Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Fall 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:

• Copper in Our Waterways
• Why Some Watershed Plans Can End Up On the Shelf (Part 2)
• Livestock Need "Clean" Water, Too
• USDA Releases $323 Million for Conservation Programs
• A Structured Approach to Public Involvement
• Why Precise Water Quality Data Is So Important in Producing a Good Watershed Implementation Plan?

Copper in Our Waterways

Dana Oleskiewicz, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management

The use of chemicals, such as copper sulfate, is often the chosen method of algae and weed control. These compounds have been on the market for decades and are believed to be safe based on short-term studies. The long-term implication of copper in our waterways is less understood.

Scientific research conducted on these algaecides consists of short-term effects, dissipation of the chemical from the water, and the toxicity to specific animal species. According to these studies, the chemicals appear safe to water systems and have been approved for use at the recommended dosages. When applied correctly, they are not acutely or chronically toxic to non-target aquatic species.

There are studies; however, indicating that there are negative effects involved in the use of chemicals to control algae and aquatic weeds. Specifically, these chemicals can be toxic to zooplankton or fish food, adversely affect the important microbial system in the sediment and water column, and cause a shift to a monoculture or undesirable species. They can impact the sexual reproduction of organisms and can interfere with the metabolism or cause chromosomal mutation in non-target aquatic organisms.

Copper resistant strains of algae have appeared, which is analogous to the overuse of antibiotics in humans causing resistance to medicine. In addition, there are very few long-term studies on the impact to water systems from prolonged chemical exposure. Research is limited on the combined effect to the ecosystem with few studies being done within waterways rather than in laboratory-controlled environments.

One long-term, full ecosystem study involved fifty-eight (58) years of copper sulfate applications that produced the short-term (for days) desired result of controlling algae in Fairmont Lake, Minnesota. However, it also caused oxygen depletions, increase in nutrient cycling, occasional fish kills, copper accumulation in the sediments, increased tolerance by some algae to copper sulfate, a shift to blue-green algae (mats) dominance instead of the more desirable green algae, rough fish replaced game fish, disappearance of aquatic weeds which will promote algae growth, and a decrease in macroinvertebrates indicating a less "healthy" ecosystem. Researchers concluded that the quick fix to the algae problem was at a cost of long-term degradation to the lake.

The algaecides and herbicides on the market today are a "quick fix" that addresses, in the short-term, poor water quality as a symptom, but does not eliminate the problem. Although widely used for many years, in the long run, these products may be more harmful to a system than helpful. The system becomes dependent on the chemical in that it needs to be applied over and over again each season without really taking care of the problem at its source. It may also promote a shift in species to more nuisance aquatic life causing less desirable conditions than before the system was treated. Methods of management other than copper can be explored that could reduce the adverse effects of prolonged chemical use and provide a more long-term solution.

References:

Bhunya, S.P. and P.C. Pati. 1987. Genotoxicity of an inorganic pesticide copper sulfate in mouse in-vivo test system. Cytologia (Tokyo). 52 (4): 801-808.

Bhunya, S.P. and T. Behura. 1988. Evaluation of clastogenicity of three pesticides in the grasshopper test system. Journal of the Zoological Society of India. 38 (1-2): 73-82.

Brown, R.J., M. Conradi, and M.H. Depledge. 1999. Long-term exposure to 4-nonylphenol affects sexual differentiation and growth of the amphipod Corophium volutator (Pallas, 1766). Science of the Total Environment. 233 (1-3): 77-88.

Browne, R.A. 1980. Acute response vs. reproductive performance in 5 strains of brine shrimp exposed to copper sulfate. Marine Environmental Research. 3 (3): 185-194.

Couch, R.W. and E.N. Nelson. 1984. Effects of 2-4,D on nontarget species in Kerr Reservoir Oklahoma USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 20: 8-13.

Garner, S.C. and C.E. Grue. 1996. Effects of Rodeo and Garlon 3A on nontarget wetland species in central Washington. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15 (4): 441-451.

George, J.P., H.G. Hingorani, and K.S. Rao. 1982. Herbicide toxicity to fish food organisms. Environmental Pollution Series A Ecological and Biological. 28 (3): 183-188.

Hanson, M.J. and H.G. Stefan. 1984. Side effects of 58 years of copper sulfate treatment of the Fairmont Lakes Minnesota. Wat. Res. Bull. 20: 889-900.

Isolda, A. and S.S. Hayasaka. 1991. Effect of herbicide residues on microbial processes in pond sediment. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20 (1): 81-86.

