Evaluating the influence of conservation practices on Ohio watersheds
Edited By:
Peter C. Smiley Jr.
Norman R. Fausey
USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit
1
Evaluating the influence of conservation practices on Ohio watersheds
Proceedings of the Ohio Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP) symposium
2006 Conservation Partnership All Employee Meeting, Columbus, Ohio
March 1, 2006
Edited By:
Peter C. Smiley Jr.
Norman R. Fausey
Published by:
USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio
PREFACE
Evaluating the influence of conservation practices on Ohio watersheds is the Proceedings of the Ohio Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) symposium. This Proceedings contains the symposium schedule and abstracts from all presentations given at the symposium. The symposium was held at the 2006 Conservation Partnership All Employee meeting in Columbus, Ohio on March 1, 2006 from1:30 to 5:00 pm. The symposium included oral presentations, a poster session, and a concluding panel discussion.
Conservation practices are land, water, and agronomic management practices designed to reduce erosion rates, improve water quality, and restore aquatic and terrestrial habitats in agricultural watersheds. Comprehensive evaluations of the influence of conservation practices in agricultural watersheds are lacking, and are needed to improve existing land management strategies. The goal of CEAP is to quantify the environmental benefits of conservation practices at the watershed scale. The Soil and Water Conservation Society is an integral participant in the CEAP, and this symposium was an effort to communicate CEAP activities at the regional and state level. Currently, there are five CEAP watersheds located within Ohio or in part of major river drainages flowing into Ohio. The Upper Big Walnut Creek and St. Joseph’s River watersheds are ARS benchmark watersheds that are long-term research sites. The Upper Tiffin and UpperAuglaizeRiver watersheds are NRCS special emphasis watersheds that were selected for short-term evaluations of specific resource concerns. The Rock Creek watershed was selected through the CSREES Water Quality Initiative Competitive Grants program. The objective of the symposium was to provide a forum for informing conservation professionals about CEAP and to foster discussion of the implications of the researchand evaluation plans. There were 21 participants who presented their objectives, approach, and preliminary results from their activities within the five CEAP watersheds.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the Program Committee of the 2006 Conservation Partnership All Employee meeting for selecting our symposium as part of their meeting agenda and providing a forum for the symposium. We thank Sean Browning for his efforts in helping with logistical matters involved with organizing the symposium. Craig Cox and the Soil and Water Conservation Society supported the symposium by contributing reprints of a Journal of the Soil and Water Conservation Society article that was distributed to symposium attendees. Clarence Richardson provided financial support for printing the proceedings, renting poster boards, and other costs related to the symposium. We are grateful to Ann Houser and Jay Martin for providing information on potential vendors for renting poster boards and printing the proceedings. Ann Houser also assisted with compiling the symposium proceedings. We thank Kevin King, who provided suggestions on organizing the symposium and developing the schedule. We also greatly appreciated the contributions of all participants who made the symposium a success.
SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE
Oral Presentations (1:30 - 3:10 pm)
1:30 – 1:50 pm Richards, R. Peter*, David B. Baker, John Crumrine, and Kevin P. Czajkowski. Detecting water quality responses to land management changes: why is it so difficult?
1:50 – 2:10 pm Huang, Chi-hua*, Dennis Flanagan, Diane Stott, Douglas Smith, Elizabeth
Warnemuende, Gary Heathman, Stanley Livingston, Steve Lovejoy, and Robert Gillespie. Building a comprehensive water quality research program at the Saint Joseph River watershed.
2:10 – 2:30 pm Davis, Steve* and Jim Stafford. Offsite effects of management alternatives in the Upper Auglaize watershed using the AnnAGNPS watershed model.
2:30 – 2:50 pm Smiley, Peter. C. Jr.*, Kevin W. King, Barbara J. Baker, Norman R. Fausey, Colleen R. Tennity, and Brent Sohngen. Evaluating conservation practices within the Upper
Big Walnut Creek watershed: water quality, ecology, soil, and economic perspectives.
