  |
 |
|
|
 |
|
OSU Extension Watershed Team
|
Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Summer 2002Buckeye 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:
Why Some Watershed Plans Can End Up on the ShelfJerry Iles, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management (Part one of a four part series) The 1990's were certainly the decade for watersheds to be recognized as THE physical unit for constructing plans that address the restoration and protection of natural resources. Many of us see this shift of thinking as a positive step toward resource protection. Why then is it that many watershed plans have failed to protect our rivers, streams, lakes, and groundwater? This article will list the first four of eleven reasons why watershed protection plans fail. It is adapted from Crafting Better Watershed Protection Plans. The focus is on urban watershed protection but in many cases these reasons are pertinent to all watershed plans. Reason No. 1 -- The plan was conducted at too great a scale. "Scale was considered the critical factor in preparing effective local watershed plans. Quite simply, when watershed plans were conducted on too large a scale (50 or more square miles) the focus of the plan became too fuzzy. The critical link between individual land use decisions or restoration projects and the watershed plan was broken. While the number of stakeholders involved in the plan proliferated, actual responsibility for implementing the plan diminished." Think about watershed plans that employ the same protection strategy for landowners living on a small headwater stream six counties north of a landowner at the mouth of the river. These headwaters, that all agree are critical to overall watershed habitat and health, need to be managed with a specific protection and restoration strategy. Reason No. 2 -- Plan was a one-time study rather than a continuous management commitment. "Many 'plans' are conceived as a short--term study that would produce the requisite answers in a year or two. As a result, the watershed management effort was quickly transformed from a process into a report, and within a few years, the report and its recommendation were forgotten amid competing priorities." Reason No. 3 -- Lack of local ownership in the watershed management process. "A related problem was for many communities to hand off responsibility to a consultant. While this approach helps complete the technical study in a timely fashion, it generally doesn't generate the kind of internal consensus and support needed to champion the watershed management process. This approach means that local stakeholders have little ownership and understanding of the plan and consequently have little stake in the outcome of the watershed management process." Reason No. 4 -- Plan focused on the tools of watershed analysis rather than their outcomes. "Many consultants and planners were overly-fascinated with the many tools of watershed analysis, such as geographic information systems (GIS), computer simulation modeling, intensive stormwater monitoring, and the like. As a result, many of the studies were more about demonstrating the intrinsic value or legitimacy of one of these tools, than about the specific watershed management outcome. A fancy GIS map, a finely calibrated model, or an extensive monitoring baseline will never serve as a watershed plan. A watershed plan should be focused on tangible outcomes with respect to land use and practices. The tools of watershed analysis are a means to the end, but should never be confused for the end product." In the next issue we will continue to look at some reasons watershed plans fail and begin to investigate some elements of an effective local watershed action plan. A Short Summer Watershed Reading ListAnne Baird, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management Ready to laze away the summer on your local river? Don't forget to include some reading on public involvement in watershed planning. Here are two articles to pack in your dry bag.
www.acresolution.org - Click on "Learning Center" to access this report. This is the first in a series of cooperative efforts between researchers and practitioners to help state and federal government officials using collaborative conflict resolution processes in the public policy arena. The guidelines are for agencies seeking to sponsor an agreement-seeking process (i.e., a process to obtain agreement on actions or polices by developing consensus) versus information sharing or advising. It discusses the basics including whether a collaborative agreement-seeking approach is appropriate; setting ground rules; and planning for implementing decisions early on. The report contains guidance on do's and don'ts for facilitators and mediators.
