CHANGES IN GRAND LAKE ST. MARYS WATERSHED … · Grand Lake St. Marys Watershed • Social, economic, and environmental value • Mercer / Auglaize Counties • 241 km2 (~60,000 acre)

CHANGES IN GRAND LAKE ST. MARYS WATERSHED: MOVING TOWARDS AN IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF

WATER QUALITY OVER THE PAST DECADE

STEPHEN J. JACQUEMINWRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY – LAKE CAMPUS,

AGRICULTURAL AND WATER QUALITY EDUCATIONAL CENTER

Grand Lake St. Marys Watershed

• Social, economic, and environmental value• Mercer / Auglaize Counties• 241 km2 (~60,000 acre) area • 1st/2nd order streams drain into reservoir• Reservoir constructed 1837-1845

– large (52 km2), shallow (~1.5m), and mixed (15+km fetch wave length)

• Experiences internal and external loading– Primarily from nutrient rich watershed runoff– Watershed is agricultural: 80-90% row crop with

many farms coupled with livestock operations• Animal Unit = standard weight relative to beef cow

– Ohio = 21 AU/km2– GLSM = 370 AU/km2 (~250 acres)

• Majority of nutrients in watershed are manure based

Manure Utilization and Potential for Runoff

• Manure is an important resource– Recycled and increases crop yields– Provides crop and livestock synergy– Builds nutrients, reduces soil

compaction, and eliminates stock

• Use has increased in recent years– In the US, approximately 5.9 million

and 1.8 million tons of N and P are produced in animal based fertilizers

– In GLSM, manure is the primary nutrient source utilized

– In GLSM, there is ~1.5 times more P and 2.5 times more N produced than can be actually be used

• Creates high runoff potential – affected by timing, ground permeability, crop presence, and ambient precipitation

Establishing a Starting Point in the Watershed

• Where are we regarding nutrient and algae concentrations?

– Highest STP levels in Ohio

– Historically, the tributaries of GLSM ranked in the 75th+ percentile for nutrient concentrations in the US

– 2007 EPA Report noted need for nutrient load reductions of over 90% at medium and high flows to meet TMDL standards (0.1 mg/L TP, 1.5mg/L NO3-)

– 1999 EPA Report noted GLSM ranked in the 99th percentile for microcystin concentrations in the US

– Declared distressed in 2011

Establishing a Starting Point in the Watershed - Algae

Watershed Efforts

• Distressed Watershed Ruling signified a regime shift in management style• GLSM watershed efforts since this period highlight the implementation of innovative

BMPs, regulations, and conservation practices to reduce nutrient runoff– Comprehensive Efforts

• Nutrient management plans (now over 90% of acres) informed by soil testing• Cover crops (increasing acres utilizing cover – e.g. huge % acres of radishes this year)• Constructed wetlands• Edge of field runoff practices (retention ponds, saturated buffers, bioreactors, inlets)

– Manure Nutrient Focus• Winter manure ban (prohibited Dec. 15 to Mar. 1)• Manure storage structures (~80 constructed from 2010 to 2013)• Manure transfers (90% of chicken litter is exported)• New manure dewatering technologies being explored

– Communication Efforts• Local collaborative groups such as Ag Solutions, LIA, LRC encourage communication

Research Objectives

• Over the past decade, the region has become a unique focal point for water quality issues and taken on a political, social, and research focus

• Project 1: Examine long term changes (2008-2016) in sediment and nutrient levels in GLSM watershed since the 2011 Distressed Watershed Designation

• Project 2: Assess the sediment and nutrient remediation potential of several reconstructed wetlands recently implemented in the watershed (2016-2018)

NUTRIENT REDUCTIONS IN GRAND LAKE ST. MARYS STREAMSFOLLOWING THE DISTRESSED WATERSHED RULING

STEPHEN J. JACQUEMIN1, LAURA T. JOHNSON2, THERESA A. DIRKSEN3, GREG MCGLINCH11 WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY – LAKE CAMPUS, AGRICULTURAL AND WATER QUALITY EDUCATIONAL CENTER

2 HEIDELBERG UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL CENTER FOR WATER QUALITY RESEARCH3 MERCER COUNTY COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, AGRICULTURAL SOLUTIONS

Nitrate

Regulatory PeriodNon-Regulatory PeriodHigh FlowMedium FlowLow FlowHigh FlowMedium FlowLow Flow

PostPrePostPrePostPrePostPrePostPrePostPre

20

15

10

5

0

NO

3- (m

g/L)

