Tail Creek - outfall
S.D.
Huffman Ditch - outfall
S.D.
Cemetery Run -outfall
N.s.
Cecil Ditch - outfall
S.D.
Carmichael Ditch - Shave Tail
Creek
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Huffman Ditch
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cemetery Run
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cecil Ditch
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Huffman Ditch
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cemetery Run
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cecil Ditch
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cemetery Run
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cecil Ditch
N.s.
Cemetery Run - Cecil Ditch
N.s.
"S.D." signifies a Significant Difference and "N.s." means no difference.
242
Table 6R. Multiple comparison test for Total Phosphorus concentrations for the tributaries.
Comparison
(R1 - R2) n1
n2
SE
MSD
Conclusion
Carmichael Ditch -outfall
21.7
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - outfall
32.2
17
17
10.05
29.55
S.D.
Huffman Ditch - outfall
26.6
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Cemetery Run -outfall
19.7
16
17
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Cecil Ditch - outfall
4.3
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Shave Tail
Creek
-10.5
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Huffman
Ditch
-4.9
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cemetery Run
2
17
16
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Carmichael Ditch - Cecil Ditch
17.4
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Huffman
Ditch
5.6
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cemetery Run
12.5
17
16
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Shave Tail Creek - Cecil Ditch
27.9
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cemetery Run
6.9
17
16
10.21
30.02
N.s.
Huffman Ditch - Cecil Ditch
22.3
17
17
10.05
29.55
N.s.
Cemetery Run - Cecil Ditch
15.4
16
17
10.21
30.02
N.s.
"S.D." signifies a Significant Difference and "N.s." means no difference.
243