Kenaga, E.E. and R.J. Mollenaar. 1979. Fish and daphnia toxicity as surrogates for aquatic vascular plants and algae. Environmental Science & Technology. 13 (12): 1479-1480.

Langeland, K.A. and J.P. Warner. 1986. Persistence of diquat, endothall, and fluridone in ponds. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 24: 43-46.

Leung, T.S., S.M. Naqvi, and C. Leblanc. Toxicities of 2 herbicides basagran diquat and an algacide cutrine-plus to mosquitofish gambusia-affins. Environmental Pollution Serious A Ecological and Biological. 30 (2): 153-160.

Nemcsok, J., A. Nemeth, Z. Buzas, and L. Boross. 1984. Effects of copper zinc and paraquat on acetyl cholin esterase activity in carp cyprinus-cario. Aquatic Toxicology (Amsterdam). 5 (1) 1: 23-32.

Pearlmutter, N.L. and C.A. Lembi. 1986. The effect of copper on the green alga pithophora-oedogonia. Weed Science. 34 (6): 842-849.

Perkins, P.J., H.J. Boermans, and G.R. Stephenson. 2000. Toxicity of glyphosate and triclopyr using the frog embryo teratogenesis assay-xenopus. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 19 (4): 940-945.

Pratt, J.R. and R. Barreiro. 1998. Influence of trophic status on the toxic effects of a herbicide: a microcosm study. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 35: 404-411.

Srivastava, A.K. and A.B. Gupta. 1982. The effect of sodium salt of 2,4-D on carbohydrate metabolism in the indian catfish heterophneusties-fossilis. Acta Hydrobiologica. 23 (3) 3: 259-268.

Tanner, C.C., J.S. Clayton, and B.T. Coffey. 1990. Submerged vegetation changes in Lake Rotoroa Hamilton New Zealand related to herbicide treatment and invasion by Egeria-densa. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 24 (1): 45-58.

Westerdahl, H.E. 1984. Effects of hydout and aquathol K on hydrilla íverticullata in Gatun Lake Panama. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 21: 17-21.

Winger, P.V. et al. 1984. Field and laboratory evaluation of the influence of copper diquat on apple snails pomacea-paludosa in southern Florida USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 3 (3): 409-424.

return to top

Why Some Watershed Plans Can End Up On the Shelf

By Jerry Iles, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management

(Part two of a four part series)

In the last issue of Buckeye Basins I discussed four reasons why watershed plans fail. I received a lot of feedback focused on one of those issues: "the scale of many watershed projects is too large." If the project scale is too large, a group will have a hard time showing water quality improvements to the watershed. If you are not able to quantify results then it is hard to build a case for future funding. Several groups agree strongly with this point and are finding that focusing on a "sub-basin " while integrated with an overall watershed approach is the way to go in order to demonstrate effective use of public funds leading to true water quality improvement.

In this article I'll describe a few more reasons watershed plans may end up on the shelf. Watch out for these pitfalls with your watershed group's plan or planning process. These reasons are adapted from "Crafting Better Watershed Plans".

Reason 5 - The Document was too long or complex.

Many watershed plans have been published that contain hundreds of pages and are simply too long or appear too complex hence no one reads them and public officials don't / can't use them. "The thickness may have been needed to justify the many dollars that were invested in their production, but ended up obscuring the real findings and issues, and intimidating the lay reader." If decision makers don't understand the document, how can we expect them to use it to guide future implementation strategies?

Reason 6 í The plan recommendations were too general.

Too many plans contain general recommendations yet don't specify the agency or group responsible for implementation of the strategy. Plans recommendations need to include authority (who), budget (how) and timetable (when) in order to make it happen.

Reason 7 í Plan had no regulatory meaning.

"Perhaps the greatest reason cited for consigning watershed plans to the shelf was that no one was required to pull it down and use it as a routine part of the land development process. Consultants, planners and local officials are exceptionally busy and generally do not read watershed plans as a leisure activity." This is why it is important to get local officials involved in the watershed planning process and the ongoing watershed group. Many model ordinances have been adopted after officials have been introduced to watershed management concepts at watershed group meetings and educational functions.

Reason 8 í Budget for watershed plan was poor or unrealistic.

