**Evaluating the influence of conservation practices on Ohio
watersheds**

Edited By:

Peter C. Smiley Jr.

Norman R. Fausey

USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit

**Evaluating the influence of conservation practices on Ohio
watersheds**

Proceedings of the Ohio Conservation Effects Assessment Project

(CEAP) symposium

2006 Conservation Partnership All Employee Meeting, Columbus, Ohio

March 1, 2006

Edited By:

Peter C. Smiley Jr.

Norman R. Fausey

Published by:

USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio

**PREFACE**

Evaluating the influence of conservation practices on Ohio watersheds is
the Proceedings of the Ohio Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP) symposium. This Proceedings contains the symposium schedule and
abstracts from all presentations given at the symposium. The symposium
was held at the 2006 Conservation Partnership All Employee meeting in
Columbus, Ohio on March 1, 2006 from 1:30 to 5:00 pm. The symposium
included oral presentations, a poster session, and a concluding panel
discussion.

Conservation practices are land, water, and agronomic management
practices designed to reduce erosion rates, improve water quality, and
restore aquatic and terrestrial habitats in agricultural watersheds.
Comprehensive evaluations of the influence of conservation practices in
agricultural watersheds are lacking, and are needed to improve existing
land management strategies. The goal of CEAP is to quantify the
environmental benefits of conservation practices at the watershed scale.
The Soil and Water Conservation Society is an integral participant in
the CEAP, and this symposium was an effort to communicate CEAP
activities at the regional and state level. Currently, there are five
CEAP watersheds located within Ohio or in part of major river drainages
flowing into Ohio. The Upper Big Walnut Creek and St. Joseph's River
watersheds are ARS benchmark watersheds that are long-term research
sites. The Upper Tiffin and Upper Auglaize River watersheds are NRCS
special emphasis watersheds that were selected for short-term
evaluations of specific resource concerns. The Rock Creek watershed was
selected through the CSREES Water Quality Initiative Competitive Grants
program. The objective of the symposium was to provide a forum for
informing conservation professionals about CEAP and to foster discussion
of the implications of the research and evaluation plans. There were 21
participants who presented their objectives, approach, and preliminary
results from their activities within the five CEAP watersheds.

**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**

We would like to thank the Program Committee of the 2006 Conservation
Partnership All Employee meeting for selecting our symposium as part of
their meeting agenda and providing a forum for the symposium. We thank
Sean Browning for his efforts in helping with logistical matters
involved with organizing the symposium. Craig Cox and the Soil and Water
Conservation Society supported the symposium by contributing reprints of
a *Journal of the Soil and Water Conservation Society* article that was
distributed to symposium attendees. Clarence Richardson provided
financial support for printing the proceedings, renting poster boards,
and other costs related to the symposium. We are grateful to Ann Houser
and Jay Martin for providing information on potential vendors for
renting poster boards and printing the proceedings. Ann Houser also
assisted with compiling the symposium proceedings. We thank Kevin King,
who provided suggestions on organizing the symposium and developing the
schedule. We also greatly appreciated the contributions of all
participants who made the symposium a success.

**SYMPOSIUM SCHEDULE**

**Oral Presentations (1:30 - 3:10 pm)**

1:30 -- 1:50 pm Richards, R. Peter\*, David B. Baker, John Crumrine, and
Kevin P. Czajkowski. Detecting water quality responses to land
management changes: why is it so difficult?

1:50 -- 2:10 pm Huang, Chi-hua\*, Dennis Flanagan, Diane Stott, Douglas
Smith, Elizabeth

Warnemuende, Gary Heathman, Stanley Livingston, Steve Lovejoy, and
Robert Gillespie. Building a comprehensive water quality research
program at the Saint Joseph River watershed.

2:10 -- 2:30 pm Davis, Steve\* and Jim Stafford. Offsite effects of
management alternatives in the Upper Auglaize watershed using the
AnnAGNPS watershed model.

2:30 -- 2:50 pm Smiley, Peter. C. Jr.\*, Kevin W. King, Barbara J.
Baker, Norman R. Fausey, Colleen R. Tennity, and Brent Sohngen.
Evaluating conservation practices within the Upper

Big Walnut Creek watershed: water quality, ecology, soil, and economic
perspectives.

2:50 -- 3:10 pm Shaffer, Ruth D.\* CEAP Upper Tiffin Watershed Project,
Lenawee and Hillsdale counties, Michigan.

**Poster Session (3:10 - 4:30 pm)**

**A. Rock Creek, Ohio**

Baker, David B.\*, R. Peter Richards, John Crumrine, and Josie V.
Setzler. Flashiness trends in rural streams: do they correlate with
changing cropping patterns and practices?

Czajkowski, Kevin, James Coss, Jeff Jowett\*, and Peter Richards.
Development of the Rock Creek watershed GIS.

**B. St. Joseph's River, Indiana**

Cain, Zachary T.\* and Stephen B. Lovejoy. Examining the economic and
environmental impacts of land use changes in the Matson Ditch watershed.

Gillespie, Robert B.\* Ecological assessment of habitat and aquatic life
in Cedar Creek in support of the Conservation Effects Assessment
Project.

Larose, Myriam and Gary C. Heathman\*. Hydrologic simulation and
atrazine prediction in the Cedar Creek Experimental Watershed using
SWAT.

Livingston, Stanley J.\*, Sara Walling, and Dennis Bucholtz. Real world
watershed research: how to grow a watershed scale project.

Smith, Douglas R.\* and Elizabeth A. Warnemuende. How does dredging
affect in-stream transport of contaminant?

Stott, Diane E., Chi-hua Huang\*, Stanley J. Livingston, and Dennis L.
Bucholtz. Loss of dissolved organic carbon from small watersheds in
northeastern Indiana.

