Buckeye Basins Newsletter: Winter 2004-2005

Buckeye Basins is produced by the Ohio State University Extension, Watershed 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. Please feel free to ask questions, share ideas, or provide feedback.

In This Issue:

• Volunteer Monitors Complete First Year of Stream Study
• Creating an Ohio Master Naturalist Program
• Source Water Protection, Part II: Developing and Implementing a Drinking Water Source Protection Plan
• Watershed Groups in Ohio Database
• Effort to Stop Ditch Petition in 1974 Becomes a Lifelong Labor of Love: An Interview with Justine Magsig of the Sugar Creek Protection Society

Volunteer Monitors Complete First Year of Stream Study

Jerry Iles, Ohio State University Extension - South Centers
iles.9@osu.edu

Citizen volunteers from several watersheds throughout Ohio have recently completed the first year of field sampling their local streams and rivers. The citizen volunteers are participating in a three year study focusing on sampling E.coli levels in streams and rivers of six Midwestern states; Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Minnesota. Ohio State University Extension, Watershed Educator Jerry Iles coordinates the project in Ohio and Mike Gosnell serves as a program assistant with the study.

The three year project titled "Building Capacity of E.coli Monitoring by Volunteer Networks" was funded in October of 2003 by the USDA's Cooperative State Research Extension & Education Service (CSREES). Over the past five months volunteers from Ohio have collected samples from several streams and rivers. These samples are analyzed for E.coli at an EPA certified laboratory. Laboratories in all six states use the same methodology to analyze the samples. Over the next two years the volunteers will not only collect samples for lab analysis but will also be trained on how to prepare, culture and interpret the results of their own sample using a commercially available test kit. Five of these kits were pilot tested in Iowa and Indiana over the past year. These two states were chosen due to their already existing volunteer sampling networks. Iowa and Indiana are currently evaluating the five test kit's results based on parameters such as reliability, costs and ease of use by volunteers. Years two and three will limit the focus to one or two kits with all six states training and monitoring volunteer efforts.

Can Volunteers Do It?

Using volunteers to monitor their local streams can be a controversial subject. Many agencies are skeptical of volunteer generated data. Others argue that properly trained volunteers can collect valuable data. Iles states, "By promoting local volunteer monitoring you are not only increasing local knowledge of the resource you are also promoting local stewardship. People care and protect a stream or river because they have developed a greater understanding through their monitoring experiences."

This study will help determine how to best use volunteers. The study will seek to answer questions such as: Are volunteers only valuable when collecting "grab samples" for lab analysis, this method is fairly expensive at $20 - $30 per sample, or can they accurately analyze data as well? If so, how much training is required? Which test kits are best used by volunteers and how reliable are the results when compared with grab samples and laboratory analysis? Results from this study will be important not only to the Midwestern states where the study is ongoing but also on a national scale as this research will be relevant to all states seeking to use volunteer generated data.

For more information on this project or other watershed management issues contact Jerry Iles -- OSU South Centers at (740) 289-2071 or via e-mail at iles.9@osu.edu.

return to top

The Birth of an Ohio Master Naturalist Program

J.P Lieser, Ohio State University Extension
lieser.8@osu.edu

Candace Pollock, OSU Extension - Communications & Technology

As Ohio's population grows more urban, it is harder for citizens to make the connection to nature that ultimately allows them to value their local natural resources and thus have a reason to manage and conserve it for future generations. The Ohio Master Naturalist Program is being designed to enhance people's love of nature with a research-based scientific training program that emphasizes hands-on natural resource education coupled with community-based volunteer service. The program embraces conservation but is not an advocacy group.

The program, in its early stages of development, is designed similar to OSU Extension's Master Gardener Program. Interested individuals are educated and trained in areas involving environmental issues, wildlife and other natural science areas, and then volunteer their time in the community to teach others the value of Ohio's natural resources.

Reaching out to new, non-traditional, diverse constituencies and forging new partnerships is the key to facing the challenge of conserving natural resources. The Ohio Master Naturalist Program envisions training people about their local natural resources, and inspiring them to get involved in conserving their environment to ensure that others will be able to enjoy the natural world for years to come.

The program hopes to partner within Ohio State University and with several organizations, such as the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, state and local parks, and non-profit conservation organizations. Statewide partnerships can unify people who have a passion and interest in conserving and enhancing the natural environment throughout the state.

The Ohio Master Naturalist Program is a spin-off of similar programs in other states that have seen success since their inception. From 1998 through 2003 The Texas Master Naturalist Program trained over 1,650 volunteers, who dedicated 66,000 service hours per year to projects. These projects impacted over 341,000 people and 29,000 acres of habitat. By 2003, over 244 partnerships were formed. During this period, the efforts of these volunteers extended the budgets of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Texas Cooperative Extension by $2.7 million. Other states such as Florida, Oklahoma Iowa and the City of Fort Collins, CO, have seen similar successes with such a program.