Non-Regulatory Period (Mar. 2 - Dec. 14) Regulatory Period (Dec. 15 - Mar. 1)Pre Regulation Post Regulation Pre Regulation Post Regulation

N Mean SE N Mean SE Change Change (%) N Mean SE N Mean SE Change Change (%)Nitrate Nitrate

Low Flow 334 1.2 0.13 524 1.8 0.1 0.6 50 Low Flow 75 7.3 0.25 27 7.2 0.64 -0.1 -1

Medium Flow 167 11.6 0.46 560 6.8 0.2 -4.8 -41Medium

Flow 68 12.4 0.48 174 10.4 0.2 -2 -16High Flow 152 17.85 0.52 533 12.12 0.24 -5.73 -32 High Flow 44 14.4 0.82 222 11.6 0.26 -2.8 -19

Particulate Phosphorus



0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

PP (m

g/L)


N Mean SE N Mean SE ChangeChange

(%) N Mean SE N Mean SE ChangeChange

(%)Particulate P Particulate P

Low Flow 334 0.1 0.002 524 0.09 0.004 -0.01 -10 Low Flow 75 0.11 0.005 27 0.05 0.01 -0.06 -55Medium

Flow 167 0.08 0.01 560 0.07 0.003 -0.01 -13Medium

Flow 68 0.07 0.01 174 0.03 0.002 -0.04 -57High Flow 152 0.17 0.02 533 0.15 0.01 -0.02 -12 High Flow 44 0.24 0.04 222 0.13 0.01 -0.11 -46

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus



0.275

0.250

0.225

0.200

0.175

0.150

0.125

0.100

DR

P (m

g/L)


N Mean SE N Mean SE ChangeChange

(%) N Mean SE N Mean SE ChangeChange

(%)Dissolved Reactive P Dissolved Reactive P

Low Flow 334 0.25 0.006 524 0.21 0.007 -0.04 -16 Low Flow 75 0.23 0.01 27 0.12 0.02 -0.11 -48Medium

Flow 167 0.16 0.01 560 0.23 0.01 0.07 44Medium

Flow 68 0.18 0.01 174 0.13 0.01 -0.05 -28High Flow 152 0.22 0.01 533 0.22 0.01 0 0 High Flow 44 0.22 0.01 222 0.18 0.01 -0.04 -18

DRP Concentration and Loading Timing

HARVEST

GROWIN

G

PRE PLA

NT

WINTER

High F

low

Medi um

Flow

Low F

low

High F

low

Medium F

low

Low F

low

Hi gh F

low

Medium F

low

Low F

low

High Flo

w

Medium

Flow

Low F

low

PostPre

Post

PrePos

tPre

Post

PrePos

tPre

PostPre

Post

PrePos

tPre

Post

PrePos

tPre

Post

PrePos

tPre

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

DR

P (m

g/L)

Conclusions

• Distressed watershed ruling requires year round nutrient management plans and seasonal limits on manure – no application between Dec 15 and Mar 1

• Additionally, since the 2011 implementation – hundreds of acres have incorporated additional best management practices

• These have manifested in clear reductions of external loading of TSS, PP, NO3, and TKN• Summer = largest effects at high flows• Winter = largest effects at medium flows

• Interesting patterns with DRP were noted– Largely due to excessively high STP legacy/timing in the watershed

• Anecdotally, no negative yields reported to local SWCD / ODA offices

• Still highly elevated nutrient concentrations but progress is being made• Need to continue efforts! BUT – we have a new starting point to work with..…

Want to Learn More?

Research Objectives

• Over the past decade, the region has become a unique focal point for water quality issues and taken on a political, social, and research focus

• Project 1: Examine long term changes (2008-2016) in sediment and nutrient levels in GLSM watershed since the 2011 Distressed Watershed Designation

• Project 2: Assess the sediment and nutrient remediation potential of several reconstructed wetlands recently implemented in the watershed

IMPROVING WATER QUALITY OF GRAND LAKE ST. MARYSUSING RECONSTRUCTED WETLANDS

STEPHEN J. JACQUEMIN1, THERESA A. DIRKSEN2, PHILLIP POORE1, JOCELYN BIRT1, GESTAWN MCDONALD1, CHASE COBB1

1 WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY – LAKE CAMPUS, AGRICULTURAL AND WATER QUALITY EDUCATIONAL CENTER2 MERCER COUNTY COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, AGRICULTURAL SOLUTIONS

Why Wetlands?

