Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Winter 2001-2002

Buckeye Basins is produced by the Ohio State University Extension, Community Based Watershed Management Team. It is compiled quarterly for watershed coordinators, Extension specialists, and natural resource professionals to include within their newsletters, programs or however they see fit.

In This Issue:

• Aren't All Watershed Projects the Same?
• EPA Program Based on False Information
• Behind Every Good Stream Is a Volunteer
• Livestock Waste Management Alternatives
• Freshwater Mussels: Ohio Natives in Trouble
• Do Drainage Ditches Behave Like Streams?
  

Aren't All Watershed Projects the Same?

Jerry Iles, Extension Agent Watershed Management, South District

Over the past year I've been involved with several different watershed groups and one of the things I've noticed is that they are all unique. Many groups are just starting up while others have been around for several years. Some involve strong citizen driven community efforts while others are lead by primarily government agency partners.

Some groups have very little in the way of financial resources while others have very large budgets. Some groups utilize university students as a source of data collection and watershed information while others use middle and high school students. On a side note I'm very lucky that some of the local watershed groups I work with precede nearly every meeting with gourmet potluck dinners. It's hard to beat an Appalachian potluck watershed meeting!

Though the watershed groups in my area are unique they do share some common themes. In a recent EPA publication titled "Protecting and Restoring America's Watersheds" they discuss seven themes that seem to be found in most local watershed efforts. They are as follows:

Increasing public education and awareness

The only way watershed groups can be successful is through ongoing education and outreach campaigns. If we do not continue to educate ourselves and future generations that will live in the watershed, we are likely to repeat the actions that may have lead to the current conditions we are trying to restore.

Developing new partnerships and coordinating efforts

In order for the watershed approach to work we need to be on the lookout for new partners to draw into the project. Many times "new blood" can revitalize a partnership that has grown stagnant with its restoration or protection strategies. Some guys (like myself ) use a hammer once and if it solves the problem we continue to reach for the hammer for the next fix even though it is obvious to others, it requires a wrench. Reach out to new folks. If they are interested, find a way to get them involved. Watershed restoration and protection groups will benefit in the long run from having a diverse partnership.

Collecting necessary information through monitoring and research

I've seen monitoring approaches that involved anything from using science clubs made up of 6th grade geochemists, with an excellent understanding of water chemistry to university graduate students, to coordinators that promise to take the OEPA assessment team out to dinner if they would just come and look at their stream! All of these approaches seem to work to various degrees, however, if you can involve volunteer local resident watchdogs that plan on living in the watershed for the rest of their natural years...get em ! These people don't work for salary. They just love their local creek, river or lake. You will find these folks are very passionate about their monitoring chores. It may cost you a little time to train them and perhaps a few dollars to equip them, but you'll get great return on your investment in the form of long-term data and stewardship.

Establishing appropriate plans and priorities

This is so important for long - term success. The only word of caution is to remember the best plans are "living documents". The more you investigate in the field, the more likely you are to find things such as new sources of pollution. Maybe you will find what you thought was a good remediation strategy is no longer appropriate given your new field data. This is a message for watershed coordinators...get out of the office! You need to smell, walk, hike, bike, water sample, canoe, wade, seine, fish and swim your watershed! That is how you become the local expert and make new discoveries. Computers and G.I.S. are great but they've got no soul ...yet. Explore and check your indicators. Evaluate your success, measure your goals but chances are, the more you know, the more likely your remediation / protection strategies may have to change.

Obtaining funding and technical assistance

Technical assistance can be obtained from a variety of local, state and federal agencies, local schools and universities, consultants and others. The closer the office is the greater the chance they can help with regionally specific problems. Most watershed groups seem to have more problems with funding than finding technical assistance. Folks in Ohio have received funds from many of the same agencies that provide technical help, U.S. E.P.A., Ohio E.P.A., ODNR, NRCS, USDA, OSM and foundations are possible sources depending on your watershed's specific situation. The EPA's "Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection" that identifies 69 loan or grant programs from 12 federal agencies would be a good starting point. You can find it at: www.epa.gov/win/resources/html

Implementing Solutions

It's really nice when you have completed a project folks can view: A tree planting along the stream, a stream litter sweep that results in a drastic visual change, a surface mine reclamation that changes the viewshed from black coal to green grass and the surface water that crosses it from acidic to neutral. Show off your hard work! More folks will buy in once they see you are making progress.