2:50 – 3:10 pm Shaffer, Ruth D.* CEAP Upper Tiffin Watershed Project, Lenawee and Hillsdale counties, Michigan.
Poster Session (3:10 - 4:30 pm)
A. Rock Creek, Ohio
Baker, David B.*, R. Peter Richards, John Crumrine, and Josie V. Setzler. Flashinesstrends in rural streams: do they correlate with changing cropping patterns and practices?
Czajkowski, Kevin, James Coss, Jeff Jowett*, and Peter Richards. Development of the Rock Creek watershed GIS.
B. St. Joseph’s River, Indiana
Cain, Zachary T.* and Stephen B. Lovejoy. Examining the economic and environmental impacts of land use changes in the Matson Ditch watershed.
Gillespie, Robert B.* Ecological assessment of habitat and aquatic life in Cedar Creek in support of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project.
Larose, Myriam and Gary C. Heathman*. Hydrologic simulation and atrazine prediction in the Cedar Creek Experimental Watershed using SWAT.
Livingston, Stanley J.*, Sara Walling, and Dennis Bucholtz. Real world watershed research: how to grow a watershed scale project.
Smith, Douglas R.* and Elizabeth A. Warnemuende. How does dredging affect in-stream transport of contaminant?
Stott, Diane E., Chi-hua Huang*, Stanley J. Livingston, and Dennis L. Bucholtz. Loss of dissolved organic carbon from small watersheds in northeastern Indiana.
Warnemuende, Elizabeth A.*, Douglas R. Smith, and Chi-hua Huang. Pesticide measurements in the Saint Joseph River watershed.
C. Upper Auglaize River, Ohio
Davis, Steve* and Jim Stafford. Offsite effects of management alternatives in the Upper Auglaize watershed using the AnnAGNPS watershed model.
D. Upper Big Walnut Creek, Ohio
King, Kevin W.*, Peter C. Smiley Jr., and Norman R. Fausey. Hydrology and water chemistry responses to conservation practices and land use within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed.
Smiley, Peter C. Jr.* and Kevin W. King. Ecological evaluation of the influence of herbaceous riparian buffers on headwater agricultural drainage ditches in theUpper Big Walnut Creek watershed.
Tennity, Colleen R.* and Brent Sohngen. A conjoint analysis of conservation in the Upper Big Walnut watershed in Ohio.
E. Upper Tiffin River, Michigan
Shaffer, Ruth D.* CEAP Upper Tiffin Watershed Project, Lenawee and Hillsdale counties, Michigan.
Panel Discussion (4:30 – 5:00 pm)
Representatives from each watershed will be available to answer questions from the audience. Invited representatives are: R. Peter Richards (Rock Creek, Ohio), Steve Davis (Upper Auglaize River, Ohio), Chi-hua Huang (St. Joseph’s River, Indiana), Kevin King (Upper Big Walnut Creek, Ohio), and Ruth Shaffer (Upper Tiffin River, Michigan).
Table of Contents
Preface...... iii
Acknowledgements...... iv
Symposium schedule...... v
ROCK CREEK, OHIO
Baker, David B., R. Peter Richards, John Crumrine, and Josie V. Setzler. Flashiness
trends in rural streams: do they correlate with changing cropping patterns and practices?. 1
Czajkowski, Kevin, James Coss, Jeff Jowett, and Peter Richards. Development of the
Rock Creek watershed GIS...... 2
Richards, R. Peter, David B. Baker, John Crumrine, and Kevin P. Czajkowski.