Warnemuende, Elizabeth A.\*, Douglas R. Smith, and Chi-hua Huang.
Pesticide measurements in the Saint Joseph River watershed.

**C. Upper Auglaize River, Ohio**

Davis, Steve\* and Jim Stafford. Offsite effects of management
alternatives in the Upper Auglaize watershed using the AnnAGNPS
watershed model.

**D. Upper Big Walnut Creek, Ohio**

King, Kevin W.\*, Peter C. Smiley Jr., and Norman R. Fausey. Hydrology
and water chemistry responses to conservation practices and land use
within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed.

Smiley, Peter C. Jr.\* and Kevin W. King. Ecological evaluation of the
influence of herbaceous riparian buffers on headwater agricultural
drainage ditches in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed.

Tennity, Colleen R.\* and Brent Sohngen. A conjoint analysis of
conservation in the Upper Big Walnut watershed in Ohio.

**E. Upper Tiffin River, Michigan**

Shaffer, Ruth D.\* CEAP Upper Tiffin Watershed Project, Lenawee and
Hillsdale counties, Michigan.

**Panel Discussion (4:30 -- 5:00 pm)**

Representatives from each watershed will be available to answer
questions from the audience. Invited representatives are: R. Peter
Richards (Rock Creek, Ohio), Steve Davis (Upper Auglaize River, Ohio),
Chi-hua Huang (St. Joseph's River, Indiana), Kevin King (Upper Big
Walnut Creek, Ohio), and Ruth Shaffer (Upper Tiffin River, Michigan).

**Table of Contents**

Preface iii

Acknowledgements iv

Symposium schedule v

**ROCK CREEK, OHIO**

Baker, David B., R. Peter Richards, John Crumrine, and Josie V. Setzler.
Flashiness

trends in rural streams: do they correlate with changing cropping
patterns and practices? 1

Czajkowski, Kevin, James Coss, Jeff Jowett, and Peter Richards.
Development of the

Rock Creek watershed GIS 2

Richards, R. Peter, David B. Baker, John Crumrine, and Kevin P.
Czajkowski.

Detecting water quality responses to land management changes: why is it
so difficult? 3

**St. Joseph's River, Indiana**

Cain, Zachary T. and Stephen B. Lovejoy. Examining the economic and

environmental impacts of land use changes in the Matson Ditch watershed
4

Gillespie, Robert B. Ecological assessment of habitat and aquatic life
in Cedar

Creek in support of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. 5

Huang, Chi-hua, Dennis Flanagan, Diane Stott, Douglas Smith, Elizabeth

Warnemuende, Gary Heathman, Stanley Livingston, Steve Lovejoy, and
Robert

Gillespie. Building a comprehensive water quality research program at
the

Saint Joseph River watershed 6

Larose, Myriam and Gary C. Heathman. Hydrologic simulation and atrazine

prediction in the Cedar Creek Experimental Watershed using SWAT 7

Livingston, Stanley J., Sara Walling, and Dennis Bucholtz. Real world
watershed

research: how to grow a watershed scale project 8

Smith, Douglas R. and Elizabeth A. Warnemuende. How does dredging affect

in-stream transport of contaminant? 9

Stott, Diane E., Chi-hua Huang, Stanley J. Livingston, and Dennis L.
Bucholtz. Loss

of dissolved organic carbon from small watersheds in northeastern
Indiana 10

Warnemuende, Elizabeth A., Douglas R. Smith, and Chi-hua Huang.
Pesticide measurements in the Saint Joseph River watershed 11

**Upper Auglaize River, Ohio**

Davis, Steve and Stafford, Jim. Offsite effects of management
alternatives in the Upper Auglaize watershed using the AnnAGNPS
watershed model 12

**Upper Big Walnut Creek, Ohio**

King, Kevin W., Peter C. Smiley Jr., and Norman R. Fausey. Hydrology and
water chemistry responses to conservation practices and land use within
the Upper Big

Walnut Creek watershed 13

Smiley, Peter C. Jr. and Kevin W. King. Ecological evaluation of the
influence of

herbaceous riparian buffers on headwater agricultural drainage ditches
in the

Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed 14

Smiley, Peter. C. Jr., Kevin W. King, Barbara J. Baker, Norman R.
Fausey, Colleen

R. Tennity, and Brent Sohngen. Evaluating conservation practices within
the Upper

Big Walnut Creek watershed: water quality, ecology, soil, and economic
perspectives 15

Tennity, Colleen R. and Brent Sohngen. A conjoint analysis of
conservation in

the Upper Big Walnut watershed in Ohio 16

**Upper Tiffin River, Michigan**

Shaffer, Ruth D. CEAP Upper Tiffin Watershed Project, Lenawee and
Hillsdale

counties, Michigan 17

Baker\*, David B., R. Peter Richards, John Crumrine, and Josie V.
Setzler. **Flashiness trends in rural streams: do they correlate with
changing cropping patterns and practices?** Heidelberg College, Tiffin,
Ohio. E-mail: dbaker@heidelberg.edu

During the 1975-2001 water years, many Ohio streams, including those
dominated by agricultural land use, have shown statistically significant
increases in flashiness, as measured by the Richards-Baker Index (RBI).
This index reflects the oscillations in stream flow per unit discharge,
using daily discharge data from USGS gaging stations. Oscillations are
measured as the sum of day-to-day changes in discharge for a year and
discharge is measured as total annual discharge.

Increasing flashiness of streams reflects increasing peak discharge
during storm events, decreasing baseflow between events, increasing
frequency of events or some combination of the above. Low base flow is a
dominant cause of impaired aquatic life communities in area streams.
Higher peak flows increase steam bank erosion and flooding problems.
Reversing recent trends in flashiness toward more natural stream flow
regimes may be an important component of water resource management
programs in this region.

