Upper Wabash River Basin Commission

 
   HOME   FEEDBACK   
 
SUPERVISORS

NEWS

SERVICES

Watershed Info.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Upper Wabash River Basin Commission (UWRBC) was enacted by the State Legislature in 2001 by House Bill 2119, under IC 14-30-4.  It was established as a separate municipal corporation, which includes the area located in Adams, Huntington, Jay, and Wells counties that is drained by the Wabash River, including the tributaries of the Wabash River.  The voting members on the commission are the three county commissioners from each county, the chairman of each county’s Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), and the surveyor of each county, or their designee. 

 

 

 Meetings

The Upper Wabash River Basin Commission meetings are held the second (2nd) Tuesday of February, April, June, August, October, and December, at 7:00 a.m. at the Wells Carnegie Government Annex, at 225 W. Washington Street, Bluffton, IN 46714, unless other wise advertised.  Meetings are open to the public. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upper Wabash River Basin Commission

Watershed Management Plan

 

Following are excerpts from the Upper Wabash River Basin Commission Watershed Management Plan.

 

To access the plan or appendices and maps click here:  UWRBCWMP or Appendices and Maps.

 

The Watershed Management Plan (WMP) is intended to benefit communities in the watershed by helping to improve the local economy, increase effectiveness of government, and preserve the environment through comprehensive water resource planning. Watershed planning can benefit the local economy by helping to protect drinking water supply, decrease losses related to floods, and increase property values by providing attractive and safe living and recreation areas. Good watershed planning can improve the effectiveness of government through more direct public involvement that earns the trust and support of the community and guarantees that all community interests are treated fairly. The planning effort also helps to ensure that current water quality in the community is preserved and that the community will not suffer significant financial losses due to loss of natural resource buffers and other natural resources.

 

The planning process is not without some complications as members of watershed communities can have competing desires for how water is used. For example, a large proportion of the Upper Wabash River Basin watershed is agricultural with many farming interests. A farmer may view water quality issues differently than will others in the community. However, the interests of that farmer must be taken into consideration if the WMP is to be a benefit to the whole community. Likewise, the homeowner that uses a well for their water supply has an interest in clean drinking water that is not polluted from other watershed users. Further complication of the planning process is realized when there are several governmental jurisdictions with different sets of ordinances and rules for water use. Nonetheless, it is imperative that the planning process formulate a workable WMP that is sensitive to the values and desires of all members of the community and is developed with the input and support of a good cross-section of the community. Input from the farmer, homeowner, government administrator, elected official, and others in the community will help to ensure that there is balanced and equitable distribution of responsibility for and benefits of good water quality in the watershed.

 

Watershed planning is especially important to help prevent future water resource problems, preserve watershed functions, and ensure future economic, political, and environmental health. Everyone in a watershed is involved in watershed management; however, there are not typically specific agreements on how water should be used and managed by all users in a community.

 

Many activities throughout the watershed have an impact on watershed users, but the efforts are not organized, and occasionally are counter-productive and may limit economic growth and value of land. However, a WMP can provide a better understanding of community values and watershed processes and can provide guidance toward the betterment of watershed management and living conditions in the community.

 

BASELINE WATER QUALITY: CONCERNS, PROBLEMS, AND CAUSES

Linking stakeholder concerns with known and discovered water quality issues in the watershed helps to validate initial observations and provides evidence to dismiss others. Thus, a review of historic water quality studies can help to guide the planning process toward management actions that are most appropriate and efficient for improving water quality conditions. The following descriptions detail water quality baseline conditions that have been established by prior studies as they relate to stakeholder concerns. These descriptions are organized by listed stakeholder concerns, and provide the foundations for the watershed management strategies.

Stakeholder Education – Public, local decision makers, organizations

Prior studies indicate that there are certainly water quality problems associated with the Upper Wabash River and its tributary streams. Those problems stem from elevated levels of nutrients and bacteria in the water system. These levels can directly be impacted by raising stakeholder awareness and modifying day-to-day behavior within the watershed. The results of the water quality studies support the idea that education and outreach will positively impact the water quality in this watershed.

Flooding – Flood control, streambank restoration, log jam removal

Stakeholders in the Upper Wabash River watershed have expressed great concern over the issue of water quantity. Interest is high in regard to flood control measures, streambank restoration, and log jam removal practices. Historic climate and disaster data does indicate a strong prevalence of high water events, carrying with them the ability to wash out valuable instream habitat, destruct streambanks, increase pollutant loadings to receiving waterbodies, and associated destruction of aquatic communities. Debris from infrastructure and buildings damaged by flood events, oils, grease, and toxins from submerged vehicles and septic systems, and common chemicals and solvents that are present in nearly every home and can all become mobile when flooding occurs.

