Changes in the Condition of the Wabash Rive R Drainage from 1990-2004

2006 . Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 115(2) :156–169 CHANGES IN THE CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVE R DRAINAGE FROM 1990-2004 Stacey L . Sobat, Charles C. Morris, and Alison K. Stephan : Biological Studie s Section, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 100 North Senat e Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 US A Thomas P. Simon : U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 S . Walker Street , Bloomington, Indiana 47403 US A ABSTRACT . The Wabash River drainage was evaluated based on three hydrologic watershed units tha t were sampled from 1990–2004 so that patterns in biological integrity and assessment of aquatic lif e designated uses could be determined. The three units included : 1) the West Fork and lower White River , 2) the East Fork White River, and 3) the remainder of the Indiana portions of the Wabash River system above its confluence with the Ohio River . Targeted sampling was done in each of the three watershe d units from 1990–1995, while a random probability sample design was used from 1996–2004 . Assessment of the fish assemblage information for the three periods showed increasing biological integrity for eac h of the three watersheds . The watershed with the highest biological integrity was the East Fork White River, followed by the West Fork White River, and Wabash River . Aquatic life designated uses were met in 76% of the East Fork White River stream miles ; 62% of the West Fork and lower White rivers ; and 53% of the Wabash River stream miles . Keywords : Biotic integrity, biological assessment, probabilistic design, Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) The mandate of water quality monitorin g ten degrade the environment, resulting in a de- agencies is to assess the condition of the wa- tectable decline in biological integrity . ters of the United States and to report on thei r When comparing all streams in Nort h status . As new tools are developed (Morris et America, large rivers are disproportionatel y al . 2006) and indices are calibrated (Simon degraded (Karr et al . 1985 ; Poff et al . 1997) . 1992 ; Simon & Stahl 1998 ; Simon in review) , The loss of biological integrity in these larg e increasingly more accurate assessments of th e river systems is the result of widespread lan d status of these waters can be generated whic h use changes and anthropogenic land scale dis- will allow for more emphasis to be placed o n turbance . Few studies have evaluated the restoration of vulnerable and threatened sys- long-term changes in biological integrity i n tems, as well as protection of high quality wa- drainage units as large as the Wabash River , ters . Over the last two decades monitorin g with emphasis on large mainstem river s tools developed in Indiana have focused pri- (Hughes et al . 2005) . marily on the use of biological indicators (Si- The purpose of the current study was to mon 1992 ; Simon & Dufour 1998 ; Simon document changes in three hydrologic water- 2006) . shed units within the Wabash River drainag e An environment that supports an assem- from 1990–2004 . We compared changes dur- blage of organisms similar to that produce d ing three assessment periods and the status o f by long-term evolutionary processes is con- the watershed based on a stratified probability sidered to have high biological integrity . Bi- based approach . ological integrity has been defined as "the ability to support and maintain a balanced, in- METHOD S tegrated adaptive assemblage of organism s Study area .—The Wabash River is the having species composition, diversity, and largest northern tributary of the Ohio River functional organization comparable to that o f and is the longest free-flowing large river eas t natural habitat of the region " (Karr & Dudley of the Mississippi . For this study, the Wabash 1981 ; Karr et al . 1986) . Human activities of- River drainage was divided into three water - 156 SOBAT ET AL. CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVER 15 7 shed study areas based on 8-digit hydrologi c Table 1 .Total IBI score, integrity class and at - units as defined by the U .S . Geological Sur- tributes to define the fish assemblage characteristic s vey (USGS) . The Wabash River and its direc t in Indiana streams and rivers (modified from Kar r tributaries include the headwater areas from et al . 