This article outlines the steps and tools a consultant used to help a collaborative water resource protection group merge their values with scientific and economic data to increase the quality and acceptability of their decisions. Instead of focusing on areas of agreement as in consensus-based approaches, the process first carefully characterized differences in values among stakeholders. Scientific and economic survey data was then presented for further deliberation provided that it was relevant to stakeholders and could improve their understanding of the issues. Alternative courses of action were generated and potential tradeoffs discussed with the help of tables, flow charts, and other graphic techniques. Copies available on request. Just send an email to baird.41@osu.edu National Research Council, committee on Risk Characterization. (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. On the www at: http://books.nap.edu/books/030905396X/html/index.html Ohio's Primary Headwater Streams: A Valuable Natural ResourceJ.P. Lieser, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management When Ohioan's think about protecting or restoring streams and waterways in Ohio they often picture large bodies of water such as Lake Erie or the Cuyahoga River. While these are very important natural resources, we often neglect our smaller headwater streams. Headwater streams are simply the small creeks and swales, which are the origin of our rivers and lakes. The Ohio EPA defines a headwater stream as "a stream with a watershed of less than or equal to 20 square miles". Streams with a watershed of less then one square mile are referred to as a "Primary Headwater Streams." It has been estimated that Ohio's headwater streams make up 80% of the total stream miles in the state. Obviously then, small streams are extremely important to the overall water quality in the Buckeye State. The Ohio EPA's Division of Surface Water understands the importance of headwater streams and has developed a tool known as the "The Field Evaluation Manual for Ohio's Primary Headwater Habitat Streams". The evaluation uses biological indicators such as salamanders, macroinvertebrates, and small fish as well as physical data like substrate quality, max pool depth, and bankfull width to characterize the health of these small streams. The scientific approach utilized will allow the Ohio EPA to establish use designations and aquatic life criteria for primary headwater streams throughout Ohio. By doing this the Ohio EPA hopes to be able to protect our most pristine small streams from further degradation. To learn more about headwater streams and the Ohio EPA's initiative follow this link: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/headwaters/index.html Is Barley Straw a Friend or Foe in the Fight Against Pond Algae?Dana Oleskiewicz, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management Pond scum...that unsightly mess that invades many Ohio ponds during the warm months. We are forever looking for ways to combat it so that we don't have to swim in it, fish through it, or look at it. The use of barley straw to control pond algae has been explored as a possible management technique. However, research has shown mixed results on the effectiveness of this method. Barley straw has been promoted in the United Kingdom as a biological alternative to using chemicals such as copper sulfate to control algae. Bales of barley straw placed in water will decompose releasing a chemical that stops algae from growing. There have been documented cases where observation suggests that this approach works. There are also field and laboratory studies that contradict these observations1. For example, barley straw was used in Valley Lake (8 acres), Minnesota2. Observations from long-time lake residents and lifeguards reported a decline in floating algal mats (filamentous algae) from previous years. Conversely, growing season Secchi disc and chlorophyll readings did not show an apparent decrease in planktonic algae from year to year. Planktonic algae are suspended alga that turn the water green and lowers the transparency of the water. Studies involving laboratory bioassays and outdoor tanks were performed to assess the effectiveness of barley on reducing the growth of algae3. At the end of the growing season, visual observations indicated that barley might have had an adverse effect on the planktonic algae. However, there were no significant differences in algal growth between the treated and control tanks based on chlorophyll analyses. It appears as though mat-forming and microscopic algae are not inhibited by barley.יי Controlled laboratory experiments on twelve freshwater algal species have shown that barley straw extract will inhibit the growth of Synura and Microcystis, two widespread nuisance algae4. However, four species had a significant increase in growth, including common Spirogyra and Oscillatoria. There were no significant differences in growth rates on the remaining six species tested. In addition, studies on field-collected filamentous algal mats showed that the growth of the mats either increased or slowed their rate of decline when exposed to barley straw. It was concluded that barley straw as a management technique has considerable inconsistencies of effectiveness. Barley does influence algal growth but it is species-specific and ranges from inhibition to stimulation. The researchers believe that the mechanism involved is more complex than simply stopping the growth of algae. It may include a shift in algal composition as a result of both inhibitions of some species and stimulation of others. They also hypothesize that stimulation might occur due to the bales of straw that may provide an organic substrate that improves the life cycle of some algae. What does this all mean? Bottom line -- use caution. Management decisions are based on the use designation of the waterbody (for swimming, fishing, drinking water, aesthetics, etc.), what needs to be fixed or controlled (plants and/or algae), and how the various techniques work. Most management techniques have advantages and disadvantages. Not all of the pros and cons on barley straw have yet been discovered through science, so an informed management decision is difficult. It would be unfortunate to repeat the grass carp mishap. White amurs seemed to be the "cure all" several years ago, so people stocked them at alarming rates. In fact, they were often overstocked or used in systems dominated by algae, which is an incorrect management technique since grass carp feed on plants, not algae. Many of these lakes/ponds are now in very bad shape because the fish have destroyed the natural vegetation stabilizing the sediments causing even more algae. It is too early to tell if barley straw is a friend or foe in controlling pond algae. More research is needed. There is, however, enough evidence to suggest that, without harming other pond life, it might work. So, if you have a pond dominated by algae and you aren't concerned about the possibility of changing the ecosystem, for example negatively affecting the fish community, causing more nuisance algae to grow, or losing money if it fails, then try the barley straw approach. Just be aware of the potential negatives and be careful to apply the correct dosage. If it works for you and you are satisfied with the results, then that is all that matters. 1Information from papers presented at the North American Lake Management Society's 2000 Annual Conference: NALMS 2000: Celebrating 20 Years. 2Barley straw for algae control in Minnesota. Presented by Steve McComas, Blue Water Science, Minnesota. 3Small-scale evaluations of straws and forages for algae control. Presented by Carole Lembi, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, Indiana. 4Inhibition and stimulation of freshwater algae by barley extract: implications for in situ mechanism of action. Presented by Drew Ferrier, Dept. of Biology, Hood College, Maryland. New and Exciting Changes at the Gwynne Conservation Area, Sept. 17-19, 2002Robert McCall, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management Exactly what is The Gwynne Conservation Area? The Gwynne Conservation Area (GCA) is apportioned to the Farm Science Review (FSR) that is now in its 40th year. It's a three-day outdoor, natural resource educational event featuring presentations and tours on topics from prairie plantings to wetlands and watersheds. Educational displays offer new ways of thinking. And there's always an expert around from The Ohio State University and government agencies to help answer your questions. What kind of tours can I go on? This year's events have changed from mostly static displays to include displays and interactive scheduled and continuous programming. Some of the things you can see at the GCA include the following.
