Fairfield Soil and Water Conservation District Jonathan Ferbrache, PLA, CPESC Resource Specialist Professional Landscape Architect and a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control
Project Summary Inventory and Review 77 miles of watercourses Soil sampling Cover crop edge of field study District Hours 2,287 over two years Total Expenditure, District Funds and Ohio EPA Section 319 Funds $94,931 (40% FSWCD and 60% OEPA) Includes soil testing, GPS equipment, cover crop seed, land owner rain barrels, etc.
Watershed Inventory and Analysis A comprehensive review of all streams to compliment water sampling conducted by the Ohio EPA and the Buckeye Lake for Tomorrow/Ohio Farm Bureau Foundation Understand the watershed boundary and assure investments are made in areas that are actually connected to the lake Separate and identify sources of nutrients, in, around and far removed from the lake Visualize realistic locations where improvements could be made as part of a master plan
73% of typical stream beds have a riparian corridor 27% of typical stream beds do not have a riparian corridor June-October 2012 and April-June 2013
Strong ground water contributions from the south and northeast
When we began we believed there to be 49 square miles, now we believe there are 41 square miles. Revised Watershed Understanding
It is interesting to note that the mile inside Millersport along the Deepcut contains 10.6 tiles/pipes per mile, while the average in agricultural areas is 11.2 tiles/pipes per mile. 98 flowing tiles 518 non-flowing tiles 24 septic systems being reviewed/monitored 3 areas of interest being monitored Tile Inventory
182 moderate severe erosion 100 moderate severe log jams Debris Jam and Erosion Inventory
In Fairfield County most streams originate in sod waterways In Licking County most streams originate in wooded or impounded locations In Perry County most streams in the east originate in wooded locations and sod waterways in the west
Only a few miles of streams, primarily at the far east end, appear to be natural. All others show signs of influence by canals, railroads, roads or realignments.
What is in the soil? EPA funds have: -Planted 200 acres of cover crops -Tested soils on row crop farmland (150 acres) Broughton Natural Resource Funds have tested: -Livestock farmland soils (60 acres) Farm Bureau Funds have tested: -Biosolids application sites (20 acres) -Residential lawns (3 acres) -Golf courses (15 acres) -State Park lawns (7 acres) -Row crop farmland (100 acres) -Lake sediment -Goose manure
Summary to date Land Use 2012 Row crop with limited livestock 70 lbs P/acre Lawns and recreation fields 57 lbs P/acre Park land, subject to geese and historic dredge dep. 32 lbs P/acre (West side 14 lbs P/acre-East side 47 lbs P/ acre) Lake Sediments 2012 Feeder Creek (all the western watershed) 6.2 lbs P/100 CF Liebs Island (State Park and active boat launch) 2.4 lbs P/100 CF Brooks Park (State Park limited Watershed) 12 lbs P/100 CF The Ohio EPA has also conducted sediment sampling in previous years. Goose manure 2012 4.8 lbs P/100 CF
Other Research September 29, 2016 Ty Higgins, Ohio Ag Net DuPont Pioneer Research These tests were done on a farm by field basis in terms of whether results of P and K came back low, optimum or high, Reese said. You do see all three of those categories in all of the sensitive watersheds, so we want to make sure farmers are doing the right thing in terms of applying fertilizer in those sensitive areas.
There are small contributions from each acre of the 41 square mile watershed. The impacts on water quality began 180 years ago with the construction of the canals. Everyone within the watershed needs to assess their own current impact, no matter how small.
T. Phosphorus (mg/l) Buckeye Lake Sampling 0.600 0.500 TP Concentration Total Phosphorus Trends Buckeye Lake 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016-0.100 Year
Buckeye Lake Tributary Sampling 12-Apr-13 4/5/16 4/19/16 5/3/16 5/17/16 6/7/16 6/21/16 Orthophosphates Black Lick # 1 0.149 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.150 Black Lick # 2 0.361 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 Rest Area I-70 0.153 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.230 Honey Creek < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.122 0.152 Buckeye Creek 0.162 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 Murphy's Run 0.224 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 <0.1 Nitrates Black Lick # 1 6.040 2.590 3.660 3.370 4.990 8.700 <0.5 Black Lick # 2 6.060 1.330 3.200 1.550 2.420 1.280 <0.5 Rest Area I-70 9.620 5.300 12.200 5.970 4.840 9.570 <0.5 Honey Creek 2.490 2.180 2.790 3.140 2.380 3.290 2.720 Buckeye Creek 1.810 1.960 2.260 3.150 2.110 1.700 1.740 Murphy's Run 2.340 2.040 3.410 3.720 2.710 1.510 <0.5
Buckeye Lake Future Considerations -Central sewer to all island residences. -Rehab and stabilization of the Kirkersville Feeder -Southfork Licking River intake to supplement the lake in dry times. -Regional policy for development and water quality testing following MS4 standards. -Modeling nutrient application from biosolids, manure or other sources.
Buckeye Lake Future Considerations -Control and monitoring of channel inflows with turbidity curtains during winter pool. -Land acquisition for ongoing dredge needs. -Increasing plant populations in the lake (winter draw-down freeze-out).
Buckeye Lake Future Considerations -Sampling in the watershed and in the lake must continue. -Realistic expectations of a shallow warm lake with limited inflow past spring rains. -Proper watershed boundary marking for public awareness.
Questions? Jonathan Ferbrache, PLA, CPESC Resource Specialist Professional Landscape Architect and a Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control jferbrache@fairfieldswcd.org 740-653-8154