# Presentation: 408848

## CEAP/SWPI in the

**Upper Big Walnut Creek Watershed**

**Kevin W. King **
**and**
**Norman R. Fausey**
**USDA-ARS**
**Soil Drainage Research Unit**

**Notes:**
Provide an overview of CEAP from a national perspective
share some overarching results from data collected by the City of Columbus and Delaware County NRCS
Outline our research efforts and share some preliminary data from 2005 

## CEAP from a National Perspective

## Why CEAP?

**The Environmental Quality Incentive Program may provide as much as $6 billion over the life of the Farm Bill (2002 to 2007).**
**New programs like the Conservation Security Program need tools that document environmental benefits to justify payment on existing conservation management  practices.**

**Why CEAP?**

## Congressional Directive

**NRCS was identified as the lead agency.**
**NRCS requested assistance from ARS in quantifying the environmental effects of conservation practices at the watershed scale.**

**Congressional Directive**

## The purpose of CEAP is to quantify the environmental benefits of conservation practices implemented under the 2002 Farm Bill.

The initial focus is on cropland.

Future plans include assessments for wildlife, grazing lands, and wetlands.

**The initial focus is on cropland.**
**Future plans include assessments for wildlife, grazing lands, and wetlands.**

**The Focus of CEAP**

## CEAP Has Two Major

** ****The NRCS-led ****National  **
**    ****Assessment**** provides estimates of   **
**    ****conservation benefits at the **
**    ****national scale.**
**   **
** ****The ARS and NRCS-led**
**    ****Watershed Assessment Studies**
**    ****provide for more detailed  **
**    ****information on conservation  **
**    ****effects/benefits in selected **
**    ****benchmark watersheds.**

**CEAP Has Two Major**
**Components **** **

## Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Benchmark Watersheds

Special Emphasis Watersheds (NRCS)

Competitive Grants Watersheds (CSREES)

**Special Emphasis Watersheds (NRCS)**
**Competitive Grants Watersheds (CSREES)**

**The Watershed Assessment **
**Study Categories**

**Notes:**
As the CEAP project evolved, and the importance of the watershed assessment component became more obvious, the relatively small amount of funding available for these watershed assessment studies also became obvious.

Therefore, we have three separate categories of watersheds in the CEAP project:

--the ARS Benchmark research watersheds (funded directly from NRCS, with ARS refocusing of resources to achieve CEAP objectives)

--Watersheds that are funded through competitive grants

--and Special Emphasis watersheds.

## City of Columbus Data

## Problem: 

**Problem:**** **
** ****agricultural chemicals in metropolitan drinking water supplies**
**     **
** ****health advisory levels exceeded**
**     **
** ****excessive water treatment costs**

## Solution: 

**Use of PAC to scrub water**
** **
**2)  Address source of problem**
**     ****EQIP (595 pest mgt.) practices **
**         ****- incorporation**
**         ****- reduced rate**
**         ****- alternative herbicide**

## Average monthly atrazine concentration in the water received at a Columbus, OH  drinking water treatment facility coming from the Hoover Reservoir before (1995-1998) and after (1999-2005) EQIP implementation.

## Impact:

**     ****Economic: ****	****Investment $1.2 mil.**
**	****	****Savings $3.1 mil.**
**	****	****$2.58 return on every $ invested in the practice**
**     ****Safe, lower cost drinking water supply**
**	****	****Reduced atrazine levels in Hoover Reservoir**
**     **
**     ****Voluntary environmental stewardship**

## USDA-ARS-SDRU CEAP Efforts

## 2002 – SDRU initiates research in Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed as part of the Source Water Protection Initiative (SWPI)
focus is on hydrology and water chemistry 
development of best management practices to ensure drinkable water 

**focus is on hydrology and water chemistry **
**development of best management practices to ensure drinkable water **

**Background (SWPI)**

## Background (CEAP)

**     ****- focus is on determining the environmental benefits of USDA conservation  **
**       ****practices funded through the Farm Bill**
**     ****- SDRU research efforts expand into ecology and soil quality**
**     ****- OSU economic assessments begin**

**Background (CEAP)**

## SWPI/CEAP Research

**SWPI/CEAP Research**

***Objective:***** Measure and quantify the effects of innovative conservation practices, source water protection practices, and land use management on ****1)**** water quality and quantity, and ****2)**** lotic ecosystems at the field, farm, and watershed scales in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed**

## EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Program) – USDA conservation program provides technical and financial assistance to treat identified natural resource concerns on crop land
$1.2 million dollars in EQIP contracts between 1999 to 2005 to reduce atrazine use
5 year enrollment

Upper Big Walnut Creek CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program)– state and federal program within watershed provides financial incentives to implement practices designed to reduce agricultural nonpoint pollution, particularly atrazine 
Focus on establishment of riparian buffers within cropland
Enrollment 14 to 15 years 