"Many watershed plans were hamstrung by the fact that the original scope of work was far too broad and ambitious to be completed with available resources." Watershed groups need to consult with area assistance team members and other groups that have been involved with development of a watershed plan prior to submitting an unrealistic budget request that will lead to the development of a poor watershed plan.¹¹

"By the time extensive watershed mapping and baseline monitoring tasks were completed, the project budget was all but exhausted. Few resources remained to begin the watershed management process, much less to develop the funding and consensus to adopt and implement it. In many cases monitoring merely confirmed what was already known, or produced reams of data of little value to managers. By contrast many watershed budgets scrimped on the considerable staff resources needed to develop and implement the plan. The recurring budget shortfalls suggest that watershed monitoring may be overemphasized (and budgeted) at the expense of the watershed management process." Many of our watershed groups are willing to fund expensive outside consultants ($60 - $100 per hour) and yet don't seek qualified watershed coordinators that provide reasonable compensation packages. The watershed coordinator should be viewed as the most important person in plan development and implementation.

In part three I'll take a look at some common element that effective watershed plans share.

return to top

Livestock Need "Clean" Water, Too

Chris Zoller, OSU Extension Agent, Agriculture and Natural Resources

Water is one of the most important nutrients required by all livestock! Beef cattle, dairy cows, horses and other animals require ample supplies of drinking water. Water that is of poor quality may result in animals not drinking enough for maintenance, growth, and milk production. In extreme cases, it may cause severe health problems or even death of livestock.

What makes water unsatisfactory for livestock?

Groundwater and surface water both contain minerals and chemicals such as calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, copper, sulfates, nitrates, etc. Many are naturally occurring, while others enter streams in runoff from land use activities like mining or agriculture.

Although small amounts are harmless, too much of any of these can cause problems. For example some sulfate compounds have a laxative effect, especially in young animals. The resulting diarrhea can lead to more serious problems, even death. But, how much is too much? Due to differences in digestive systems, the answer depends upon the species of livestock, and also the age and overall health of the individual animals.

Additional health problems can be caused by water with very low acidity (measured as pH) such as found in areas affected by acid mine drainage. Biological contaminants, such as bacteria or viruses, whether from failing septic systems, wildlife, or other livestock, can also make water unsatisfactory for livestock.

Generally speaking, most ground and surface water supplies are satisfactory for livestock, but it might still be a good idea for you to consider sampling your water to determine its quality. For more information, including species specific guidelines, talk to your veterinarian, or contact the Ohio State University Extension.

return to top

USDA Releases $323 Million for Conservation Programs

USDA News Release No. 0371.02, Alisa Harrison (202) 720-4623

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6, 2002--Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today announced the availability of $323 million for the Farmland Protection Program (FPP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These funds will allow NRCS to fully implement these programs in fiscal year 2002 as authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill.

"These funds will help keep agricultural lands in production and they will help protect our country's valuable wetland ecosystems," Veneman said.

Through FPP, $48 million will allow USDA to enter into agreements with states, tribes, local governments and nonprofit organizations--such as land trusts and land resource conservation councils--to protect productive farmland through the purchase of conservation easements. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the appraised fair market value of the conservation easement.

Through WRP, approximately $275 million will enable NRCS to enroll up to 250,000 acres into the program. Landowners who have already submitted WRP applications to the local NRCS office will be notified when funds are available for their projects. The goal of the program is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program.

The Bush administration remains committed to providing the tools and resources for environmental stewardship to ensure that the land remains both healthy and productive. The 2002 Farm Bill represents an unprecedented investment in conservation on America's private lands, nearly $13 billion over the next six years.

Detailed information on these and other conservation programs authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill is available on the Web at

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/products.html.

Farmland Protection Program:

Ohio $1,442,800

Wetlands Reserve Program:

Ohio $4,000,000

return to top

A Structured Approach to Public Involvement: The Tillamook Watershed Case Study from "Using Stakeholder Values to Make Smarter Environmental Decisions" (Gregory, 2000)

Anne Baird, OSU Extension Agent, Watershed Management

Based on an article by Robin Gregory

So, you've diligently compiled concerns of stakeholders including input from both the physical and social sciences but how do you incorporate this information into decision-making? The following case study describes a structured decision approach to public involvement that may provide some assistance. It was used to help increase both the quality of participation as well as the quality of watershed management decisions. Stakeholder participants searched for preferred alternatives in terms of specific actions as well as the desired level of intensity of the action.