Ponds and Wetlands: The two ponds at the Gwynne represent most typical construction in Ohio; ponds dug out by excavating a large hole for collecting runoff and an embankment pond to collect water behind a constructed dam. A 3.2 acre wetland was constructed in 1989. Nearly 95 percent of Ohio's original wetlands have been drained and filled for agricultural and urban development. In addition to their value for wildlife habitat, wetlands store water during floods and improve overall water quality by processing chemical and fertilizer runoff from urban and farming areas. Several USDA programs provide cost-sharing incentives to landowners who wish to restore and manage wetlands on their private lands. Other demonstration and educational events include "Finding Fish in Your Stream", an electrofishing demonstration, and "Those Pesky Aquatic Weeds: Demonstrating Herbicide Use in Ponds." All tours, including pre-registered tours for High School age kids, at the GCA are conducted daily, including events at the Natural Resources Interpretive Center log cabin.
How Do I Get There? The Gwynne Conservation Area consists of 67 acres on the Northwest corner of the Molly Caren Agriculture Center. A map to the FSR and GCA can be found at http://fsr.osu.edu/map.html. If you are interested in becoming an exhibitor at this year's review, or for more information on the FSR or GCA, please contact the FSR office at: Farm Science Review Ohio Watershed Leaders (OWLS) Workshop Brochurehttp://east.osu.edu/anr/OWLS%20Information/Owls%20Brochure.pdf EPA Proposes Enhanced Approach to Cleaning Up America's WatersRobin Woods, US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman today proposed a Water Quality Trading Policy to increase the pace and success of cleaning up impaired rivers, streams and lakes throughout the country. EPA officials believe this policy could save the public hundreds of millions of dollars by advancing more effective, efficient partnerships to clean up and protect watersheds. The policy encourages incentives to maintain high water quality where it exists as well as restoring impaired waters. In addition, the policy sets forth what EPA believes is necessary for state and tribal water quality trading programs to be successful and identifies provisions of acceptable trading programs that are consistent with the Clean Water Act and federal regulations. "Many of us remember when some of our country=s rivers were so heavily polluted that they were catching fire in the 1960s," said Whitman. "As a result of the Clean Water Act, signed into law in 1972, the discharge of pollutants by industry was greatly reduced. However, there is more to be done and the policy we are proposing today will help enhance the efforts that are already underway. This policy will lead to greater efficiency and better results, while being responsive, as we meet our clean water goals." Despite the accomplishments of the Clean Water Act, many of America's waterways are still polluted by urban stormwater, sanitary sewer overflows, agricultural runoff, and pollutants from the air that fall into our waters. What this policy seeks to encourage is more innovative approaches to meeting clean water standards and does not change any of the current regulations or standards that are in place. "We've made a lot of progress controlling pollution from industrial and municipal sources," Whitman explained. "Now we must look to innovative strategies that complement our current programs, to help us address the remaining challenges. Our Water Quality Trading Policy keeps existing controls and safeguards in place, but offers greater flexibility and incentives to states, tribes, and companies to comply with the Clean Water Act. Trading provides incentives for voluntary reductions from all sources to improve and maintain the quality of the nation's waters." The trading policy seeks to support and encourage states and tribes in developing and implementing water quality trading programs that implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act and federal regulations in more flexible ways and reduce the cost of improving and maintaining the quality of the nation's waters. Under the proposed policy, industrial and municipal facilities would first meet technology control requirements and then could use pollution reduction credits to make further progress towards water quality goals. In order for a water quality trade to take place, a pollution reduction "credit" should first be created. EPA's water quality trading policy states that sources should reduce pollution loads beyond the level required by the most stringent technology requirements in order to create a pollution reduction "credit" that can be traded. For example, a landowner or a farmer could create credits by changing cropping practices and planting shrubs and trees next to a stream. A municipal wastewater treatment plant then could use these credits to meet water quality limits in its permit. EPA officials believe that most trading will occur as states, tribes and sources implement