**$1.2 million dollars in EQIP contracts between 1999 to 2005 to reduce atrazine use**
**5 year enrollment**
**Upper Big Walnut Creek CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program)– state and federal program within watershed provides financial incentives to implement practices designed to reduce agricultural nonpoint pollution, particularly atrazine **
**Focus on establishment of riparian buffers within cropland**
**Enrollment 14 to 15 years **

**Conservation Programs**

## Water Quality and Quantity 

**Concern:**** **
** ****Atrazine levels within the Hoover Reservoir**
**        ****- Hoover Reservoir serves as source of drinking water for Columbus, Ohio**
**        ****- Atrazine levels have periodically exceeded human advisory level of 3 ********g/L**
**          ****July to Sept. 1997 - atrazine levels ranged from 5.2 to 5.8 ********g/L**
** **
** ****Urbanization of watershed**
**Objective:**** **
**        ****-  Evaluate the influence of conservation practices and land use on**
**           ****the water chemistry and hydrology of streams in the Upper Big**
**           ****Walnut Creek watershed**

## Field measurements and modeling

Influence of conservation practices
Four watersheds 
Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) Design
Paired watersheds 
Control watershed – lacking or low levels of conservation practice
Treatment watershed – high levels of conservation practice
1st practices to be tested - precision nutrient management & pest. management 
2 years of baseline data before implementation of practice

Influence of changing land use
One watershed
Before – after design
Assessment began 2004

**Influence of conservation practices**
**Four watersheds **
**Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) Design**
**Paired watersheds **
**Control watershed – lacking or low levels of conservation practice**
**Treatment watershed – high levels of conservation practice**
**1****st**** practices to be tested - precision nutrient management & pest. management **
**2 years of baseline data before implementation of practice**
**Influence of changing land use**
**One watershed**
**Before – after design**
**Assessment began 2004**

**Approach & Experimental Design**

## Slide 20

## Paired Drainage Ditches 

**Drainage area      960 ac.**
**Watershed slope   1-2 %**
**Urban                0.1 %**
**Agriculture/open   88.9 %**
**Shrub/scrub         0.1 %**
**Wooded            10.4 %**
**Wetlands             0.3 %**

**A-1**

**B-1**

**Drainage area     1121 ac.**
**Watershed slope   1-2 %**
**Urban                0.1 %**
**Agriculture/open   95.3 %**
**Shrub/scrub         0.0 %**
**Wooded              4.5 %**
**Wetlands             0.1 %**

**Paired Drainage Ditches **

## Paired Streams 

**C-1**

**D-1**

**Drainage area     1085 ac.**
**Watershed slope   3-5 %**
**Urban                0.2 %**
**Agriculture/open   72.3 %**
**Shrub/scrub         0.4 %**
**Wooded            26.6 %**
**Wetlands             0.4 %**

**Drainage area     1058 ac.**
**Watershed slope   3-5 %**
**Urban                0.1 %**
**Agriculture/open   64.9 %**
**Shrub/scrub         0.8 %**
**Wooded            33.3 %**
**Wetlands             0.9 %**

**Paired Streams **

## Flow and time based sampling
Discrete and weekly composites
Subsurface and surface discharge
Precipitation and other climate variables

Nutrients
Nitrogen (TN, NO3, NH4)
Phosphorus (TP, PO4)
Total Suspended Solids
Herbicides 
Atrazine, Alachlor, Metolachlor, Simazine

**Discrete and weekly composites**
**Subsurface and surface discharge**
**Precipitation and other climate variables**
**Nutrients**
**Nitrogen (TN, NO****3****, NH****4****)**
**Phosphorus (TP, PO****4****)**
**Total Suspended Solids**
**Herbicides **
**Atrazine, Alachlor, Metolachlor, Simazine**

**Water Chemistry & Hydrology Measurements**

## Preliminary Findings from 2005

**Water Chemistry**

## NO3-N, DRP, and Atrazine load from four small watersheds in UBWC.

|  | A1 | B1 | C1 | D1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Precipitation (inches) | 32.7 | 35.8 | 38.1 | 38.1 |
| NO3-N Load (lb/ac) | 39.0 | 23.9 | 9.9 | 18.5 |
| DRP Load (lb/ac) | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Atrazine Loss (lbs) | 27.1 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 2.7 |

**NO****3****-N, DRP, and Atrazine load from four small watersheds in UBWC.**

## A-1: Control watershed

**A-1: Control watershed**

**B-1: Treatment watershed**

## C-1: Treatment watershed

**C-1: Treatment watershed**

**D-1: Control watershed**

## Urbanization Issues

**Concentrations of NO****3****-N, DRP, and atrazine on the main stem of **
**UBWC.**

**Urbanization Issues**

## Ecology Research 

**Concern:**
**     ****- Habitat degradation of streams **
**          ****- Ohio EPA identified watershed as priority impaired **
**             ****watershed in 1998, 2002, and 2003 303 (d) lists**
**          ****- 2000 Ohio EPA monitoring results - 56% of streams**
**            ****sampled in watershed are not meeting aquatic life use **
**            ****designations set by EPA**
**Objective:**
-      **- Evaluate the influence of herbaceous riparian buffers on the **
**       ****physical habitat and stream communities in agricultural drainage **
**       ****ditches in the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed**