In this study, we are comparing long-term trends in the RBI with
long-term trends in cropping patterns and practices. For many area
rivers, a breakpoint in RBI trends occurs during the mid to late 1960s.
This time period coincides with rapidly increasing soybean acreage and
decreasing hay acreage in much of northwestern Ohio. Although discharge
measurements for Rock Creek did not start until 1984, the general
pattern of increasing flashiness for Rock Creek falls into the same
pattern as area streams with much longer streamflow records.
Furthermore, the average RBI for Rock Creek is high relative to other
Midwestern streams in its size range, indicating that it is a very
flashy stream.

For two rural streams in Ohio that have decreasing RBI values during the
1975-2001 water years, hay acreage has remained high and soybean acreage
low. These two streams (Killbuck Creek and Mill Creek at Coshocton) also
have low average RBI values. Trends in cropping practices, such as the
adoption of reduced and no-till production, and trends in tiling are
also examined in relation to RBI trends. Trends in rainfall amounts and
intensities will also be examined.

While correlations between trends in agricultural practices and trends
in RBI index values do not prove causation, they may suggest areas for
additional research as well as possible BMPs to reverse current trends
in stream flashiness. Restoration of more natural stream flow regimes is
widely considered to be a fundamental component of reducing impairments
to aquatic communities.

Czajkowski, Kevin^1^, James Coss^1^, Jeff Jowett\*^1^, and Peter
Richards^2^. **Development of the Rock Creek watershed GIS.** ^1^
University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, ^2^ Heidelberg College, Tiffin,
Ohio. Email: Kevin.czajkowski@utoledo.edu

The first step in modeling a watershed for water quality analysis is to
develop a Geographic Information System (GIS). This presentation will
outline our work to develop a GIS for the Rock Creek watershed in Ohio.
Our ultimate goal is to implement the AnnAGNPS (Annualized Agricultural
Non-point Source model) for the Rock Creek watershed to test various
conservation practices. In the project, we are assembling GIS layers for
the Rock Creek watershed from existing sources including digital
elevation models (DEM's), SSURGO soils, HUC unit, weather information,
stream network, etc. In addition, we have developed a land cover map for
the project area using remote sensing techniques previously developed
through a project on the Upper Auglaize watershed. A land cover map and
associated database which identifies field by field land cover and
multi-year crop rotations for agricultural land has been developed for
the project. We investigated new remote sensing techniques to determine
crop residue from satellite imagery. This process was fairly successful
and was able to identify crop residue into the following categories:
0-30% cover = tilled, 30-90% cover = conservation tillage, and 90-100%
cover = no till.

Richards, R. Peter\*^1^, David B. Baker^1^, John Crumrine^1^, and Kevin
P. Czajkowski^2^. **Detecting water quality responses to land management
changes: why is it so difficult?**

^1^ Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio. ^2^ University of Toledo, Toledo,
Ohio. Email: prichard@heidelberg.edu

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) program is driven in
part by pressure from the government and others to document, at the
watershed scale, water quality benefits that are consequences of
agricultural programs which aim to improve our management of the land,
often at considerable expense to taxpayers. One often hears that no one
has ever shown that BMPs work at the watershed scale. While this is a
bit of an exaggeration, far more programs and projects fail to
demonstrate water quality benefits than succeed in doing so. This is
often because of inadequate funding or inadequate monitoring, but even
well-funded and well-planned projects often fail to show water quality
benefits. Why is this so? A comparison of plot-, field-, and
watershed-scale research is revealing.

At the plot scale, the researcher owns or controls the land. Typically
only one experiment is carried out at a time. Varying levels of
treatment, including controls, are easily carried out, often with
replication. Research designs include approaches that reduce the
likelihood of spurious or inconclusive results due to variations in
soil, topography, and other irrelevant factors. Most aspects of weather
are consistent from plot to plot, and rainfall is often simulated,
giving control over amount and intensity.

At the field scale, research gets a little more difficult. Replication
becomes less feasible or more expensive, though different levels of
treatment are still feasible, and each field receives a uniform
treatment across its full extent. Heterogeneity in soils, topography,
and weather introduce larger errors into the observations, obscuring the
effects of the treatments to a greater degree than at the plot scale.
Rainfall is provided by nature, may not be homogeneous across the
research site, and the amount and intensity are no longer under the
researcher's control.

At the watershed scale, the researcher becomes more of an observer than
a manipulator of the research site. Much water quality research attempts
to interpret the cumulative result of multiple changes in land
management practices taking place at different times. Replication of
"experiments" is rarely feasible. Implementation of specific practices
usually cannot be targeted to specific places in the landscape, and is
often limited to a small percentage of the total land area. Weather,
particularly the timing and intensity of rainfall, is often the main
determinant of fluctuations in water quality. Weather and the
agricultural economy play a large role in driving crop choices, tillage
practices, and fertilizer application. If a "control" watershed is
available, the researcher often has little control over it. There may be
long time lags between the land use change and the water quality
response. Given the high level of natural variability in water quality
data, failure to detect a change in water quality does not prove that
implemented practices did no good. Given the multitude of factors that
influence water quality, detecting a change in water quality does not
prove that the implemented practices were responsible for it. All of
these problems become more severe as watershed size increases. Given
these realities, watershed scale research requires detailed and
long-term data, probably supplemented by land use -- water quality
modeling, to document changes and to distinguish between
cause-and-effect relationships and fortuitous coincidence.

