Biological, chemical, and physical water quality assessments were utilized to better characterize the overall ecological health of the streams and watersheds in the Fishers study area. Assessments such as these assist water resource planners by serving as a baseline for comparing any future data collected. This is useful in establishing long-term trends in water quality; identifying water quality problems and potential sources of pollution; prioritizing water management decisions based on the positive or negative impacts to water quality; and educating watershed residents and stakeholders of the associations of their everyday activities and stream health.

In all, 10 sites in the study area were selected to be evaluated and are shown in Figure A3-1. These sites were selected based on available public access points and their general location within the watershed.  Following the monitoring season, adjustments were made to the study area boundaries. As a result 2 of the sites listed below are not within the final study area: Site #4 and Site #9. Monitoring results from these 2 sites remain in this report as indications of upland water quality and stream conditions and to provide a broader sense of the overall health of the watershed, as related to stream ecosystems.

Figure A3-1 Water Quality Sampling Sites

General descriptions of the 10 sites are: Cheeney Creek at Eller Road River Glen Pond inlet at River Glen Dr. Britton Branch at Allisonville Road Sand Creek at 146th Street Sand Creek at 106th Street Mud Creek at Cumberland Road Mud Creek at State Road 238 Thorpe Creek at Cyntheanne Road Flatfork Creek at 101st Street Bee Camp Creek at Olio Road

Biological assessments of the streams in the study area were completed by sampling the macroinvertebrate communities at each site in May and October 2009. Macroinvertebrate communities are indicative of the overall health of an aquatic system, and provide a long term view of the water quality in a particular watershed or stream. Macroinvertebrate organisms serve as pollution indicators as some organisms (stoneflies, mayflies, and caddis flies) are considered to be “pollution sensitive” while others (midges, leeches, and worms) are considered more “pollution tolerant”. As a stream becomes more polluted, various high quality pollution sensitive organisms will be less prevalent and lower quality pollution tolerant organisms will dominate the community.

Pollution Tolerance Index

The Pollution Tolerance Index (PTI) is one method utilized to rapidly assess a stream’s health as it relates to macroinvertebrate richness. This index, adapted from protocols developed for many monitoring programs throughout the United States, utilizes weighted values on 4 Pollution Tolerance Groups (shown in Table A3-1), to determine an overall rating of the pollution tolerance of the stream being sampled. For example, the total number of Taxa (not organisms) present in the sample for each Tolerance Group is recorded. This sum is then multiplied by the appropriate weighted value as shown in the table. The new values for each Tolerance Group are then added to determine the overall PTI for that sampling area.

Table A3-1.  Pollution Tolerance Groups

A total sum of 58 is possible using these groups and weighted values. Streams with values of 23 or better are considered to be in “excellent” condition based on this metric while those with score of 10 or less are considered “poor”. The ranges of scores and the associated ratings for the PTI are as follows:

• 23 and above – Excellent
• 17-22 – Good
• 11-16 – Fair
• 10 and below – Poor

The average results of the Fishers PTI spring and fall assessments are indicated in the Figure A3-2.

Figure A3-2.  Pollution Tolerance Index

Click on the sites below to see results from each sampling event.

1. Cheeney Creek at Eller Road
2. River Glen Pond inlet at River Glen Dr.
3. Britton Branch at Allisonville Road
4. Sand Creek at 146th Street
5. Sand Creek at 106th Street
6. Mud Creek at Cumberland Road
7. Mud Creek at State Road 238
8. Thorpe Creek at Cyntheanne Road
9. Flatfork Creek at 101st Street
10. Bee Camp Creek at Olio Road

Physical characteristics regarding the general stream morphology of each site were collected and recorded. These assessments are beneficial when tracking changes in stream morphology and streambank stability over time. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index was utilized to establish baseline data in regard to stream morphology as well as the evaluation of the in-stream characteristics and the correlation of those characteristics to the ability to support aquatic fauna.

Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)

The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) was developed by the Ohio EPA (view Assessment Field Sheet) to assist with relating stream habitat and the biological ability of a stream. The QHEI provides an overall quantitative metric that can generally correspond to the ability of a stream to support fish or other invertebrate communities. Individual metrics for substrate, in-stream cover, channel morphology, riparian and bank condition, pool and riffle quality, and gradient are summed to provide the total QHEI score. It is important to note that QHEI scores are indicative of the 200 foot stream reach segment that was assessed. Significant changes in any of the aforementioned metrics could be observed upstream or downstream of these areas.