Background

In the spring of 1998 a small team of researchers lead by Robin Gregory, with Decision Research in Vancouver British Columbia, explored the use of a structured public involvement process in the Tillamook Bay Watershed in northwestern Oregon. The Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project (TBNEP) had begun work on a watershed management plan that was scheduled for completion in one year. They had elicited ideas for the emphasis of the effort, community concerns, and developed a list of over hundred possible actions to address watershed problems.¹

A structured decision approach to public involvement addresses involves five fundamental tasks:

1. Frame the decisions to be addressed through the public involvement process.¹

The team began their effort by first holding a series of meetings with community leaders and the TBNEP management committee to establish a scope and focus of the public involvement effort. They decided that their goal was to help community members learn about and contribute to critical dimensions of the proposed actions and to understand and address the tradeoffs that were expected among their expressed economic, environmental, and social concerns surrounding the water quality problems.

2. Defining key objectives. How do people view the proposed actions? What affect do they think it will have on their lives and what values matter most to them?

Both individual and group interviews were used with the major stakeholder groups (community residents, state and technical resource managers, and technical experts) to determine what they cared about in the context of possible actions. A small set of concerns were important to all three major stakeholder groups and these became the fundamental objectives of the program. The six fundamental objectives for the TBNEP were:

• Promote biological health of the Bay
• Promote water quality in Tillamook Bay
• Minimize adverse effects on residents
• Minimize economic costs of the management plan
• Promote long-term management efforts
•  Promote public support of the management plan recommendations

There was widespread agreement on these but disagreement regarding the preferred approaches to achieve these ends. Some of the approaches identified included:

• Improve capacity to receive floods
• Enhance coordination with other plans
• Reduce sediment loads
• Reduce coliform deposition
• Upgrade failing septic systems

3. Establish key alternatives.

The TBNEP had established a list of more than 150 possible actions. A few of the actions would have significant economic, environmental, or social impacts on the community and would not be initiated without leadership from TBNEP. The TBNEP staff wanted to provide a way for stakeholders to help in setting priorities and to have direct input into the design of the most significant actions. Meetings were held with representatives of key stakeholder interests (dairy farmers, private and state foresters, concerned citizens, and residents concerned about flooding) to review the proposed actions. The discussions on proposed actions revealed many previously neglected concerns including the amount of time farmers believed it would take them to maintain fencing and the related costs of that action.¹

1. Limit livestock access to streams
2. Protect and restore tidal wetlands
3. Upgrade forest management roads

4. Identify consequences. Determine the impacts of different alternatives and the certainty of their occurrence.

The TBNEP staff began identifying consequences for the proposed actions.¹ For example they determined that after upgrading only about a quarter of the proposed 70 miles of forest roads nearly three quarters of the benefits (in terms of reduced sediment load) would be realized.

5. Defining key policy tradeoffs. Identify the important conflicts and how can these be used to create new and better alternatives?

Stakeholders at Tillamook Bay wanted to restore local water quality and fish populations that were damaged by waterborne pollution from animal wastes and increased sediment loadings. However they were still worried about the health of the dairy and forest industries. The structured decision process allowed stakeholders to work through tradeoffs in a way that attempted to balance their competing interests and lead to more informed choices. Making the costs and benefits of key actions explicit allowed for adjustment to actions to reduce negative impacts. The project team worked with small groups of eight to ten stakeholders who first studied information about the anticipated costs and benefits of a key project alternative and then provided written responses including the percentage of participants likely to support or oppose a particular action, as well as how much they were willing to pay for it. This information was then used to help decision makers refine recommended actions.

return to top

Why Precise Water Quality Data Is So Important in Producing a Good Watershed Implementation Plan?

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

A good watershed implementation plan provides an exact description of what the water quality problems are within a given watershed and where the problems lie. Stakeholders then can take this information and decide how and where to restore, improve, and protect their water resources. However, if no in-depth data is available or the data is more than one or two years old, then creating an implementation strategy can be difficult. Scientifically valid and standardized methods for collecting and analyzing biological, chemical, and physical data is needed to be sure that problems are correctly identified.¹¹

Watershed protection groups frequently find that they lack quality data to identify and address water quality problems. In some watersheds they might have historical data ten to fifteen years old, but lack recent data. Many changes in the watershed can occur over that length of time due to development, agriculture, and other land uses. Watershed groups also need accurate flow readings in order to calculate accurate pollution loads (the total amount of pollutant in a stream at a given time).

Given the current budget situation, our natural resource and regulatory agencies do not have adequate resources to thoroughly describe the quality of all of Ohio's streams and rivers. However, there is an opportunity for well-trained volunteers to conduct stream monitoring activities that can be used to describe changes in water quality and identify critical areas that need protection.

With that in mind, OSU Extension is developing a series of Stream Steward trainings to address this need and thus help citizens participate actively in stream protection. More details will be provided as dates and locations for the trainings are established.

return to top