Agricultural Impacts – Crop production, livestock & manure management,

The studies do indicate a potential impact on water quality by agricultural practices within the boundaries of the watershed. Pollutant loadings from agricultural sources can include pathogens, nutrients, and sediments. Elevated levels of phosphorus, nitrates, sediment, and pesticides have been observed during sampling sessions at locations in the Upper Wabash River watershed surrounded by agricultural land uses. E. coli impairments could likely be linked to land applied manure, livestock with direct access to waterways, and improper handling of manure and nutrients. Prior studies do indicate that the concerns raised regarding agricultural practices and the associated impact to water quality are supported by the data.

E. coli Loadings – Failing septic systems, land applied manure, wildlife

Referencing the 305(b) and 303(d) listings provided by IDEM and the chemical sampling completed in the fall of 2005, it can be witnessed that the levels of E. coli exceed the limits set for good water quality. The Steering  Committee has expressed concern regarding this parameter specifically questioning the effects from failing septic systems. Another potential source, wastewater treatment plant facilities within the watershed, should be further investigated to determine if these facilities are impacting the Upper Wabash River watershed. Importance should be placed on this issue as it is a direct impairment not only to water quality, but also to human health.

Urban Development – Land use change, increased imperviousness

Point source and non-point source pollution has the potential to greatly increase proportionally to urban development. Increases in leaking underground storage tanks, impervious surfaces, household and yard waste, and even pet waste all contribute to the degradation of water quality. While there are no major urban areas in the Upper Wabash River watershed, the potential for growth is always accounted for. Planning needs to occur so that new construction and areas of development are required to implement measures to limit soil erosion and control stormwater runoff to reduce further degradation of the river and tributaries.

 

CRITICAL AREAS AS POTENTIAL SOURCES OF POLLUTION

Critical areas identified below are considered by the UWRBC Steering Committee to be potential sources of pollution within the watershed. In order to minimize the water quality impacts associated with these areas, it will be important to target the implementation of management measures toward these critical areas.

Failing Septic Systems

A source of the elevated pathogen bacteria in the watershed may be associated with improperly functioning, failed, or non-existent residential septic systems. Many factors can lead to the failure of a residential septic system; the age of the system, lack of regular maintenance to the system, and  heavy clay soils. Within the Upper Wabash River watershed, the unincorporated areas lack a centralized sewage disposal system, limiting homeowners to on-site septic systems. It is crucial that these homeowners are equipped with the necessary information and knowledge as to the proper maintenance of the system to prevent failure. As the more populated areas of the City of  Berne, the City of Bluffton, the Town of Bryant, the Town of Geneva, and the City of Portland continue to grow in size, it will become more feasible to provide sanitary sewer services to those residences in close proximity to these areas. The importance to provide a centralized sanitary sewer system is underlined by information prepared by Purdue University Extension regarding onsite wastewater disposal in Indiana. Adams County, according to 1990 US Census data had an approximate 4,300 households utilizing onsite wastewater disposal systems. Soils in Adams County considered to be severely limited for proper septic system function based on NRCS criteria was estimated to be 100%. Similarly, within Jay and Wells Counties there are an estimated 3,700 and 4,700 households respectively utilizing onsite wastewater treatment systems. Further, in each of Jay and Wells Counties more than 96% of the soils are classified by NRCS as severely limited for septic systems. Residential on-site sewage systems located within the floodway or 100-year floodplain are at a higher risk of discharging improperly treated effluent, bacteria, and pathogens into receiving waterbodies. As the soils become saturated due to rainfall, and the receiving streams are inundated, there is little to no treatment occurring within the soil absorption field. Routine flooding of those systems located in the floodplain may also have detrimental effects on the individual components of the system. The most critical are those areas within the watershed where a cluster of 20 or more rural homes with residential septic systems installed more than 10 years ago in soils with NRCS defined severe limitation for onsite wastewater disposal or treatment. Utilizing digital aerial photography, 8 clusters of septic systems as well as the Town of Linn Grove and the Town of New Corydon were identified.  These clusters are all located near to the Wabash River or associated tributary streams and may provide concentrated loadings of nutrients and/or bacteria if several of these systems are failing to adequately treat the household wastes. Water quality monitoring should be initiated immediately upstream as well as immediately downstream of these areas to further assess the impact on water quality and macro-invertebrate communities.