Committee members are in the process of developing a plan outlining the program and producing a statewide training manual outlining curricula in several natural resource areas. A steering committee meeting is being held Jan. 20th from 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. in Columbus. For more information regarding the Ohio Master Naturalist Program, contact, Dave Goerig in Mahoning County at (330) 533-5538 or goerig.1@osu.edu, or J.P. Lieser at (740) 732-2381 or lieser.8@osu.edu.

return to top

Source Water Protection: Developing and Implementing a Drinking Water Source Protection Plan

Robert McCall, Ohio State University Extension
rmccall@ag.ohio-state.edu, 419-422-6106

Heather Raymond, Lead Hydrogeologist, Ohio EPA
heather.raymond@epa.state.oh.us, 614-644-2752

Part 2

Part I of this three-part series described information available in a community's Source Water Assessment Report and highlights on how that information could be incorporated into a Protection Plan. This article will go into more details on how plans are developed and implemented.

Ohio EPA currently has an online guidance for those of you interested in obtaining funds to develop a Source Drinking Water Protection Plan. The document is about 66 pages long (mostly appendices) and can be found at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/Documents/swap_psdoc.PDF. Ohio EPA is currently developing a revised guidance targeted specifically at surface water sources of drinking water and watershed protection efforts. A draft of the new guidance will be available for review and comments within the next two months.

Introduction

A Drinking Water Source Protection Plan consists of 4 primary parts:

1. Education and Outreach,
2. Drinking Water Shortage and Emergency Response,
3. Potential Contaminant Control Strategies, and
4. Ground/Surface Water Monitoring.

Developing an implementation timeline and funding strategy is also important, and in large watersheds critical areas should be identified.

When preparing the protection plan, try to incorporate enough information to create a stand-alone document or incorporate the information in your Watershed Action Plan. Anyone interested in protecting a drinking water source area should understand why the protection strategies are needed.

Figure 1: Possible Protection Team Members

• Water system operator
• Local officials (mayor, township trustees, county commissioners, council members)
• Area residents
• Local farmers and business owners
• Senior groups
• Civic associations
• Media representatives (newspaper editor/reporter, journalists, radio)
• Fire chief or emergency responder
• Local teachers
• Soil and Water Conservation District staff
• State agency and regional planning representatives

To ensure widespread acceptance and commitment to the plan, develop the plan with a group of people representing the diverse viewpoints and local expertise of the community. A protection team is especially advisable when the protection area is large, extends into multiple political jurisdictions, or has a large number of potential contaminant sources. Those who play a role in implementing protective strategies, as well as those who will be affected by any decisions, will likely be most beneficial to the team and exhibit ownership to the plan. If a watershed group is interested in drinking water protection planning they may want to form a drinking water subcommittee that consists of interested watershed group members, representatives from the water system, and any additional individuals that may be helpful in developing or implementing the plan (See Figure 1 for possible members).

Duties of the protection team should revolve around 5 phases including:

1. Review the Drinking Water Source Assessment report provided by Ohio EPA.
2. Prioritize the potential contaminant sources.
3. Evaluate protective strategies for each source.
4. Decide which options to implement.
5. Write the plan.

In the end, the most successful drinking water protection efforts are those publicized early and often, and presented as a community source of pride.

Drinking Water Source Protection Plan Components

Education And Outreach

The overall success of protective strategies depends upon the cooperation of people living and working within the protection area. Citizens in the protection area need to understand that their actions can affect the quality of their drinking water. They also need to understand how they can change their actions to prevent contamination from occurring. Education is the key to ensuring this awareness and therefore it is the cornerstone to effective protective strategies.

Educational programs can be directed at business owners, households, the agricultural community, school children, civic organizations, workers or the community at large, depending on which type of potential contaminant source is targeted. Some of the more commonly used educational tools include: inserts in water bills regarding drinking water source protection; posters in public places; public meetings and workshops; employee training on materials handling practices, emergency spill situations, and drinking water protection; informing the agricultural community about drinking water protection and applicable conservation programs; presentations to various groups; and school field trips. Involving local community groups in outreach events can be very beneficial. For example, one protection team asked a local Boy Scout troop to deliver information about drinking water protection door to door to members of the community. Service projects, such as stream clean-ups and storm drain stenciling, are another way to involve and educate the community about drinking water protection.

The education component of the protection plan should also describe how the thoughts, opinions, and expertise of individuals in the community were obtained, considered and incorporated into the protective strategies plan. Through open communication and public involvement, local officials can promote public trust and confidence. This will lead to protective strategies that not only help protect the source of public drinking water, but also reflect the needs and desires of the community.