1986) . the State of Ohio to its confluence with th e Ohio River (Posey County) . The other two Total IBI Integrity score clas s Attributes drainage units include the largest tributaries o f the Wabash River, which are the East an d 53—60 Excellent Comparable to "least im- West Forks of the White River. Together thes e pacted" conditions, ex- three drainage units represent nearly two - ceptional assemblage of thirds of the total area of central Indiana and species . encompass portions of the Eastern Corn Bel t 45—52 Good Decreased species richnes s Plain (ECBP), which is primarily rowcrop ag- (intolerant species in par- ticular), sensitive specie riculture, and the Interior River Lowlan s d present . (IRL), which includes forest landscapes, a s Fair Intolerant and sensitive spe - well as oil, gas, and coal exploration land use 35—44 s cies absent, skewed tro- (Omernik & Gallant 1988) . phic structure . Study design.The State of Indian a uses 23—34 Poor Top carnivores and many a Probabilistic Monitoring Program a s one expected species absen t portion of the state's comprehensive strategy or rare, omnivores an d to provide an evaluation of stream water qual- tolerant species dominant . ity and biological integrity in major basins o f 12—22 Very poor Few species and individual s Indiana. The probability design generates sta- present, tolerant species tistically valid estimates of the percent of total dominant, diseased fis h stream miles impaired for aquatic life and rec- frequent. reational uses . <12 No fish No fish captured during Three hydrologic units in the Wabash River sampling . drainage were assessed based on a random , stratified probabilistic design (Messer et al . 1991) . The Probabilistic Monitoring Program selection was stratified to ensure streams o f divided the state into nine major watersheds all sizes/orders (Strahler 1952) were sample d that are sampled once every five years, pro- allowing for a spatially accurate representa- viding a complete assessment of the entir e tion of the various stream sizes (USEPA 1994 ; state . USGS 1994) . Sites were generated using U .S . Environ- Three study periods included the baseline mental Protection Agency (USEPA) Environ- study that was conducted from 1990—199 5 mental Monitoring and Assessment Progra m and two rounds of the probability samplin g (EMAP) selection methods, which used ran- that included the periods 1996—1999 an d domly selected sites to assess and characteriz e 2001—2004 . the overall water quality and biotic integrit y Field collection.Fish assemblages wer e of the study basin (USEPA 1994 ; USGS assessed using a variety of electrofishin g 1994) . The target population was defined a s equipment . Small streams (<3 .3 m wetted all perennial streams within the geographi c width) were sampled using either backpack o r boundaries of Indiana for the basin of interest . long-line electrofishing units ; wadeabl e "Perennial" for the purpose of the Probabilis- streams (>3 .3 m wetted width) were sampled tic Monitoring Program was defined as wate r using long-line or tote-barge electrofishin g present in at least 50% of the stream reac h equipment; large river (non-wadeable >258 0 (reach was defined as 15 times the averag e km' drainage area) and great river (>5956 .9 7 wetted width of the stream, minimum 50 m , km') reaches were sampled using boat mount- maximum 500 m) . The sample population in- ed electrofishing units . Sampling was con - cluded all rivers, streams, canals, and ditches ducted along a linear reach of stream base d as indexed through the USEPA River Reach on 15 times the wetted width with minimu m File 3 excluding marshes, wetlands, backwa- distances of 50 m and maximum distances o f ters, impoundments, dry and tiled sites . Site 500 m (500 m each bank for large rivers) . All ! " 158 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIANA ACADEMY OF SCIENC E C C 0, I M O O O C dl C01 a, N M N 0 vO o N M M C a \ C N n 71- C M N r 'O 00 01 N 0 N tr) 0 N W Ct O m O 0 0 > acd O tUi O r: U ,o b,O '72 by • U • co co ❑ ' r•., O~. by O' 1 Q y., • N O O bq ~' Q' S C r t-i U +~ N 0 , O q 0 O N N?, p, '' • q y O r., ▪ O E .~ K COC O O 5 r„ 5 j, 0 TJ :O O 0 d O O h ..~ v 0 atititi~l~l a~ j~ ~~ Q Q Ar a • " U ! SOBAT ET AL.—CONDITION OF THE WABASH RIVE R 15 9 0d- N N N V O N c+7 r--- N 'Tr l N N'C N O d- 'Tr 0 N d\ o\ 00 N I M O a\o ° o o\N cc 41 N D1 N ' N C N N Co) 'Ct , -i O NN 0 0 -- N a\ M 00 N d- O N N ID O NO N co-) co O N a\ a 0o O vO N N V N co`, – .--1 00 tcf 00 N N d ti M N 00 --~ 41 d1 Co) M— d- N 00 O N 00 O , - , co) r a, D\ M col N co N cNA ON N O N 0 co di- O N 00 co) O 'a 90 O M C O ''or N VO a o ~O co) to Vl M C to \o M N -O'C 00 9ol C N N col - N co) N co) N N ~ V1 r N •--i 00 N O O N Co) M C Col 0 ~O Qv NO cc N N N N VO N .- .

Load more