programs to restore polluted waters. The policy supports trading among and between regulated and unregulated sources through watershed partnerships and programs developed by states and tribes. EPA will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register and post the proposed policy to protect and restore the nation's waters at: www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading.htm The policy will be open to public comment for 45 days. The final policy will be released later this summer. Applications for Farmland Protection Program Pour in from Ohio Farmers: Protected acres could double with new, matching funds in the 2002 farm billColumbus, Oh., May 17, 2002- With the closure of the first Agricultural Easement Purchase Program (AEPP) application cycle, Ohio farmers have demonstrated a clear and urgent need for protecting their farmland. An overwhelming 442 applications were submitted for the state's voluntary farmland protection program, which provides $25 million over four years through the Clean Ohio Fund to protect Ohio's farmland. While the demand far outweighs the available funding, Ohio's commitment to preserving farmland comes at an opportune time, as new federal dollars in the farm bill could allow the state to double its ability to protect farmland. "Ohio residents recognized the need to protect farmland with the passage of Issue 1 in 2000; with the overwhelming response in applications submitted to the AEPP, farmers have confirmed this need," explained Jill Clark, Ohio field representative for American Farmland Trust. Issue 1, a $400 million bond measure approved by voters in 2000, allocated $25 million to farmland protection. "Agriculture is the backbone of our state, contributing $4.5 billion annually in agricultural sales. We cannot afford to continue the land use trends of the past." Clark, who is also vice-chair of the Ohio Farmland Preservation Advisory Board, is working closely with the Ohio Department of Agriculture to score the applications. "Of the 63,000 acres in applications, we expect to protect about 2,000 - 4,000 acres," she said. "That number will double if we are able to obtain federal monies, but as the numbers illustrate, it is still far short of meeting the need in Ohio." The 2002 Farm Bill, signed by the President on May 13, increases farmland protection funding 30-fold to almost $1 billion over 10 years. "Identifying and protecting our state's prime best agricultural lands-our working lands-will benefit all Ohioans," commented Dr. Lawrence W. Libby, OSU's C. William Swank Chair in Rural-Urban Policy. "Agriculture is not only a major economic contributor to local communities, it is defines Ohio's rural character. Farmland preservation is a good investment, now and for future generations." Between 1987 and 1997, Ohio lost 627,100 acres of cropland to non-agricultural uses, an area of high quality farmland roughly the size of one Ohio county. The state's AEPP compensates farmers for the development value of their land, while ensuring that it remains permanently available for agriculture. "The initial AEPP funding is certainly a good beginning for Ohio," Clark said. "But as the mountain of applications illustrates, there is still a lot more work to be done for communities to protect the economic engines, wildlife habitat, and scenic open spaces that farms provide." American Farmland Trust is a private, nonprofit farmland conservation organization founded in 1980 to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. Its action-oriented programs include public education, technical assistance in policy development and demonstration farmland protection projects. AFT's Ohio Office is located at 200 North High Street, #522, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Phone: (614) 469-9877. For more information, visit AFT's homepage at www.farmland.org. Warming Streams Could Wipe Out Salmon, TroutEnvironmental News Service (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2002/2002-05-22-06.asp Wood-Chip Trenches Keep Nitrate Runoff in CheckBy Luis Pons, ARS News and Information |
 |
|
OSU Extension embraces human diversity and is committed to ensuring that all educational programs conducted by Ohio State University Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis without regard to race, color, age, gender identity or expression, disability, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or veteran status. If you have trouble accessing this page and need to request an alternate format, contact our web support at watershedweb@ag.osu.edu. |
Riparian Areas and Forestry: Deer Creek winds through
the 62- acre Gwynne. There you will see floodplains, a rock ford stream
crossing, and a stream bank stabilization demonstration. One significant
source of stream sediment is eroding stream banks. Willow posts driven
into an eroding bank can stabilize the area and form a dense vegetative
barrier to reduce erosion. Also adjacent to the stream area is a reforestation
demonstration with upland and floodplain hardwood and conifer species.