Drinking Water Contingency Plan

The contingency plan should go beyond the contingency requirements of OAC 3745-85 and ORC 3750 to address both water supply planning and emergency spill response. The contingency plan should identify both short and long term alternative sources of water, and financial mechanisms for implementing those alternatives should the existing water supply become unusable due to contamination. The plan should indicate how the water system will coordinate with the local emergency planning committee (LEPC) on appropriate responses in the protection area. Specialized responses may need to be adapted for spills/accidents occurring within a protection area, particularly one located in a highly sensitive aquifer or in a tributary upstream of a water supply intake. For example, if an industrial facility located in a sensitive setting explodes or burns, spraying it with water may not be the best response, unless there's a reliable way to prevent the water from infiltrating into the aquifer or entering storm water. For surface water spills, there should be a mechanism in place for water systems to notify downstream water supplies of spills and potential contamination problems. The protection team may want to consider designating an individual to be the drinking water protection coordinator to act as a direct contact to the incident or site coordinator in emergency response situations.

Ground/Surface Water Monitoring

The protection team should first assess the need for water quality monitoring. The need for monitoring is dependent upon the vulnerability of the aquifer or surface water source being used; the presence of contaminant plumes and contaminant sources; the existing water quality; and the approaches selected to protect the drinking water source. For ground water sources of drinking water, the protection team may need to request assistance from a ground water professional when drafting this section.

It should be recognized that water quality monitoring is not a preventive strategy; rather, it provides information that may lead to reactive strategies. However, water quality monitoring can serve several important functions, including: providing an early warning of contamination, tracking water quality trends over time, and evaluating the effectiveness of implemented protection strategies.

Potential Contaminant Source Control Strategies

The type of source control strategies to implement is a local decision that should be based on input from the people affected by the strategies and on the expertise of those individuals responsible for implementing the control strategies. Some protection teams may choose not to use any additional source control strategies beyond existing state and federal regulations. For contaminant sources where no regulations apply, however, the protective strategies plan should explain how the other protective elements (education, contingency planning, and ground water monitoring) adequately address each type of identified contaminant source. Examples of source control strategies include overlay zoning ordinances, conservation easements, implementation of agricultural best management practices, remediation of contaminated sites, industrial and commercial pollution prevention strategies and many others. The protection team should select the strategies that best fit the community's needs.

Additional Sources of Information

Ohio EPA's website contains example educational materials, sample drinking water protection ordinances, funding options, and lots of additional information that may be helpful: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/pdu/swap_ps.html

Ohio EPA also developed an online training on drinking water source protection planning. The training was designed for public water system operators and managers, but can be used by anyone interested or involved in developing and implementing a drinking water source protection plan. Understanding the planning process is made easy through activities, photos, illustrations and video clips. Many training sections have multimedia activities. The program explains Ohio's Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) program, answers some common questions, offers an in-depth review of ground water and surface water concepts, provides information about common potential contaminant sources, and describes how contamination can impact water quality. Certified drinking water operators may be eligible to receive five contact hours for going through the training and completing a short quiz. The training is available online at: http://tacnet.info/swp/oh/ and a CD of the training is available from source water protection staff at Ohio EPA, in the Division of Drinking and Ground Waters (614) 644-2752.

Ohio EPA staff members are available to give presentations on drinking water source protection and assist with the development of protection plans. OSU Extension Watershed Educators are also available to provide guidance in writing either single, or multiple facility SWAP grant proposals. The third, and final, article in this series will concentrate on what makes a successful SWAP proposal.

return to top

Watershed Groups in Ohio Database

Anne Baird, Ohio State University Extension
baird.41@osu.edu

Watershed Groups in Ohio is an easy-to-use database of Ohio watershed organizations. The database, which is updated regularly, now lists 125 watershed organizations.

You can search the database by county or view the entire list. Once you click on the watershed organization you are interested in, you will find counties of coverage, contact information, and information on the group, such as mission and history.

For some groups, you may also find the applicable 11-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUC) for the area of coverage. We are working on a way to use HUCs for all the groups to represent their locations, but currently have HUCs for only about a third of the groups in the list. If applicable, please check to see if the HUC is included in your group's entry.

If you would like to have your watershed organization listed in the database or need to update your current listing, please contact Robyn Ness at ness16@ag.osu.edu.

return to top

Effort to Stop Ditch Petition in 1974 Becomes a Lifelong Labor of Love:
An Interview with Justine Magsig of the Sugar Creek Protection Society

Joe Bonnell, Ohio State University Extension
bonnell.8@osu.edu

In January of 2004, Jay Dorsey (Watershed Coordinator for the East Fork, Little Miami River) and I spoke with Justine Magsig of the Sugar Creek Protection Society. Justine and her husband, Cal, joined forces with several other residents of Sugar Creek in Ottawa and Sandusky Counties over thirty years ago to contest a ditch petition submitted by other residents in the watershed to straighten the last nine miles of natural stream channel.