Detecting water quality responses to land management changes: why is it so difficult?... 3
St. Joseph’s River, Indiana
Cain, Zachary T. and Stephen B. Lovejoy. Examining the economic and
environmental impacts of land use changes in the Matson Ditch watershed...... 4
Gillespie, Robert B. Ecological assessment of habitat and aquatic life in Cedar
Creek in support of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project...... 5
Huang, Chi-hua, Dennis Flanagan, Diane Stott, Douglas Smith, Elizabeth
Warnemuende, Gary Heathman, Stanley Livingston, Steve Lovejoy, and Robert
Gillespie. Building a comprehensive water quality research program at the
Saint Joseph Riverwatershed...... 6
Larose, Myriam and Gary C. Heathman. Hydrologic simulation and atrazine
prediction in the Cedar Creek Experimental Watershed using SWAT...... 7
Livingston, Stanley J., Sara Walling, and Dennis Bucholtz. Real world watershed
research: how to grow a watershed scale project...... 8
Smith, Douglas R. and Elizabeth A. Warnemuende. How does dredging affect
in-stream transport of contaminant?...... 9
Stott, Diane E., Chi-hua Huang, Stanley J. Livingston, and Dennis L. Bucholtz. Loss
of dissolved organic carbon from small watersheds in northeastern Indiana...... 10
Warnemuende, Elizabeth A., Douglas R. Smith, and Chi-hua Huang. Pesticide measurements in the Saint Joseph River watershed 11
Upper Auglaize River, Ohio
Davis, Steve and Stafford, Jim. Offsite effects of management alternatives in the Upper Auglaize watershed using the AnnAGNPS watershed model 12
Upper Big Walnut Creek, Ohio
King, Kevin W., Peter C. Smiley Jr., and Norman R. Fausey. Hydrology and water chemistry responses to conservation practices and land use within the Upper Big
Walnut Creek watershed...... 13
Smiley, Peter C. Jr. and Kevin W. King. Ecological evaluation of the influence of
herbaceous riparian buffers on headwater agricultural drainage ditches in the
Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed...... 14
Smiley, Peter. C. Jr., Kevin W. King, Barbara J. Baker, Norman R. Fausey, Colleen
R. Tennity, and Brent Sohngen. Evaluating conservation practices within the Upper
Big Walnut Creek watershed: water quality, ecology, soil, and economic perspectives... 15
Tennity, Colleen R. and Brent Sohngen. A conjoint analysis of conservation in
the Upper Big Walnut watershed in Ohio...... 16
Upper Tiffin River, Michigan
Shaffer, Ruth D. CEAP Upper Tiffin Watershed Project, Lenawee and Hillsdale
counties, Michigan...... 17
1
Baker*, David B., R. Peter Richards, John Crumrine, and Josie V. Setzler. Flashiness trends in rural streams: do they correlate with changing cropping patterns and practices? HeidelbergCollege, Tiffin, Ohio. E-mail:
During the 1975-2001 water years, many Ohio streams, including those dominated by agricultural land use, have shown statistically significant increases in flashiness, as measured by the Richards-Baker Index (RBI). This index reflects the oscillations in stream flow per unit discharge, using daily discharge data from USGS gaging stations. Oscillations are measured as the sum of day-to-day changes in discharge for a year and discharge is measured as total annual discharge.
Increasing flashiness of streams reflects increasing peak discharge during storm events, decreasing baseflow between events, increasing frequency of events or some combination of the above. Low base flow is a dominant cause of impaired aquatic life communities in area streams. Higher peak flows increase steam bank erosion and flooding problems. Reversing recent trends in flashiness toward more natural stream flow regimes may be an important component of water resource management programs in this region.
In this study, we are comparing long-term trends in the RBI with long-term trends in cropping patterns and practices. For many area rivers, a breakpoint in RBI trends occurs during the mid to late 1960s. This time period coincides with rapidly increasing soybean acreage and decreasing hay acreage in much of northwestern Ohio. Although discharge measurements for Rock Creek did not start until 1984, the general pattern of increasing flashiness for Rock Creek falls into the same pattern as area streams with much longer streamflow records. Furthermore, the average RBI for Rock Creek is high relative to other Midwestern streams in its size range, indicating that it is a very flashy stream.
For two rural streams in Ohio that have decreasing RBI values during the 1975-2001 water years, hay acreage has remained high and soybean acreage low. These two streams (Killbuck Creek and Mill Creek at Coshocton) also have low average RBI values. Trends in cropping practices, such as the adoption of reduced and no-till production, and trends in tiling are also examined in relation to RBI trends. Trends in rainfall amounts and intensities will also be examined.