This score, with a total possible score of 100 points has been correlated such that generally speaking, a stream segment with a score of 60 or more is conducive to the existence of warmwater fauna. In addition, scores ranging between 45 and 60 indicate areas where some modifications have been made and that the biology may or may not be supported in these streams. Scores under 45 are indicative of many man-made modifications or impacts and that the biological communities will generally not be supported in these waters. These scores can be utilized to compare changes in habitat at one site over time, or to compare different stream segments.

Figure A3-3.  Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index

Table A3-2.  QHEI Parameters

Chemical Sampling

Chemical water quality parameters sampled at each site included pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, nitrate/nitrite, organic nitrogen, ammonia, total and dissolved phosphorus, and E. coli. Samples were collected once per month, April through October 2009. To ensure the integrity of the sampling protocol, duplicate samples and analyses were performed at Site #7 during each sampling event. Table A3-3 provides the target concentrations for the parameters sampled as recommended by the Indiana State Water Quality Standards, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) Reports, the Ohio EPA, and the US EPA.

Table A3-3.  Target Concentrations

* - Dependent on temperature and pH

It is important to note that chemical sampling results provide a “snapshot” of the water quality at the precise time of sample collection. Chemical composition of the water column or water body can change quickly with changes in temperature, precipitation, adjacent land disturbances, and changes in velocities and flow within the stream. These results, however, are an integral component in better understanding sources and impacts of pollution within the watershed. Long term trends can be analyzed to provide comparisons between water quality at the sampling locations and land use changes, stream maintenance, precipitation, seasonality, etc. within the watershed.

Summary of chemical sampling results from the ten sites:

• Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
• E. coli Concentrations
• Mean Nitrate-Nitrite Concentrations
• Mean Phosphorus Concentrations
• Turbidity

Detailed chemical sampling results from each of the ten sites:

1. Cheeney Creek at Eller Road
2. River Glen Pond inlet at River Glen Drive
3. Britton Branch at Allisonville Road
4. Sand Creek at 146th Street
5. Sand Creek at 106th Street
6. Mud Creek at Cumberland Road
7. Mud Creek at State Road 238
8. Thorpe Creek at Cyntheanne Road
9. Flatfork Creek at 101st Street
10. Bee Camp Creek at Olio Road

Water Quality Assessment Summary

To better understand the biological, chemical, and physical assessments discussed above and how they relate to each other, a prioritization matrix (show in Table A3-4) was developed to provide a review of the individual metric scores, individual metric rankings, and a total score and rank.

For the individual metrics, a rank of 10 indicates the higher water quality while a score of 1 indicates potentially lower water quality. The numerical ranks were summed to determine the overall site score. To determine the overall site rank, the highest overall site score received the highest rank (10) in terms of protection efforts. Conversely, the lowest site rank (1) is prioritized for mitigation efforts to enhance the biological, chemical, and/or physical components of the stream system. In the case of an equal site score, the E. coli scores were compared and higher protection priority was given to those sites with lower E. coli scores.

Table A3-4.  Prioritization Matrix

A score or rank of 10 indicates a more ideal situation.

The shaded cells in Table A3-4 indicate those areas where observed scores were below ideal situations for each assessment. For example, as stated earlier, QHEI scores above 60 were indicative of areas that are most likely to support aquatic fauna. Therefore, the shaded boxes are those sites where the QHEI scores were below 60. Scores above 17 for the PTI are considered good indicating streams that support a range of macroinvertebrate populations and varied tolerances to pollution. Within the table the sites where PTI scores were below 17 are shaded. Similarly, E. coli mean concentrations that exceed the Indiana Water Quality Standard for a single grab sample (235 cfu/100 ml) are shaded. While these mean scores are not a single grab sample, it provides a baseline data set that can be valuable for comparing sites over a length of time. Single grab sample concentrations did range from acceptable to greatly exceeding the Indiana Water Quality Standard at individual sites and these ranges can be viewed in the raw data tables earlier in this section.