Unbuffered Stream Reaches

Unbuffered streams and tributaries are highly exposed to overland runoff and the non-point source pollutants that are carried with it. Without the protection of several feet of vegetated buffer, pollutants such as sediment, nutrients and chemicals can be directly delivered to the stream system. In addition to reductions in pollutant loadings, vegetated buffers also provide a shading effect that can provide a more habitable environment for aquatic organisms regarding temperature and dissolved oxygen. The most critical are those areas within the watershed where streams and tributaries have less than 30 feet of vegetated buffer and are bordered by agricultural fields utilizing conventional tillage methods during crop production. There are approximately 330 miles of streams within the watershed, and of that, it is estimated that approximately 122 miles, or 37%, of streams have less than 30 feet of vegetated buffer on one or both of the streambanks. The majority of such streambanks are located in the upland portions of the watershed surrounding headwater streams amid agricultural land uses. A more detailed assessment, including a tillage survey and buffer survey should be completed to provide a more accurate overview of the watershed. Utilizing a visual inspection of digital aerial photography for the Upper Wabash River watershed, it is estimated that within the 05120101-040 subwatershed, approximately 23 stream miles have less than 30 feet of established vegetation on either streambank. In addition, it is estimated that 53 unbuffered stream miles are present in the 05120101-050 and 46 stream miles are present in the 05120101-060 subwatersheds. Based on the estimated number of unbuffered stream miles, the 05120101-050 subwatershed should be targeted for efforts to establish grassy or woody vegetation along the streambanks. The promotion of existing Federal incentive programs such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Security Program (CSP), and Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) can lead to the establishment of various forms of stream buffers providing benefits not only to the Upper Wabash River, but also to the individual landowners.

Areas Prone to Flooding

Areas prone to flooding can also be sensitive to other issues related to water or habitat quality degradation, as well as cumulative effects of increased water quantity within the stream system. Poorly managed floodplains where increased construction or other land use changes have occurred result in increased vulnerabilities to the new structures and to downstream areas as well. If water is not allowed to infiltrate the soil layers due to increased impervious surfaces, runoff volumes and downstream loadings will be increased. These increased volumes of water may mobilize trees and other near stream debris creating the potential for in-stream obstructions or log jams. The term “log-jam” is defined by the Indiana Administrative Code as the accumulation of lodged trees, root wads, or other debris that impedes the ordinary flow of water through a waterway. As these log jams are created, areas of significant erosion and streambank destabilization are created further degrading water quality through sedimentation. Log jams may range in severity from leaning trees that need to be removed and utilized to stabilize the nearby streambank, to areas requiring large excavation equipment from both the land and within the stream for proper removal. With each degree of severity and corresponding workload, restrictions and guidelines provided by IDNR and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) must be adhered to rigorously. Plans of work and permits are also required for more intensive situations. Some areas in the Wabash River watershed are sensitive to log jams and associated debris deposition and/or increased streambank erosion. These areas were selected by the Adams, Jay, and Wells County Surveyors and are considered critical requiring constant observation and maintenance. The risks to structural damages and watercourse damages can be decreased through preventative measures including detailed stream studies to establish floodways, floodplains, and base flood elevations. Utilizing the associated information will provide better knowledge regarding the stream and allow for proper floodplain management. Furthermore, the installation of United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages designed to monitor water quality, elevation, and flow will provide the necessary baseline information as well as information regarding low and high water events. Longevity of record for each gage is also important to monitor trends over several years. The combination of information obtained through detailed stream studies and long term monitoring can be valuable when proposing methods to prevent repeated flood events as well as reducing the impacts of flooding to water quality and personal property. 

Livestock with Access to Stream

Livestock with access to the stream, or even feedlots and pastures bordering streams and tributaries can have a direct impact on water quality. Loadings of bacteria, such as E. coli, are directly deposited through fecal matter or delivered via stormwater runoff from the nearby feedlots and pastures. Sediment is delivered to the stream via erosion of worn livestock entrance paths and degraded streambanks. When livestock are excluded from the open streams and/or feedlots and pastures have been setback, it is important to establish a vegetated buffer to further reduce the potential of the above mentioned pollutants entering the stream system. All areas where livestock have unrestricted access to open streams and tributaries, or where feedlots and pastures are within 500 feet of the open stream or tributary without a vegetated buffer are considered critical areas for the purpose of this plan. Furthermore, these areas would be considered extremely critical areas should they also be located in an area with HEL classified soils.