Cain, Zachary T.\* and Stephen B. Lovejoy. **Examining the economic and
environmental impacts of land use changes in the Matson Ditch
watershed.** Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Email:
zcain@purdue.edu

Farm firms serve as the foundation for implementation of farm bill
conservation programs, thus, it is imperative to have a fundamental
understanding of the decision making motivations of farm firms. This
knowledge is essential for understanding the success or failure of
conservation programs. The primary objective of our research is to
develop a baseline economic model of farms in the Matson Ditch
watershed, a subsection of the St. Joseph watershed, located in DeKalb
county, Indiana. This economic analysis considers three tillage systems:
conventional, reduced, and no-till as well as an array of riparian
buffer strips. By examining the costs and benefits of these various
systems we can better understand what incentives and barriers to
adoption of conservation programs may exist for these farm firms and
then propose programs that more successfully achieve our objectives.

Along with examining the production characteristics of the farm firm we
have used the Watershed Erosion Prediction Program (WEPP) to estimate
sediment yields for all land use systems. This allows for an examination
of the environmental implications for choosing one land use system over
another. This will be done in combination with the establishment of
buffer areas of various widths, which reduce sedimentation yields but
also change the economics of production. We can use these results to
better understand the structural incentives to the producer of adopting
various buffer practices into their farming operations and the impacts
on water quality parameters.

Gillespie, Robert B.\* **Ecological assessment of habitat and aquatic
life in Cedar Creek in support of the Conservation Effects Assessment
Project.** Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Email: gillespi@ipfw.edu

The project described here will assess the ecological health of streams
in the Cedar Creek watershed of the St. Joseph River watershed that
currently serves as a benchmark study area for the USDA Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Eight stream segments in the Cedar
Creek watershed are being monitored by the National Soil Erosion
Research Laboratory (NSERL) for agricultural contaminants. Study sites
are paired subwatersheds of similar area, with one serving as a
treatment (application of soil conservation practices) and the other as
a reference (no conservation practices). We will use fish and
macroinvertebrate community diversity, water quality monitoring, and
habitat analyses to assess the ecological health of each study site.
Annual ecological assessments will be made near the eight automated
water samplers maintained by NSERL. Riparian zone habitat will be
characterized at each site, one time per year. Fish and
macroinvertebrate diversity, water quality measurements, and in-stream
habitat measurements will be made at each site in the spring (May),
mid-summer (July), and fall (September) each year over a five-year
period.

Sampling zones comprise a 125-meter length downstream of the automated
sampler. At each sample zone, riparian habitat characteristics will be
measured once each year. The zone will be marked with transects at 0,
25, 50, 75, 100, and 125 m. At each transect we will estimate, riparian
zone width, top bank width, bottom bank width, bank angle, and percent
vegetation of stream bank. At each transect we will estimate wet width,
water velocity, water depth substrate type, and instream habitat
structure. Parameters measured will be used to calculate the Headwater
Habitat Evaluation Index (HHEI, Davic 2002) and the Qualitative Habitat
Evaluation Index (QHEI, Rankin 1989). Measurements of water quality will
be made using a Hydrolab, minisonde4a multiprobe. At each transect we
will measure temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific
conductivity.

Fishes will be sampled three times each year by a combination of seine
net and backpack electroshocker. Community diversity indices (e.g.
Shannon-Weiner) will be calculated and species characterized by their
pollution tolerance (USEPA 1994) to assess fish communities.
Macroinvertebrates will be sampled with a Surber sampler and dipnet.
Three samples will be taken from each microhabitat type in the sample
zone. Dip nets will be used for slow moving waters and pools. The Surber
sampler will be used to sample riffles and runs. Samples will be
composited by gear type (dip net and Surber) in the field and preserved.
In the laboratory, animals will be removed from sediment and debris and
identified to order and family. If possible, macroinvertebrates will be
further identified to the lowest taxonomic resolution. Macroinvertebrate
community indices will be calculated (e.g. ICI, Ohio EPA 1987) to assess
community diversity. Ecological assessment data will be analyzed by
comparing the relative ecological health of paired subwatersheds.
Ecological health assessments will be used to support data from water
quality sampling to assess the effectiveness of soil conservation
practices in the Cedar Creek watershed.

Huang, Chi-hua^1^\*, Dennis Flanagan^1^, Diane Stott^1^, Douglas
Smith^1^, Elizabeth Warnemuende^1^, Gary Heathman^1^, Stanley
Livingston^1^, Steve Lovejoy^2^, and Robert Gillespie^3^. **Building a
comprehensive water quality research program at the Saint Joseph River
watershed.** ^1^USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West
Lafayette, Indiana, ^2^Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana,
^3^Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Email:
chihua@purdue.edu

In 2001, the National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory (NSERL) was
charged to expand its water quality research program from the
traditional sediment only focus to other contaminants, mainly
agricultural chemicals that are transported with surface runoff. About
the same time, ARS was approached by America's Clean Water Federation
(ACWF) to evaluate the effectiveness of voluntary incentive-based
pesticide Best Management Practices (BMP) to reduce loading to the St.
Joseph River, the source water for the City of Fort Wayne. These events
triggered an extensive water quality research and monitoring effort at
the St. Joseph River watershed, called Source Water Protection
Initiative (SWPI). In 2003, USDA started a nation-wide Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) to quantify the environmental benefits
of conservation practices used by private landowners participating in
USDA conservation programs. As a result, NSERL efforts at the St. Joseph
River became a part of the watershed assessment under CEAP.

This presentation will highlight the development of a comprehensive
watershed scale water quality research program. Current scope of this
project includes:

-   12 water quality sampling stations on stream, drainage ditch, runoff
    field, and surface depression.

-   5 real-time web-accessible weather, flow stage and soil moisture
    stations.

-   Facilities at Auburn and West Lafayette for sample processing,
    storage, and soil and water quality analyses.

-   Assemble datasets to validate SWAT and AGNPS water quality models.