## Geomorphology

- Riparian habitat

- Instream habitat
- Water chemistry
- Fishes
- Invertebrates

- Riparian Buffers

## Nine streams
Space For Time Design 
Three ditches without herbaceous riparian buffer
Three ditches with herbaceous riparian buffers (CREP buffers)
Three streams with forested riparian zones (best case scenario)

- Space For Time Design
- Three ditches without herbaceous riparian buffer
- Three ditches with herbaceous riparian buffers (CREP buffers)
- Three streams with forested riparian zones (best case scenario)

**Experimental Design**

## 2005 

- 2005
- Sampled 12 drainage ditch sites to obtain information on existing habitat conditions and fish communities

## What are the Habitat Characteristics of Agricultural Drainage Ditches? 

## Habitat Characteristics of Drainage Ditches

| Habitat Characteristic | Mean | Minimum | Maximum |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sinuosity | 1.04 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
| Gradient (m/m) | -0.1 | 0.2 | -0.2 |
| Top bank width (m) | 9.0 | 6.2 | 12.1 |
| Thalweg depth (m) | 1.8 | 1.5 | 2.5 |
|  |  |  |  |
| Wet width (m) | 1.8 | 0.17 | 3.6 |
| Water depth (m) | 0.11 | 0.01 | 0.3 |
| Water velocity (m/s) | 0.02 | -0.01 | 0.1 |

-  shallow slow flowing water within low gradient, straight, enlarged channels

## Thalweg depth – 1.8 m 

- Top bank width - 6.2 m
- Thalweg depth – 1.8 m

## What Fishes Live in Agricultural Drainage Ditches? 

## Documented 24 species from 6904 captures
7 most abundant species are also expected to occur in headwater streams

**7 most abundant species are also expected to occur in headwater streams**

- Fishes Within Agricultural Drainage Ditches

## Fathead Minnow 

- Fathead Minnow** **

- Creek Chub

- Bluntnose Minnow

- Johnny Darter

## Majority of the fishes are small, but some larger individuals are present 

- White Sucker

- Bluegill

## Future Plans

** ****Precision nutrient management**
** ****Pest management**
** ****Water table management**
** ****Surface amendments (gypsum)**

## Summary

** ****Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed one of 14 benchmark watersheds  **
**    ****in the ARS Watershed Assessment Study – one component of CEAP**
** ****Research within watershed expanded from a focus on source water **
**    ****protection to broad assessment of conservation practices**
** ****Ongoing research in the watershed involves assessment of water **
**    ****quality, ecology, soil quality, and economics**
** **
** ****Initial results will be provided to NRCS to use in their report to **
**   ****Congress on the 2007 Farm Bill**

## We thank the following for their help with field and laboratory work: J. Allen, S. Boone, E. Fischer, A. Kemble, C. Nixon, V. Orlick, P. Levison, P. Morgan, G. Roberts, C. Stevens, L. Wilson, D. Woner, A. Houser, B. Baker, and E. Zwierschke   
L. Ufferman, E. Miller, L. Mather, and Delaware Soil and Water Conservation District for GIS data, landowner information, and site information
R. Dunn, L. Winters, and City of Columbus provided water chemistry information from selected streams and the Hoover Reservoir
America’s Clean Water Foundation
T. Edwards, J. Hunter, and NRCS for landowner and site information
A. Brate and T. Shaw for allowing us the use of a RTK unit, and L. Brown and E. Desmond for allowing us the use of a total station 
L. Williams, J. Bigham, D. Shields, S. Knight, and C. Richardson provided support during the planning stages of the UBWC ecology research  
We also are grateful to those landowners within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed who gave us permission to work on their property   
D. Binder, T. Terawaki, A. Houser, D. Lantz, W. Beery, P. DeArman, and 16 others from university, state, federal, and non-profit organizations contributed to the OSU Economic Assessment

- L. Ufferman, E. Miller, L. Mather, and Delaware Soil and Water Conservation District for GIS data, landowner information, and site information
- R. Dunn, L. Winters, and City of Columbus provided water chemistry information from selected streams and the Hoover Reservoir
- America’s Clean Water Foundation
- T. Edwards, J. Hunter, and NRCS for landowner and site information
- A. Brate and T. Shaw for allowing us the use of a RTK unit, and L. Brown and E. Desmond for allowing us the use of a total station
- L. Williams, J. Bigham, D. Shields, S. Knight, and C. Richardson provided support during the planning stages of the UBWC ecology research
- We also are grateful to those landowners within the Upper Big Walnut Creek watershed who gave us permission to work on their property
- D. Binder, T. Terawaki, A. Houser, D. Lantz, W. Beery, P. DeArman, and 16 others from university, state, federal, and non-profit organizations contributed to the OSU Economic Assessment

**Acknowledgements**