While correlations between trends in agricultural practices and trends in RBI index values do not prove causation, they may suggest areas for additional research as well as possible BMPs to reverse current trends in stream flashiness. Restoration of more natural stream flow regimes is widely considered to be a fundamental component of reducing impairments to aquatic communities.
Czajkowski, Kevin1, James Coss1, Jeff Jowett*1, and Peter Richards2. Development of the Rock Creek watershed GIS. 1 University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, 2 Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio. Email:
The first step in modeling a watershed for water quality analysis is to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS). This presentation will outline our work to develop a GIS for the Rock Creek watershed in Ohio. Our ultimate goal is to implement the AnnAGNPS (Annualized Agricultural Non-point Source model) for the Rock Creek watershed to test various conservation practices. In the project, we are assembling GIS layers for the Rock Creek watershed from existing sources including digital elevation models (DEM’s), SSURGO soils, HUC unit, weather information, stream network, etc. In addition, we have developed a land cover map for the project area using remote sensing techniques previously developed through a project on the Upper Auglaize watershed. A land cover map and associated database which identifies field by field land cover and multi-year crop rotations for agricultural land has been developed for the project. We investigated new remote sensing techniques to determine crop residue from satellite imagery. This process was fairly successful and was able to identify crop residue into the following categories: 0-30% cover = tilled, 30-90% cover = conservation tillage, and 90-100% cover = no till.
Richards, R. Peter*1, David B. Baker1, John Crumrine1, and Kevin P. Czajkowski2. Detecting water quality responses to land management changes: why is it so difficult?
1Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio. 2 University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. Email:
The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) program is driven in part by pressure from the government and others to document, at the watershed scale, water quality benefits that are consequences of agricultural programs which aim to improve our management of the land, often at considerable expense to taxpayers. One often hears that no one has ever shown that BMPs work at the watershed scale. While this is a bit of an exaggeration, far more programs and projects fail to demonstrate water quality benefits than succeed in doing so. This is often because of inadequate funding or inadequate monitoring, but even well-funded and well-planned projects often fail to show water quality benefits. Why is this so? A comparison of plot-, field-, and watershed-scale research is revealing.
At the plot scale, the researcher owns or controls the land. Typically only one experiment is carried out at a time. Varying levels of treatment, including controls, are easily carried out, often with replication. Research designs include approaches that reduce the likelihood of spurious or inconclusive results due to variations in soil, topography, and other irrelevant factors. Most aspects of weather are consistent from plot to plot, and rainfall is often simulated, giving control over amount and intensity.
At the field scale, research gets a little more difficult. Replication becomes less feasible or more expensive, though different levels of treatment are still feasible, and each field receives a uniform treatment across its full extent. Heterogeneity in soils, topography, and weather introduce larger errors into the observations, obscuring the effects of the treatments to a greater degree than at the plot scale. Rainfall is provided by nature, may not be homogeneous across the research site, and the amount and intensity are no longer under the researcher’s control.
At the watershed scale, the researcher becomes more of an observer than a manipulator of the research site. Much water quality research attempts to interpret the cumulative result of multiple changes in land management practices taking place at different times. Replication of “experiments” is rarely feasible. Implementation of specific practices usually cannot be targeted to specific places in the landscape, and is often limited to a small percentage of the total land area. Weather, particularly the timing and intensity of rainfall, is often the main determinant of fluctuations in water quality. Weather and the agricultural economy play a large role in driving crop choices, tillage practices, and fertilizer application. If a “control” watershed is available, the researcher often has little control over it. There may be long time lags between the land use change and the water quality response. Given the high level of natural variability in water quality data, failure to detect a change in water quality does not prove that implemented practices did no good. Given the multitude of factors that influence water quality, detecting a change in water quality does not prove that the implemented practices were responsible for it. All of these problems become more severe as watershed size increases. Given these realities, watershed scale research requires detailed and long-term data, probably supplemented by land use – water quality modeling, to document changes and to distinguish between cause-and-effect relationships and fortuitous coincidence.