-   Conduct specific rainfall simulation and flume studies to
    quantify 1) tillage effects on chemical runoff; 2) potential ditch
    treatments for pollutant retention; 3) ditch dredging on pollutant
    retention and release.

-   Conduct economic and aquatic ecology assessments through university
    cooperators.

Details on specific efforts at the St Joseph River watershed will be
presented in companion abstracts and posters.

Larose, Myriam and Gary C. Heathman\*. **Hydrologic simulation and
atrazine prediction in the Cedar Creek Experimental Watershed using
SWAT.** USDA-ARS, National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West
Lafayette, Indiana. Email: gheathman@purdue.edu

The Soil Water and Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to simulate
streamflow and predict the impact of different agricultural management
practices on atrazine concentrations in the Cedar Creek Experimental
Watershed (CCEW) within the St. Joseph River basin in northeastern
Indiana. The model calibration and validation procedures consisted of
five and two year periods, respectively. The National Agricultural
Statistics Service land use classification (NASS 2001) and the Soil
Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) were used as model input data
layers. Once the model calibration and validation procedures were
successfully completed, the model was used to assess the impact of
no-till management and filter strips on the transport of atrazine under
corn/soybean cropping systems over a 15 year period. Calibration results
gave daily Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients of efficiency (NSE) of 0.67 and
0.50 for streamflow and atrazine, respectively. The validation procedure
resulted in daily NSE values of 0.55 and 0.37 for streamflow and
atrazine, respectively. Overall, the modeling results indicate that the
use of filter strips was effective in reducing annual atrazine
concentrations; however, further field and modeling research are needed
for verification, prior to real world applications.

Livingston, Stanley J.\*, Sara Walling, and Dennis Bucholtz. **Real
world watershed research: how to grow a watershed scale project.**
USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette,
Indiana. Email: living@purdue.edu

Designing and implementing a watershed scale research study on private
and public land is a very fluid operation. Unlike university or
federally owned properties, the researcher/designer has minimal control
over operations on the privately owned fields or the county maintained
drainage ways. A study was initiated to measure the effects of BMP's on
pesticide loads in two subwatersheds of Cedar Creek in northwest
Indiana. The National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory (NSERL) was
selected to design and manage the study. Watershed scale research as
well as water quality research had not been undertaken at NSERL prior to
the initiation of this study. Contact with potential cooperators was
initiated by local SWCD and NRCS personnel, with ARS handling subsequent
interactions. A partnership was formed between the ARS and the St.
Joseph River Watershed Initiative to handle day to day on-site
maintenance, sample collection, and sample processing. Initially, two
watersheds were studied (A and B) and a third (C) was added 1 year later
to compensate for the county dredging the B drainage ditch. Within each
subwatershed, smaller watersheds are also monitored. Producer meetings
were held during the first year of the study to familiarize local
residents and producers with those of us who would be working in the
watershed. Preliminary results were presented as well as plans for the
use of the data in publications and public forums. Anonymity for
producers will be maintained when reporting data unless permission is
given. Initially, it was thought that BMP's would be implemented with
greater frequency on the A watershed due to added emphasis of
conservation programs within that watershed. However, owner-operators
within all watersheds are interested in BMP implementation at about the
same frequency, causing a change in the overall design of the study.
Instead of direct comparison of the watersheds, a time based monitoring
approach is being considered to study the effects of BMP implementation.
Throughout the study, communication among and compensation to producers
has remained constant. The cooperators are much more receptive to
disturbance of their routine if they feel they are being appreciated
and/or compensated, either with information and monetarily. One
challenge has been the need to design a long-term study without a
distinct purpose other than to collect valid data. Scientists were hired
or redirected to this project after the study was initiated causing
plans to be redrawn. A state of the art sample processing facility was
designed and built into one of the primary cooperators buildings to
promote timely processing and preservation of samples. An automated
infield cooling system was developed to meet EPA sample storage
guidelines. A six station, on-line weather network has been installed
covering the majority of the monitored subwatersheds. During the 2002,
composite pesticide samples were analyzed by a private laboratory. Since
2003, individual nutrient and pesticide water analysis has been
performed at NSERL. Currently, there are 16 automated samplers in the
study covering streams, ditches, fields and depressions over 6800 ha
(17,000 ac). At this time, there have been over 10,000 samples analyzed.
Pesticide analysis includes Atrazine, Simazine, Alachlor, Acetochlor,
Metolachlor, and Glyphosate. Nutrient analysis includes total and
soluble phosphorous and nitrogen as well as dissolved organic carbon.

Smith, Douglas R.^\*^ and Elizabeth A. Warnemuende. **How does dredging
affect in-stream transport of contaminant?** USDA-ARS, National Soil
Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana. Email:
drsmith@purdue.edu

Dredging is a common practice in the tile-fed drainage ditches of the
midwestern United States, since drainage boards are mandated to ensure
adequate discharge from drainage ditches to drain agricultural fields.
However, little is known about how dredging alters the ditch in terms of
chemical transport potential. In 2004 and 2005, one of the three ditches
monitored by the National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory (NSERL) for
the Source Water Protection Initiative (SWPI) project was dredged. Ditch
sediment samples were collected before and after dredging, and
transported to the NSERL for analysis. Sediments were loaded in a stream
simulator, and contaminant rich water was continuously run across the
sediments, and samples were taken periodically for 120 hours. The
contaminant rich water was then removed, and replaced with contaminant
free water, which was run across sediments for 24 hours, with samples
taken periodically. This experimental design was used to determine how
dredging impacted the relative quantities of phosphorus, nitrogen and
atrazine from these watersheds. For all three contaminants, dredging was
found to result in greater loss of the contaminants than when the
pre-dredged sediments were used in the stream simulator. The sediments
that were present prior to dredging contained a larger amount of fine
particles (silt and clay) and organic matter, which are important as
reactive surfaces to remove contaminants from the ditch water. Dredging
also resulted in the exposure of redoximorphic features in the sediments
present after dredging, a sign of reduced iron (ferrous iron). This form
of iron is more soluble than the oxidized form (ferric iron), and thus
forms less stable compounds with phosphate or pesticides. When the
'contaminated' water was replaced with 'clean' water, the contaminant
concentrations for all three contaminants were released from the
sediments to the water much quicker from the sediments in the dredged
ditch than the pre-dredged ditch. The results from this work indicate
that nutrients and pesticide transport could be greater from
agricultural watersheds after dredging. Drainage boards should take into
consideration these results when planning dredging activities.