Evaluating the results

Sometimes this can be tough. Not every project or event you try will be a success... re-evaluate and try again. Some things are hard to quantify. How much soil is prevented from entering the river by planting those trees and creating a shady riparian corridor? I'm not sure... but I know it is very beneficial with respect to bank stabilization, cooling the stream, detritus from leaves etc. A good planning goal will contain a measurable outcome for evaluation. Try to evaluate your success at regularly scheduled intervals (quarterly, yearly etc.).

Watershed restoration and protection is a long-term proposition. Your final evaluation will come from the next generation of watershed stewards that you have inspired to protect their watershed.

EPA Program Based on False Information

Steven Milloy , Fox News

Friday, November 09, 2001

A scientific study that spawned a federal law requiring the testing of chemicals for their potential to interfere with hormonal processes has been found to be the product of scientific misconduct.

The federal Office of Research Integrity just ruled that Steven F. Arnold, a former researcher at the Tulane University Center for Bioenvironmental Research, "committed scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying the research results published in the journal Science and by providing falsified and fabricated materials to investigating officials." Arnold lied and then covered up.

The ORI also found that, "there is no original data or other corroborating evidence to support the research results and conclusions reported in the Science paper as a whole."

The disturbing tale began in 1996 with the publication of the book Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival? -- A Scientific Detective Story. The book was a compendium of loosely told anecdotes that attempted to implicate chemicals in the environment and our food -- such as PCBs, pesticides and plastics - as the cause of diseases ranging from cancer to infertility to attention deficit disorder.

The authors of Our Stolen Future speculated that these chemicals -- so-called "environmental estrogens" or "endocrine disrupters" -- disrupted normal hormonal processes, even at low exposure levels generally accepted as safe.

Although Our Stolen Future initially received a great deal of media attention, it soon died out amid much criticism from many respected scientists. But just when the fury faded, Arnold and his Tulane gang published their study in June 1996, claiming that combinations of pesticides and PCBs were up to 1,000 times more potent as endocrine disrupters than the individual chemicals alone.

"The new study is the strongest evidence to date that combinations of estrogenic chemicals may be potent enough to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, birth defects and other major health concerns," said then-EPA chief Carol Browner.

"I was astounded by the findings," said then-EPA pesticide chief Lynn Goldman. "I just can't remember a time where I've seen data so persuasive. The results are very clean looking."

The study received a great deal of publicity that stampeded Congress into passing a bill in July 1996, signed into law by President Clinton, requiring the EPA to develop a program for screening thousands of chemicals for their ability to act as endocrine disrupters.

The EPA's Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program now underway only costs about $10 million per year. But the cost to industry and consumers will likely stretch into the billions of dollars. Testing of a single chemical can easily reach into the millions of dollars. The Arnold study began to unravel a mere six months after publication. Scientists from around the world began to report that they could not reproduce Arnold's results -- such replication of results being a requirement for findings to be considered as "scientific."

By August 1997, Arnold was forced to retract his study from publication. His retraction stated, "We have not been able to reproduce the results we reported." He later added, "I can't really explain the original findings." Now we know why - he cheated. The penalty imposed on Arnold was a five-year ban from federal grants.

Although a lifetime ban and perhaps even criminal prosecution would have been more appropriate -- after all, he was found guilty of "intentionally falsifying" taxpayer-funded research -- the light penalty is not the most disturbing part of this story.

Arnold's study has been thoroughly trashed, but the federal law remains and the mandated EPA testing program is in full bloom.

In August 1999, an expert committee of the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council -- a panel that included scientist representatives from the environmental activist community -- reported there was no evidence that chemicals in the environment were disrupting hormonal processes in humans and wildlife.

Behind Every Good Stream Is a Volunteer

Anne Baird, Extension Agent Watershed Management, OSU Extension, Southwest District

Citizen volunteers have made exciting impacts this year on the quality of Ohio streams and wetlands. Volunteers established streamside forests, monitored and compiled data, removed trash, and educated their neighbors on the importance of keeping pollutants out of storm drains.

Here are just a few examples of 2000-2001 volunteer accomplishments and people to contact for more information. To find out more about groups active in protecting water in your community visit the Ohio Watershed Network website: http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/.