Conventionally Tilled Agricultural Fields

Conventional tillage of crop land allows the soil to remain exposed to the elements for extended periods of time. The majority of conventional tillage is completed following the crop harvest in the fall and no crop residue remains on the surface of the field. Thus the topsoil is exposed to the snow and more importantly during the spring snow melts and rain events. As the snow melts and the rain falls, the potential for soil erosion and the resulting sedimentation of receiving waters is greatly increased and nearly guaranteed. Within the Upper Wabash River watershed, the primary tillage method for corn production remains to be conventional tillage. The percentage of conventional tillage is well over half in 54% conventional tillage. It does seem that soybean production has moved away from conventional tillage as the percentages are significantly lower in all three counties: Adams – 20%, Jay – 19% and Wells – 28%. Fields utilizing conventional tillage for crop production on HEL soils within 500 feet of a stream or tributary are to be considered critical areas due to the increased erosion and pollution potential. For a more detailed view of these critical areas, a tillage inventory should be completed within the watershed and those results should be cross-referenced with NRCS HEL determinations.

Highly Erodible Lands

HEL determinations, made by NRCS, are based on a mathematical equation, USLE, the Universal Soil Loss Equation. This equation takes into account the rainfall factor, erodibility of the soil type, allowable loss for that soil type and the length and the slope of the area. Soil map units may also be classified as PHEL based on a varying range of length/slope values. In such instances, the final determination of erodibility must be made through an onsite investigation. Within the Upper Wabash River watershed, there are approximately 4,200 acres (2.6% of the entire watershed) of HEL classified soils. Further, approximately 1,300 acres of HEL are located within the 05120101- 40 subwatershed. An additional 78,400 acres (49% of the entire watershed) has been labeled as having characteristics similar to HEL soils and therefore are classified as potential HEL soils requiring individual field determinations. These soils, both HEL and PHEL, need proper management to reduce the increased potential for soil erosion. Thus, areas of HEL or PHEL soils currently in production and within 500 feet of a tributary stream of the Wabash River within the 05120101-040 are considered the most critical. These areas will need to be investigated in order to produce a conservation plan outlining potential BMPs and management techniques to reduce erosion.

 

GOALS AND DECISIONS

Setting realistic and measurable goals is key to the successful implementation of this Watershed Management Plan. A goal is the desired change or outcome as a result of the watershed planning effort. Depending on the magnitude of the problem, goals may be general, specific, long-term or short-term. The goals in this plan focus on improving water quality through the implementation of a variety of management measures. IDEM suggests watershed groups focus on developing goals, management measures, action plans, resources, and legal matters as part of the watershed planning process. According to IDEM, management measures describe what needs to be controlled or changed in order to achieve the goal. In order to successfully implement this plan, resources such as people, programs, and money need to be identified. It is important to have the support of individuals identified as resources to successfully execute the goals of the plan. Successful implementation may require some legal matters such as obtaining permits, purchasing easements, or the adoption of an ordinance. The UWRBC has decided to focus on goals that improve both water quality issues and water quantity issues in the Upper Wabash River watershed. The topics of concern and the goals outlined by the Commission are described below. Responsibility for implementing tasks will vary with agency initiatives, directives, staffing, and funding opportunities.

     Education Goal: Improve water quality to meet Indiana water quality targets and reduce damages associated with water quantity in the Wabash River watershed through education and outreach efforts that focus on changing stakeholder’s habits and behaviors.

     Flooding Goal: Reduce in-stream and private property damages, nearly $1.6 million since 1978, associated with increased water quantity through collaborative efforts basin-wide, including the Ohio drainage area.

     Agricultural Goal: Promote application and participation to implement BMPs throughout the watershed in an effort to remove 303(d) segment listings and impairments within the Upper Wabash River Basin.

     Land Use/Future Development Goal: Improve water quality to meet Indiana water quality targets and reduce damages associated with water quantity in the Wabash River watershed through basin-wide land use planning and ordinance development for the protection of agricultural activities and floodplain management.

     E. coli Reduction Goal: Remove 303(d) segment listings and impairments within the Upper Wabash River Basin due to E. coli and nutrient concentrations through proper agricultural nutrient management and on-site household wastewater treatment systems.