Stott, Diane E., Chi-hua Huang\*, Stanley J. Livingston, and Dennis L.
Bucholtz. **Loss of dissolved organic carbon from small watersheds in
northeastern Indiana.** USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research
Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana. Email: destott@purdue.edu

Transport of carbon from hillslopes to adjacent ditches, streams, and
watersheds can represent a significant loss of C. While carbon
associated with eroding sediments is often measured, the concentration
of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is runoff water is rarely measured. As
part of a larger project, nine subwatersheds in the St. Joseph River
watershed were instrumented to collect runoff in agricultural drainage
ditches before water entered creeks and streams. Water quality samples
are collected through Teflon tubing and deposited in glass bottles. For
base flow, 50 mL of water was collected every four hours and combined
into a single sample for a 24 h period. For flow generated by a rainfall
event, 100 mL of water was collected every one-half hour and combined
into a single sample for a 90 min period. Water samples were transported
from the collection site to a field laboratory where they are divided
into subsamples for specific analyses. Subsamples for the DOC
determination were filtered, acidified, and frozen in plastic sample
bottles. Frozen subsamples were transported from the field laboratory to
the National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory for analysis. After
thawing water samples at 4^o^C, they were analyzed for DOC by
UV-persulfate wet oxidation. Event runoff collected from installed weirs
were similar for the two small watersheds. DOC laden runoff was produced
only during the May-June rainfall events, when there is rapid vegetative
growth of the crops. Little runoff was generated during the summer
months. The largest amount of carbon lost during a rainstorm event was
849 kg DOC from the small AS1 watershed or 386 kg DOC ha^-1^ (Figure 1).
Over the course of the summer months, a total of 2,255 kg DOC was lost
from this watershed or 1025 kg DOC ha^-1^. From the AS2 watershed, the
greatest amount lost during a rainstorm event was 559 kg DOC or 207 kg
DOC ha^-1^. Over the season, 690 kg DOC ha^-1^ was lost from this
watershed. We are still analyzing 2005 data for all the watersheds.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="2.329861111111111in"}

Figure 1. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) loss from event-based samples
for the 2004 season at the watershed designated as AS1. AS1 is 2.2 ha
and has a small weir installed for water sample collection. This area
was converted to best management practices in 2005.

Warnemuende, Elizabeth A.\*, Douglas R. Smith, and Chi-hua Huang.
**Pesticide measurements in the Saint Joseph River watershed.** USDA ARS
National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Email: bets@purdue.edu

As part of the St. Joseph River watershed component of the CEAP effort,
it is necessary to quantify trace levels of pesticides commonly used
within the focus drainage area. The six pesticides of most interest in
this region are: atrazine, simazine, metolachlor, acetochlor, alachlor,
and glyphosate. While glyphosate may be quantified using High
Performance Liquid Chromatography (Waters Corporation) with post column
reaction, and fluorescence detection to less than 1% of its maximum
allowable contaminant level for drinking water without preconcentration
steps, the higher toxicity and detection limits for the remaining
pesticides of interest make it necessary to preconcentrate these sample
prior to analysis.

Solid-phase extraction (SPE) is a useful preconcentration technique.
However, SPE has the disadvantages that it is labor intensive and
requires relatively large sample volumes and the use of solvents. An
alternative sample preparation technique, solid phase microextraction
(SPME), has been successfully applied to the trace determination of
pollutants such as pesticides. This technique is a solvent free,
non-laborious, and requires a small volume of sample. In the SPME
method, a small piece of fused-silica fiber coated with a polymeric
stationary phase is used to adsorb the analytes and to concentrate them
on the fiber. The fiber/analyte is then transported to the analytical
instrument for desorption, separation and quantification. While several
different coatings are commercially accessible for SPME- Gas
Chromatography (GC), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) has been the most
useful SPME coating material for volatile and semivolatile organic
chemicals such as chloroacetamide and triazine pesticides. The SPME
method has become particularly useful as an automated sampling and
preconcentration method prior to GC or GC with Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)
analyses.

By conducting several optimization experiments, we have found that
optimum analysis and throughput of chloroacetamide and triazine
pesticides can be achieved using SPME coupled with GC-MS. For our
system, we found an 8.5-mL, 83% NaCl-saturated sample to be optimum.
Optimum extraction and desorption times were determined to be 55 and 15
minutes, respectively. Since the GC-MS analysis of the current sample
and the SPME extraction of the upcoming sample occur simultaneously,
this does not represent a significant bottleneck in the process.

Initial results indicate that glyphosate concentrations do not exceed
the glyphosate drinking water limit in ditches, but occasionally do at
the edge-of-field. Atrazine concentrations regularly exceed drinking
water levels by a factor of up to 50, and tend to be highest during high
flow events. Acetochlor and simazine levels in ditches can be
occasionally high, especially during high flow events, and alachlor
levels are generally low.

Davis, Steve\*^1^ and Jim Stafford^2^. **Offsite effects of management
alternatives in the Upper Auglaize watershed using the AnnAGNPS
watershed model.** ^1^ NRCS, Lima, Ohio.