Stream Clean Ups

Friends of the Hocking River , a volunteer organization, hosted a trash clean up and river festival this year. 250 tires were removed from the Hocking River and participants celebrated with free food, a canoe raffle, live entertainment, and fish and canoe displays.
Dan Imhoff (dan.imhoff@epa.state.oh.us )

In 2000, 23,000 volunteers from six states removed 13,000 tons of trash from the Ohio River in the annual River Sweep.
Brian Bohl, Stream Specialist (brian.bohl@hamilton-co.org)

Volunteers at the 2nd Annual Stillwater River trash clean up removed 110 ties and 20 cubic yards of trash.
Nikki Reese (nikki-reese@oh.nacdnet.org)

Tree Plantings

Hundreds of volunteers over the last three years have planted over 19,000 oaks and hickories along Big Darby Creek .
Jennifer Fish (jennifer-fish@oh.nacdnet.org)

Last April 200 school children planted 225 trees and learned about watershed protection along the state scenic section of the Olentangy River in Delaware County.
Roger Pinnicks (Phone: 740-368-1921)

Stream Monitoring

Volunteers submitted 256 reports on the water quality of Ohio's 20 state scenic river segments.
Beth Wilson (beth.wilson@dnr.state.oh.us )

Grand Lake St. Mary's volunteers performed weekly chemical tests on 23 sites. Volunteer monitoring has helped health department officials notify home-owners of failing septic systems.
Heather Buck (heather.buck@mercercountyohio.org)

Friends of the Lower Olentangy (FLOW) volunteers monitor eleven sites on the Olentangy River for aquatic life, and once a year evaluate stream habitat. Data can be viewed on the FLOW web site (www.olentangywatershed.org)
Erin Miller (flow@myexcel.com)

Storm Drain Labeling

Urban and suburban residents around the state are learning to keep potential pollutants such as oil, pet waste, and litter out of their storm drains to prevent them from ending up untreated in a nearby waterway. Volunteers in Columbus, Cincinnati , Mason, and Waynesville labeled their storm drains and educated fellow residents on how to protect urban waterways. In the City of Columbus this year, over 3,000 "No Dumping, Drains to Rivers" storm drain markers have been distributed to interested volunteer groups. For more ideas on student suggestions for storm drain slogans visit: http://www.crookwell.nsw.gov.au/swater.html
Laura Young Mohr, City of Columbus (lym@smoc.cmhmetro.net)
Brian Bohl , Hamilton County (brian.bohl@hamilton-co.org)
Marsha Rolph , Warren County (m_rolph@hotmail.com)

Land Conservation

The Medina Summit Land Conservancy is a nonprofit organization made up of volunteers. A 40-acre conservation easement protecting 3800 feet of the North Fork of Yellow Creek and 23 acres of wetlands were obtained this year by the land conservancy.
Chris Bunch, Executive Director (mslc@nls.net)

Livestock Waste Management Alternatives

Dana Oleskiewicz , Extension Agent Watershed Management
OSU Extension, Northeast District

Livestock waste management has become more of an environmental concern as animal operations become much bigger in size. Large concentrations of animals are being confined to smaller parcels of land. Therefore, the potential for phosphorus pollution into nearby waterways from livestock waste is greater. Techniques for effectively handling manure at these Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to reduce potential non-point source pollution are being explored.

Waste disposal methods include incineration, pelletizing manure to use as a fertilizer, and composting. In addition to disposal methods, alternatives to directly remove phosphorus from livestock waste have been researched. For example, dietary amendments are being tested in an attempt to lower the phosphorus content of animal waste. Chemical precipitation to remove phosphorus from manure is another potential method of livestock waste management.

The technique of using aluminum sulfate (alum) to bind phosphorus thus removing it from a system has been used as a lake management technique since the late 1970s. This idea is now being applied to animal waste management. Chemical precipitation with aluminum salts produces phosphorus that binds tightly to the solid waste material. This phosphorus rich solid material can then be used to fertilize crops providing an economic incentive to the farmer, as well as environmental protection from phosphorus pollution. In essence, this technique stops the phosphorus pollution at its source before it can get into the water system.

Organic polymers in combination with aluminum chloride are being researched to enhance phosphorus removal in manure slurries. In waste management systems where slurry pits are used in a flush method, the liquid and dry mass is separated. Only a small portion of the material from the slurry pit is hauled away as dry mass and applied to crops. The remaining material is stored in nearby lagoons. The objective is to remove as much phosphorus as possible from these lagoons so as to reduce potential pollution. Phosphorus removal is increased using polymers in conjunction with alum to produce chemical precipitation of phosphorus.