 

POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Management measures identified as high priorities are likely to provide the greatest long term benefit to water quality in the watershed. However, these activities are not always the easiest measures to implement. Likewise some of the measures that may be considered moderate or low priorities may be relatively easy to implement. Therefore, implementation of certain moderate priority measures may occur prior to certain high priority measures, and implementation of certain low priority measures may occur prior to certain medium priority measures. Additionally, new information or changes in political and economic circumstances may result in a change in the implementation schedule. Tables 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 identify management measures, action plans, resources/cost, legal matters, and progress indicators associated with addressing education, flooding, agriculture, land use planning, and the reduction of E. coli (respectively) in the Upper Wabash River Basin. “Local Resources” in the tables are intended to provide a list of local organizations that could potentially provide support, advice, or consultation on a particular management measure. These lists are not intended to be comprehensive and are not intended to exclude non-listed organizations from participating in the development or implementation of a particular management measure. Lead agencies will vary with program directives, funding, and staffing abilities. Other non- listed organizations are encouraged to participate as available. Proposed management measures were discussed and prioritized by the UWRBC into High, Moderate, and Low priority categories. Estimated costs in the tables are identified as Low, Moderate, or High. Those activities, materials, or programs estimated to cost between $1,000 and $10,000 are considered low cost. Activities, materials and programs that are estimated to cost between $10,000 and $50,000 are considered moderate cost, while those projects estimated to cost over $50,000 were considered to be a high cost. Anticipated timeline dates are provided as a reference for estimated start dates for the individual management measures proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mission Statement

To provide regional leadership and promotion of flood prevention and control, soil and water conservation, and related resource management through a coordinated and comprehensive planning and implementing approach in which projects of the Commission will not adversely affect other landowners within the watershed.

 

MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS

Progress indicators are used to gauge the progress and success of the watershed planning effort. Indicators may be administrative, such as language added to an ordinance, or programmatic, indicating the total acreage added to a filter strip program. Assigning dates to progress indicators is an effective method to ensure that the implementation of the WMP remains on target. Thus, monitoring describes how the aforementioned indicators will be evaluated to determine the level of success reached toward achieving the goal. Monitoring progress can be general, or very specific, such as increasing the number of participants at quarterly meetings or through improvements observed in biological and/or chemical measurements. Maintaining a list of successful programs and policies as a result of this WMP will help keep the momentum of the planning effort moving forward.

Goal Monitoring

For each goal, it is suggested that progress toward meeting each indicator (reduction of pollutant loadings, reduction of social, physical, and economic damages associated with flooding, and changes in stakeholders awareness and behaviors) listed in Tables 5-1 through 5-5 be documented on a biannual basis by the UWRBC. Biannual tracking of progress for each milestone will help to maintain focus on goal objectives and progress, but also to troubleshoot issues where it is clear that tasks may need to be adjusted or modified in order to achieve the goal objective. Responsibility for implementing tasks will vary with agency initiatives, directives, staffing, and funding opportunities. Plan Evaluation

The UWRBC will be responsible for the regular review and update of the Upper Wabash River Watershed Management Plan. This plan should be evaluated on a biannual basis to document and celebrate progress; assess effectiveness of efforts; modify activities to better target water quality issues; and keep implementation of the plan on schedule. The plan should be revised as needed to better meet the needs of the watershed stakeholders and to meet water quality goals.

Routine Monitoring

Every three years, monitoring of water quality, both biological and chemical, should occur at the sites utilized for the development of this plan. The data gathered through subsequent monitoring events will be utilized in order to evaluate the beneficial impact of implementation of BMPs throughout the watershed. It is anticipated that water quality will increase as loadings of sediment, nutrients and bacteria are decreased.

 

 


 

Upper Wabash River Basin Commission Voting Members

Adams Co.                                                                  Huntington Co.                                                      

Doug Bauman                                                              Richard Brubaker

Ed Coil                                                                        Steve Scher designated by Larry Buzzard                 

John Friedt designated by Steve Bauman                      Troy Hostetler designated by Jerry Helvie

Paul Norr, Surveyor                                                     Jay Poe, Surveyor

Rick Steiner, SWCD Supervisor                                   Kyle Lund, SWCD Supervisor

  

Jay Co.                                                                       Wells Co.

Milo Miller                                                                   Paul Bonham                                             

Faron Parr                                                                   Kevin Woodward

Dwain Michael designated by Gary Theurer                  Scott Mossburg

Brad Daniels, Surveyor                                                 Jarrod Hahn, Surveyor 

Ken Brunswick, SWCD designation                             Wayne Reinhard, SWCD designation

 
Send mail to stacia.henderson@in.nacdnet.net with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 10/28/08