^2^ NRCS, Columbus, Ohio. Email: steve.davis@oh.usda.gov

An AnnAGNPS watershed model was created for the Upper Auglaize watershed
in northwest Ohio. The 212,000 acre watershed was divided into 1833
cells averaging 116 acres in size. Using digital data layers, the model
assigned each cell with a dominant SSURGO soil, a dominant land use, and
if cropland, a four year rotation based on the growing seasons of
1999-2002. Further, a tillage type and runoff curve number were assigned
to each cell. Additionally, in conjunction with a digital elevation
layer, a time of concentration was calculated for each cell allowing for
the determining of the rainfall-runoff relation for each cell. The model
was calibrated to available water and sediment data at the USGS Ft.
Jennings stream gage station. After calibration for the existing
condition was completed, various management alternatives were run to
quantify the effects on offsite delivery of sediment. Alternatives
included changing the amount of grass cover (representing CRP and buffer
installations) and increasing the amount of conservation tillage and
no-till acres. A report showing the results of these alternatives is
available at:

http://www.oh.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/agnps/up_auglaize_ws_agnps_final_report.html

The CEAP project starts with this existing watershed model and adds
chemical fertilizers to determine the effects of management alternatives
on the offsite delivery of nutrients. Specifically, nitrogen and
phosphorus applications are input to the model. Application rates were
determined by interviews with four custom applicators that have
operations in and around the watershed. Considerable effort was made to
calibrate model outputs to obtain loadings that were in the same
ballpark as measured concentrations. Since the USGS gage at Ft. Jennings
has only water and sediment data available, data for the Maumee River at
Waterville from the National Center for Water Quality Research at
Heidelberg College was used for calibration. Although the Upper Auglaize
is only a small portion of the Maumee River basin, the whole Maumee is
predominately agricultural cropland that shares similar cropping and
management patterns with its Upper Auglaize tributary. By calibrating
the model to the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations at Waterville an
existing condition representation can be obtained that provides a
benchmark against which to evaluate and quantify the effects of
alternative management practices. Alternatives affecting nutrient loss
that we are planning to look at include the effects of subsurface
drains, winter cover crops and rate and timing of fertilizer
applications.

King, Kevin W.\*, Peter C. Smiley Jr., and Norman R. Fausey. **Hydrology
and water chemistry responses to conservation practices and land use
within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed.** USDA-ARS, Soil Drainage
Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio. Email: king.220@osu.edu

Approximately 11,000 community water systems serving over 160 million
customers in the U.S. depend on surface water as a source of drinking
water supply. Surface and subsurface drainage waters from agriculture,
golf courses, suburban lawns and gardens, and numerous other land uses
drain into these sources of drinking water. Drainage waters often
contain high concentrations of sediments, nutrients, and pesticides
requiring costly treatment before the water can be delivered to
customers. In the case of agriculture, an extensive body of literature
exists that describes plot and/or field-scale conservation practices
designed to protect source water quality. However, research results from
plot- and field-scale studies are limited in that they cannot capture
the complexities and interactions of conservation practices at the
watershed scale. This research is designed to address the question:
"*What is the effect of land use and management on source water quality
within Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed and can the widespread adoption
of conservation management practices at the watershed scale reduce
sediment, nutrient, and pesticide loadings to surface water bodies*?"
Hydrology and water chemistry assessments will be conducted within Upper
Big Walnut Creek at three primary spatial scales: 1) edge-of-field
(acres), 2) small watershed (100s of acres), and 3) large watershed
(1000s of acres). Four watersheds that constitutes two pairs have been
instrumented for this effort. In each watershed pair, one watershed has
been designated a control and the other watershed a treatment. In the
control watershed, implementation of conservation practices has been
held to a minimum. In the treatment watershed, conservation practices
have been promoted. To date, baseline data on hydrology and water
chemistry has been collected at two spatial scales (small and large
watershed) for a period of at least one year. After installation of
conservation practices, the hydrology and water chemistry impacts will
be measured at the identified spatial scales for the duration of the
practice. The resulting data will permit the assessment of cascading
impacts as future practices are implemented within the watersheds. Land
use effects will also be assessed by measuring hydrology and water
chemistry indices from watersheds exhibiting different land use
classifications (agriculture, urban, turf, etc.). The findings will be
related to downstream measurements to understand the role of each land
use with the larger watershed system.

Smiley, Peter C. Jr.\* and Kevin W. King. **Ecological evaluation of the
influence of herbaceous riparian buffers on headwater agricultural
drainage ditches in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed.** USDA-ARS,
Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio. Email: smiley.50@osu.edu

The Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed contains mostly low gradient
warmwater streams adjacent to row crop agriculture. The Ohio EPA has
documented that the majority of headwater streams and drainage ditches
in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed are impaired by nutrient
enrichment, pathogens, and habitat degradation stemming from current
agricultural management practices. We are evaluating the influence of
herbaceous riparian buffers on the physical habitat and aquatic
communities in agricultural drainage ditches as part of the Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Riparian habitat is being restored
within the watershed through the Upper Big Walnut Creek Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program. The goal of this voluntary conservation
program is to create and restore riparian habitat to reduce the amount
of chemicals and sediment within the water flowing into the Hoover
Reservoir. Our hypothesis is that implementation of herbaceous riparian
buffers adjacent to headwater agricultural drainage ditches will alter
the physical habitat of the riparian zones which will in turn lead to
changes to the water chemistry, instream habitat, and community
structure within these ditches. We plan to compare differences in
geomorphological, riparian, hydrological, chemical, and biological
characteristics among: 1) agricultural ditches without herbaceous
buffers, 2) agricultural ditches with herbaceous buffers, and 3) streams
with remnant riparian buffers. In 2005, we established four sites in two
headwater streams and 14 sites in six drainage ditches as part of an
initial assessment of current habitat and biological conditions. Aquatic
habitat within ditches consists of shallow slow flowing water within low
gradient, enlarged, straightened channels. The five most abundant fish
species captured were fathead minnow (*Pimephales promelas*), creek chub
(*Semotilus atromaculatus*), bluntnose minnow (*Pimephales notatus*),
Johnny darter (*Etheostoma nigrum*), and green sunfish (*Lepomis*
*cyanellus*). Additionally, many fish species captured in drainage
ditches in the Upper Big Walnut Creek are also expected to occur in
headwater streams within Ohio. These preliminary results suggest that
the incorporation of environmental considerations into the management
and design of agricultural drainage ditches would benefit fish
communities within ditches.

