Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · sir20265037

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

Abstract

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Chad A. Toussant, Brittany R. Hanrahan. 2026-09-10. Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20265037

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

Methodology for quantitative spatial sensitivity analysis of volcanic geodetic networks

Introduction This report introduces a methodology for assessing the state of the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Observatories’ geodetic monitoring networks that measure how volcanoes deform or change shape. This new method uses a model-based approach that considers the uniqueness of the instrument environments at each volcano. This report focuses on simplified volcanic sources, is independent of the shape or size of the volcano, or the network geometry, and thus highlights the strengths and potential vulnerabilities of each volcano’s geodetic network in an actionable visual format. This analysis can help observatories to make informed decisions about whether volcanoes have an adequate level of geodetic monitoring and indicate where improvements are needed.

Lassen Peak, Mount Shasta

Assessment of water chemistry of the Coconino aquifer in northeastern Arizona

The Coconino aquifer was investigated as a potential groundwater resource for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation in northeastern Arizona. Basic groundwater chemistry, including major ions, total dissolved solids, and selected trace metal concentrations, are presented and analyzed to characterize the Coconino aquifer. The geochemical compositions of groundwater are associated with changes in geology and groundwater movement and are compared to drinking-water standards to determine suitable areas for potential groundwater resource development. Dissolved-solids concentrations in much of the Coconino aquifer water were higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s secondary drinking-water standard of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) due to a buried halite body in the southeastern part of the study area. However, trace metal concentrations were generally low. Groundwater may need to be treated for high dissolved-solids concentrations before it is suitable for use as a resource for the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation.

Arizona

Water-resources inventory and assessment at Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, prepared a water-resources inventory and assessment for Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument (KAWW). This compilation includes published and publicly accessible hydrologic data and resource assessments of streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, and groundwater in and near KAWW. It also includes reports and datasets summarizing attributes of KAWW’s hydrologic infrastructure, such as stream crossings, dams, wastewater discharge plants, groundwater monitoring wells, and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. Descriptions of data and details of current limitations in available datasets are included. Wetland, groundwater, streamflow, and water-quality information are all limited. Hydrography data are available; however, there are limited ground-truth data. Accurate streamlines within KAWW were developed from light detection and ranging (lidar) as a part of this work. Hydrologic infrastructure information is available from multiple sources; however, differences exist among the datasets. Datasets are summarized in appendix 1.

Maine