In the following excerpts from that interview, Justine describes how protecting the last nine miles of natural stream channel on Sugar Creek has become a thirty-year long labor of love for members of the Sugar Creek Protection Society.

"The Sugar Creek Protection Society (SPS) was formed in 1974 to oppose channelization of the final 9 miles of Sugar Creek that has not been ditched in Ottawa and Sandusky Counties. Over those nine miles, Sugar Creek is a very beautiful stream with riffles and a bedrock bottom. We canoe the creek in the spring when the water is high enough and then in the fall we remove the logjams that cause obstructions.

In 1973, when the ditch petition was proposed, the estimated cost for the project was $739,000. It would probably be well over $1.5 million today, and all that cost must be covered by the landowners. The ditch petition was denied and SPS was charged with maintaining and improving Sugar Creek from then on.

I got involved because I live on Sugar Creek. I didn't want a ditch running through my property. We went to see the engineer in Sandusky County, and he said, ‘Don't you want a nice, neat ditch on your place? You'd never have to worry about it; it would be maintained from now on.' That's the last thing I would have wanted and the people on Sugar Creek don't want a ditch, they want a natural stream, and that's why they're there.

When we started, there were 46 logjams in 10 miles and some of them were so massive, there had been muskrat dens in them for thirty years. On some properties, the last time any logjams had been removed, it was done with horses. At the original ditch petition hearing, we were given one year to remove all forty six of the logjams and we did it. When we went back the following year, the ditch engineer said, ‘That's impossible!', but we did, and so they denied the petition.

We've done everything we've ever done with volunteer labor, volunteer gasoline, tractors, and chainsaws. It's never cost the landowners a nickel. We don't apply for grants because we don't need the money. Some of the landowners remove the logjams from their own property, but most of the work over the years has been completed by the SPS.

The river is a living system and when you have trees growing along the stream, you'll have trees and limbs falling into the water, so we have to inspect the entire ten miles by canoe and then address wherever there is a problem. My husband Cal marks the location of the logjams on a USGS map and I steer the canoe.

During that first year when we removed the forty six logjams, we used an old Case tractor and chains. You'd have to pull the log up, and then you'd shorten the chain, and pull up a little further and shorten the chain. One time we removed a Hackberry Tree that was well over four feet in diameter right in the middle of the creek bed. We have a diesel Ford tractor now. Cal built a winch for it and it's a dandy, it's just terrific!

My brother-in-law has a sawmill and he brought his A-frame truck and pulled it out for us. And we have people who will do nice things like that for us now. We just don't get turned down. Nobody ever has turned us down.

The first summer, there was a youth coordinator at a local church and he was looking for a project, so he brought his kids down and they were great at moving things that had been pulled out farther away from the creek. It was really kind of neat. That got us a lot of publicity, because the kids go home and tell their parents. We had lots and lots of help in the beginning.

Why do we keep at it? It's fun! You do more than you ever dreamed you could do in the time that you spend. It's tremendously rewarding. It's fun! I'm the tractor driver and I just love it. It's part of my life, now. I wouldn't know what to do without it. It's just one of the things that you do. I'm into quilting too. Other people go to church and watch football games on Saturday afternoon. When they're watching football games, Cal and I are working on the creek, which we really enjoy.

Every single year I've written up an annual report with pictures, from the time when we did this on a typewriter with a mimeograph up to where we're getting pretty professional now. I send the report to the County Commissioners and to the County Engineers and to the Director of the Department of Natural Resources."

Q: What have you learned?

"In the flatlands of Northwest Ohio, it's so automatic to ditch. When you live with a natural stream, you've got to expect that it's not going to stay the same all the time, and it isn't. You might just as well accept it and deal with what you have. Is it so bad to go down and pull a logjam out of the river? It's fun. You get used to it and its fun. You get your son or neighbor to do it and it's fun to do. You feel wonderful when you do it. A farmer who does this for himself feels a hundred times better than if he spends $700 or $800 to pay his assessment [for ditch maintenance by the county]."

return to top

Contact Buckeye Basins:

J.P. Lieser (Editor)
OSU Extension
16714 SR 215
Caldwell, OH 43724
(740) 732-2381; fax (740) 732-5992
lieser8@ag.osu.edu
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~east/anr/wm.html

Further Information:

Ohio Watershed Network
http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/