• Wetlands are a natural part of any watershed

• Wetlands provide numerous ecosystem services– Increase biodiversity via habitat

– Erosion and flood control points

– Improve water quality by filtering nutrients

• Historically, GLSM was essentially all wetland

• Drainage of these left rich agricultural soils

• BUT - devoid of natural wetlands, heavy nutrient loads have degraded water quality

Note: To maximize ecological services / benefits, healthy wetland(s) need to

be ~ 1-5% of the total watershed area

GLSM Constructed Wetlands – Prairie Creek– Constructed in 2012 ~ 1% watershed area (0.05 mi2)

– Fed via a pump connected to P.C. – rated (average) at ~1 million gallons per day– Comprised of east and west series of cells –flow is split between them – 2 in/outflows

GLSM Constructed Wetlands – Coldwater Creek– Constructed 2015 ~ 0.2% watershed area (0.04 mi2)

– Fed via a pump connected to C.C. – rated (average) at ~3 million gallons per day– Comprised of east and west series of cells with combined pump inflow and outflow

Stream Flow SummaryPr

airie

Cre

ek D

isch

arge

(mill

ions

GPD

)C

oldw

ater

Cre

ek

Dis

char

ge(m

illio

ns G

PD)

10

5

40

0

0

20

Nitrate

Prairie Creek

Coldw ater Creek

WinterFallSummer

SpringWinterFall

SummerSpring

OutflowInflow

OutflowInflow

OutflowInf low

OutflowInf low

OutflowInf low

OutflowInf low

OutflowInf low

Outf lowInflow

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

NO

3 - N

(mg/

L)

No O

pera

tion

No O

pera

tion

Total Phosphorus

Prairie Creek

Coldw ater Creek

WinterFallSummer

SpringWinterFall

SummerSpring

OutflowInf low

Outf lowInflow

OutflowInflow

OutflowInf low

Outf lowInflow

OutflowInf low

Outf lowInf low

Outf lowInflow

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

TP -

P (m

g/L)

No W

inte

r O

pera

tion

No W

inte

r O

pera

tion

Dissolved Phosphorus

Prairie Creek

Coldw ater Creek

WinterFallSummer

SpringWinterFall

SummerSpring

OutflowInflow

OutflowInflow

OutflowInflow

Outf lowInf low

OutflowInflow

OutflowInflow

Outf lowInf low

Outf lowInf low

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

DR

P - P

(mg/

L)

No W

inte

r O

pera

tion

No W

inte

r O

pera

tion

Wetland Discharge Summary

11/1/201710/1/20179/1/2017

800000

600000

400000

200000

0

DatePrai

rie

Cre

ek T

T Di

scha

rge

GPD

11/1/201710/1/20179/1/2017

3000000

2000000

1000000

0

Date

Col

dwat

er T

T Di

scha

rge

GPD

Target Daily Volume (MGPD):

Spring: CC= 2, PC = 1.5Summer: CC= 3-4, PC = 1.5+Fall: CC= 2, PC = 1.5Winter: Not Operational

Mean Daily Flow (MGPD):

Spring: CC= 23, PC = 6Summer: CC= 8.5, PC = 2Fall: CC= 5, PC = 1Winter: CC= 20, PC = 5

Target Percentage:

Spring: CC= 10%, PC = 25%Summer: CC= 50%, PC = 75%Fall: CC= 50%, PC = 100%Winter: CC= 0%, PC = 0%

Littoral Wetlands

Grand Lake St Marys

Coldwater Creek

Littoral Wetland

Moving Forward

• Things are getting better

• BUT there are still substantial load implications to recognize

• Additional work and projects need to be undertaken

– Stream habitat– In lake vegetation areas– Additional watershed wetlands– Rough fish removal– More BMPs

• Staying the course

Implications for Freshwater Biodiversity

• Freshwater comprises only 0.01% global H2O• Houses >100,000 species (~6% described global diversity)• Taxa are imperiled globally largely resultant of anthropogenic

influences – up to 20% freshwater fish are extinct• We have an obligation to study and preserve for future

Thank You

Wright State University Lake Campus

A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO SEAN FINKE (ODNR) FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THETREATMENT TRAINS, GREG MCGLINCH (WSU-LC) FOR ASSISTANCE HELPING TO SET UP

MONITORING GAUGES, AND TO THE LAKE RESTORATION COMMISSION AND LAKEIMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (ESPECIALLY TOM KNAPKE) FOR SUPPORTING AND HELPING TO

FUND THE GLSM WETLANDS.

Documents

CHANGES IN GRAND LAKE ST. MARYS WATERSHED … · Grand Lake St. Marys Watershed • Social, economic, and environmental value • Mercer / Auglaize Counties • 241 km2 (~60,000 acre)