The current trend in farming is CAFOs. Successful livestock waste management on these operations is necessary for environmental protection. The above alternatives for controlling phosphorus pollution at the source can help to reduce the environmental impacts in Ohio watersheds.

Information from proceedings at the North American Lake Management Society’s Symposium, November 2001. Contact Dana Oleskiewicz at 330-263-3831 for more information.

Freshwater Mussels: Ohio Natives in Trouble

J.P. Lieser, Extension Agent Watershed Management
OSU Extension, East District

Freshwater mussels or bivalves of the family unionidae are perhaps the most imperiled of all species of animals on earth. However, seldom do we ever hear anything about their plight. In Ohio, we have nearly 80 known species of mussels with approximately 20 of those considered endangered or threatened. In addition, several others have already gone extinct or have been extirpated. Presently, Ohio 's mussels and their shells are legally protected, but many are still in danger due to stream alterations, dams, sedimentation, illegal gathering and the spread of non-native competitors like zebra mussels.

You may ask so what? Historically, Native Americans used mussels for food, money, beads and tools while white settlers utilized their shells for buttons and their meat for fish bait. Ecologically they are important to the health of our stream ecosystems. Mussels filter the water in streams while gathering microscopic algae for food. In the process they also help to clean the water. In addition, mussels are an important source of food for fish and other wildlife. Furthermore, the presence of different species of mussels provides biologists with an excellent indicator of overall water quality.

Mussels not only have interesting names, such as monkeyface, pimpleback, and heelsplitters, but also display a unique way of surviving. Early in their lives young mussels called glochidia are held in mother’s gills. When the time is right they are expelled into the current where they drift until they can attach to the gills of a fish host. They survive as parasites on these fish until they reach their juvenile life stage. As juveniles, they drop down to live in the bottom of the stream where they remain for the rest of their lives. Amazingly, that can be for 70 years or more.

For more information check out the following web page:
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~natres/341_SP97/matney/index.html

Do Drainage Ditches Behave Like Streams?

Andy Ward, Professor, Ag Engineering, Ohio State University

Robert McCall, Watershed Management Agent, OSU Extension, NW District

A team of scientists and engineers at OSU, ODNR, Ohio EPA, Heidelberg College , the University of Findley , and several other organizations are studying how knowledge of natural stream concepts might be used to make drainage ditches more self-maintaining, improve water quality, and also enhance the ecology of these systems. The work is funded in part by a grant from the Great Lakes Protection Fund.

Cross-section of a ditch with a small channel and a low bench

Natural rivers that are self-constructed and self-maintained, constantly seek their own stability. We have determined that within drainage ditches in Northwest Ohio benches at the bottom of the ditches and small stable channels are created predictable ways, even though the ditches have been artificially constructed, are periodically modified to maintain flows, and often received large discharges from subsurface drainage systems. Also, farmers have reported to us that several decades ago drainage ditches has substantially better ecological function that they do now.

What are natural stream concepts?

Stable natural streams normally consist of a main channel with a particular pattern (bends and meanders), dimension (width, depth and shape), profile (bed slope), and a floodplain connection. The size of the main channel is associated with the flow that is most effective at transporting sediment and building the banks of the main channel and the benches (the floodplain next to the bank).This flow occurs less than a handful of times annually and is often called the bankfull or effective discharge. Factors influencing the channel’s shape and size include: geology, topography, flow velocity discharge, sediment transport, and the particle size of bed material (sand, gravel, cobble, boulders).In natural stable streams these variables produce a channel in dynamic equilibrium such that, over time, channel features are maintained and the channel system neither aggrades (builds-up), nor degrades (down-cuts).Historically, land use changes occurred very slowly and most streams were able to self-adjust their features to maintain equilibrium. However, rapid land use changes due to human activities often cause instability and down-cutting (deepening) that disconnects the main channel from its floodplain and then causes over-widening of the main channel. Straightening and channelizing streams can also cause instability because they change the dimension, pattern, and profile of a stream.

Drainage ditches are important but costly.