Smiley, Peter C. Jr.\*^1^, Kevin W. King^1^, Barbara J. Baker^1^, Norman
R. Fausey^1^, Colleen R. Tennity^2^, and Brent Sohngen^3^. **Evaluating
conservation practices within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed:
water quality, ecology, soil, and economic perspectives**. ^1^ USDA-ARS,
Soil Drainage Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio. ^2^ USDA-NRCS, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. ^3^ The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Email:
smiley.50@osu.edu

The Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed (USGS HUC 0506001-130) is a 492
km^2^ watershed located north of Columbus, Ohio, and serves as a source
of drinking water for 800,000 residents of Columbus. Streams in the
watershed flow into the Hoover Reservoir, and then downstream into the
Scioto River. The Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed contains mostly low
gradient warmwater streams adjacent to row crop agriculture. Soils in
the watershed exhibit slow water permeability, which in conjunction with
extensive agricultural land use has led to the widespread use of tile
and surface drains for draining agricultural fields. The Ohio EPA has
documented that the majority of headwater streams in the Upper Big
Walnut Creek watershed are impaired by nutrient enrichment, pathogens,
and habitat degradation stemming from current agricultural practices.
Atrazine levels within the Hoover Reservoir in the past decade have
periodically exceeded human health advisory levels and led to further
concerns about water quality within the watershed. We are evaluating
conservation practices designed to reduce nonpoint source pollution and
improve habitat quality as part of the Conservation Effects Assessment
Project (CEAP). Ongoing research within the watershed involves
assessments of water quality, ecology, soil quality, and economics
related to the implementation of conservation practices within the
watershed. Water chemistry and hydrology assessments use flumes and
automated samplers to evaluate the influence of conservation practices,
watershed size, and land use on nutrients, pesticides, herbicides,
suspended sediment, and discharge within agricultural watersheds.
Ecological assessment involves field studies examining the influence of
riparian buffers on geomorphology, riparian habitat, hydrology, water
chemistry, fishes, and macroinvertebrates within headwater drainage
ditches. Soil samples were collected to examine if soil quality of
agricultural fields differs among soil type, soil depth, and
conservation practices. A conjoint analysis was conducted to identify
which aspects of natural resource conservation the public values the
most and to assess the benefits and costs of implementing conservation
practices. Soil and Water Conservation Districts from counties within
the watershed and the Natural Resources Conservation Service have
assisted with research efforts by providing site and landowner
information. Private landowners have also contributed by allowing access
to their properties and allowing the construction of necessary research
equipment. This interdisciplinary effort will provide information on the
effectiveness and suitability of current conservation practices used
within the watershed.

Tennity, Colleen R.^1^, and Brent Sohngen^2^. **A conjoint analysis of
conservation in the Upper Big Walnut watershed in Ohio.** ^1^ USDA-NRCS,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. ^2^ The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Email: colleentennity@yahoo.com

The CEAP process is taking place in twenty different watersheds across
the nation. This process will allow researchers to use a watershed scale
approach to determine the overall performance of conservation at the
national level, while at the same time providing a regional perspective.
Of these twenty watersheds, the Upper Big Walnut watershed and eleven
others are considered "benchmark watersheds." These are watersheds in
which the USDA, Agriculture Research Service (ARS) is joining forces
with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to conduct
watershed scale research over long time horizons with the goals of
assessing conservation, developing models to measure benefits,
populating conservation practice databases, defining performance
measures, and expanding research on the effects of conservation.

This paper explains the components of a conjoint analysis in the Upper
Big Walnut watershed. The focus of this research is to survey the tax
payers in the five county area surrounding the watershed to determine
which aspects of natural resources conservation the public values most.
Relative utility levels are analyzed and willingness to pay for specific
attributes of conservation is discussed. A benefit cost analysis of the
best management practices that are currently being monitored by ARS is
an additional component. This research helps us to better understand how
tax payers value conservation in comparison to the billions of dollars
authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Shaffer, Ruth D.\* **CEAP Upper Tiffin Watershed Project, Lenawee and
Hillsdale counties, Michigan**. United States Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, East Lansing, Michigan. Email:
ruth.shaffer@mi.usda.gov

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) Upper Tiffin
Watershed Project is located in Lenawee and Hillsdale counties in
southwest Michigan. Soils in the area are extensively drained and tiled
for crop production. Manure from livestock operations is land-applied to
cropland. Manure nutrients and pathogens have been detected in surface
waters in the study area. In particular, it has been documented that
liquid manure has the potential to move through the soil profile via
preferential flow, through soil cracks and wormholes. Thus manure has
the potential of moving offsite to surface waters through subsurface
flow. The Upper Tiffin project seeks to assess which combination of
management and structural practices will mitigate the risk of offsite
movement of manure from subsurface discharge. The AnnAgNPS pollutant
loading model was used in Year 1 to evaluate the Bean Creek watershed.
The field inventory and preliminary model output will be used to develop
field trials for further study in Years 2 and 3.