Highly modified channels drain extensive portions of the U.S. particularly in the Midwest . It has been estimated that there are approximately 16,000 miles of drainage ditches in Northwest Ohio , analogous to two-thirds the circumference of the earth. In these productive agricultural areas, most natural channels have been deepened and straightened to facilitate the flow of water from agricultural subsurface drainage outlets and to reduce flooding. The cost of maintaining these ditches is estimated to be more than $400/mile/year, with total maintenance costs in Northwest Ohio approaching $2 million annually. Habitat modification, largely related to drainage improvement, is now the leading cause of aquatic life use impairment in Ohio .

Where are we doing the study?

Thus far the study has been conducted in the Portage River Watershed that is located in a flat region of Northwest Ohio with predominantly Lake Plain soils. Once an ancient lake bed surrounded by glacial moraines, the area was originally knows as the Great Black Swamp , and was dominated by deciduous forest. Cleared and drained extensively in the last 150 year it is now dominated by row crop agriculture. Most fields have subsurface drainage as the silty clay soils are poorly drained.

The study has focused on agricultural drainage ditches that flow between fields and with watersheds of 1 to 40 square miles. Most of these ditches are more than 100 years old, 5-12 feet deep and 15-60 feet wide at the top, and have over-steep side slopes. Bank slump and slope failure due to scour processes at the toe of the banks appear to account for some of the fundamental instability of the system. Periodically, maintenance practices remove or kill vegetation or excavate deposited sediments out of the ditches. Short term benefits due to improved flow capabilities are often offset by cycles of bank failures, accelerated scours, and the need to place rip-rap along the toe of the embankments.

What have we discovered?

Drainage ditch construction is often independent of the variables that give rise to the dynamic equilibrium observed in natural streams. Most notably, ditches often lack a meander pattern and a two-stage relationship between a main channel and a floodplain.

Dan Mecklenburg of ODNR on a bench measuring the bankful width of the main channel of a ditch.

With few exceptions ditches in our study area have developed some natural channel features. Typically, they rapidly establish a small main channel that is associated with high subsurface drainage flows and runoff that occurs a few times annually. We believe that the reason the main channel and benches form is because: there is an available supply of very fine material at the bottom of the ditch-due in part to bank failures and also to the artificial conditions of the ditch (which is created independently of sediment supply unlike natural stream-valley formation); a major part of the flow entering the ditches is subsurface drainage which contains very little sediment so this flow picks up sediment in the ditch; and grass grows quickly on the benches and they then rapidly stabilize.

In some of the smaller ditches the low bench are unstable and subject to scour during events that exceed the effective discharge for the small channel. In other cases, periodic maintenance and/or rip-rap have resulted in the low bench only forming on alternating sides and at bends in the ditch. In all cases the low benches are covered by dense grass during most of the year and the main channel meanders within the confines of the ditch. The main channel also exhibits some small riffle and pool features. However, the pattern and profile characteristics of the channel are not as well defined as in natural streams and do not always fit the relationships we might expect.

The width of the bench and the width and depth of the main channel can be predicted based on the size of the watershed, the size of the coarse material (sand, gravel, and small cobble) that will deposit on the bed of the channel, and the width of the ditch. Our ability to predict the dimensions that nature will create is important because we can use this knowledge in the design, construction, and maintenance of ditches.

How ditches can improve water quality and the ecology.

We anticipate that establishing and maintaining a two-stage channel system will reduce maintenance costs and reduce sediment discharges to Lake Eric. In 2002, a 3,000 ft long ditch that incorporates a two-stage design will be established in Wood County. We will evaluate the performance of this ditch and other two-stage channels systems that are installed in the future. As part of our ongoing project we are studying the ecology of ditches. Results of the first phase of this work will be available by the end of 2002.

We anticipate that two-stage ditches may be able to reduce nitrate discharges to a useful degree but the benefit will probably be less than that reported by Person et al. in a recent article in Science where they stated that During seasons of high biological activity, the reaches of headwater streams typically export downstream less that half of the input of dissolved organic nitrogen from their watersheds. Unlike the Midwest region of the USA, where headwater streams are often drainage ditches, their study was conducted mainly on more natural systems throughout the USA. High subsurface drainage discharges often occur in the late winter and spring when biological activity is reduced and vegetation on the low benches in the least. However, if establishing and maintaining two-stage drainage ditches only resulted in a 10-20% reduction in nitrate discharges this would be important for agriculture in the Midwest .

Andy Ward, professor, is located on the Columbus Campus and can be reached at 614-292-9354 or ward.2@osu.edu. This column in provided by the OSU Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering.

return to top