Environmental Indicators

An Athens County environmentalist once said, "If you eat the food, drink the water, and breathe the air, then you're an environmentalist." 

The common environmental wisdom is that over time, whatever happens to our environment will affect us. If we replenish our soils and keep our water clean, then our communities will benefit for generations to come. While we have hundreds of examples of how we are connected to our environment, by the plants we use for medicines or the fuels we use to propel us, we have very little research to tell us if those connections are currently healthy if they are benefiting both the people and the land. At Rural Action's final indicators meeting on May 31, 1997, at the Carpenter Inn in Meigs County, we asked the question: What can we measure that will tell us if the Appalachian environment is healthy? Watershed Restoration and Agricultural Land Use are two indicators from an original list of 17 discussed by community members.

Agricultural Land Use

Background
"Traditional farming is in danger mainly because the value of land is beyond the means of most new farmers to purchase and get into the business. The increase in land value is due in part to rural water development."
Chris Penrose, OSU Extension
Agent, Athens County

How we grow our food can have a vast impact on the land, the environment, and our communities. Agricultural practices that are sustainable improve the environment and distribute wealth among a number of farmers. Enough food to support the local population is produced in the area, which keeps the region s best land for farming and keeps farming alive as a profession. Sustainable agriculture also produces food in a manner that retains the quality of the soil and protects groundwater for future generations. This means controlling the use of harmful pesticides and the removal of nutrients from the soil by over-farming.

Family farms and rural life are most affected by the trends in farming and development. From one side, the development of huge corporate farms has led to fewer family farms, a smaller demand for farm labor, groundwater contamination, and the decline of positive economic and social conditions in rural areas. From the other side, expansion of urban and residential areas is driving up the value of ideal farmland as it is taken over by shopping centers, housing developments, and highways that lay their pavement down on our best croplands.

The Focus of the Indicator
Using data from the U.S. Census of Agriculture for 1982, 1987, and 1992, we reviewed the statistics on numbers of farms and their acreage for Athens, Perry, and Vinton counties.

What We Found

Number of Farms in
Three Southern Ohio Counties

	Athens	Perry	Vinton
1982	589	676	249
1992	501	580	205
% Change	14.9%	14.2%	17.6%

Acres in Farmland in
Three Southern Ohio Counties

	Athens	Perry	Vinton
1982	103,760	101,513	50,514
1992	80,507	96,060	41,666
% Change	22.4%	5.5%	17.5%

Athens, Perry and Vinton counties lost 37,554 acres or 14.7 percent of their farmland between 1982 and 1992. In 1996, Ohio Agricultural Statistics ranked Athens County third in Ohio in decline of farmland acres, with a 22 percent loss from 1980 to 1990. Perry County was number 61, with a 5 percent loss, and Vinton County number 9, with an 18 percent loss of farmland in the 10-year period. 

As farmland decreased, acres of urban and built-up land increased. According to the National Resources Conservation Service s Ohio Resources Assessment of June 1997, Athens County gained 5,800 acres of urban and built-up land between 1982 and 1992, Perry County added 7,100 acres, and the change in Vinton County was 4,400 acres. 
 
Working Conclusions
There is a decrease in farmland and an increase in urban and built-up land in all three counties. For Athens and Vinton counties, between one-fourth and one-half of lost farmland is from residential and urban development. We assumed, without further data, that the rest of the acreage is reverting to woodlands. Perry County created more residential or urbanized acres than farmland lost, indicating that woodlands were impacted by development. 

The decrease in agricultural acreage and farms means that fewer young people are choosing to become farmers. According to the 1987 Census of Agriculture, more than 44 percent of farm operators are over 55 years of age, and approximately 48 percent of farm operators work off the farm more than 200 days per year to earn money.

The decrease in agricultural acreage and farms can also be linked to residential development. Water and sewer development makes land valuable for subdivisions and lots, which increases property taxes for farmers. In turn, farmers subdivide farms for sale to commercial interests. Current trends in agricultural loss affect the rural character of our communities, making farming an inaccessible profession for young farmers. 

Wisconsin and Maryland are among a growing number of states that have passed agricultural land preservation acts to help farms and farmers continue their work. Ohio is looking at such legislation.

Connections
A community s agricultural practices affect the health of its citizens, environment, and economy. Productive farming in a region will boost the local economy rather than sending hardearned dollars out of the community.

Suggestions for Additional Research
Development of indicators that monitor sustainable development could include more research on local markets; on crops that have less overhead and cost involved, making them more profitable to farmers; and on studies of the impacts of farmland loss, urbanization, and pesticide use. Studies of states that have passed agricultural land preservation acts could help Ohio ensure the future of farming here. The significant data already at OSU Extension is available over the Internet and from local extension agents.

Watershed Restoration

Background
According to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, a watershed is "an area of land from which surface water drains into a common outlet, such as a river, lake or wetland." Watershed restoration is the longterm effort by communities, government agencies and industry to restore watersheds to their former diversity of life and human activities while striving to eliminate pollution sent downstream.

As early as the mid-nineteenth century settlers began to notice that unchecked timber practices and mining spoil piles were pouring sulfur and sediment into the streams. Pollution control from point sources, like industrial discharges and antiquated sewage systems, has improved. Today s pollution, from non-point sources, includes acid mine drainage; agricultural runoff; sedimentation from roads, development, and improper timbering practices; and inadequate water treatment systems, including direct household sewage drainage into the watershed. 

Although the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) addresses sedimentation from abandoned and currently permitted mining operations, it does not address water quality problems from acid mine drainage, the worst and most persistent form of pollution in our region. An interagency program called the Clean Streams Initiative, spearheaded in 1994 by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, is promoting the cleanup of streams impacted by acid mine drainage. Monitoring efforts in watersheds are beginning to tell us the real extent of the damage from past mining practices.

There are 14 watersheds within the counties of Athens, Perry and Vinton. Out of these, four are severely polluted by acid mine drainage (AMD). These are the Raccoon Creek, Monday Creek, Sunday Creek and Moxahala Creek watersheds. Two of these, Monday Creek and Raccoon Creek, with funding through the US EPA 319 Program, have community groups working on restoration. Early efforts are beginning to sprout in other area watersheds. The Monday Creek Restoration Project (MCRP) is coordinated by Rural Action, with 20 partners that include Ohio University and Hocking College, coal and lumber companies, natural resource agencies, and local officials and residents. 

Because of acid mine drainage, portions of Monday Creek have the acidity of vinegar, which together with the presence of heavy metals kills all aquatic life. Fish and other macroinvertebrate species (insect larvae, crayfish, etc.) require a pH of 6.5 or greater in order to reproduce. Restoring Monday Creek to a pH greater than 6.5 is the goal of the MCRP partners.

The Focus of the Indicator
We looked at studies carried out by MCRP partners that gathered preliminary data on acidity and reviewed the study of quality and stability of fish and macroinvertebrate populations carried out by Ohio University students and faculty in the Biology and Geology Departments.

What We Found
The preliminary studies of acidity conducted for Monday Creek provide a baseline to monitor future changes in the watershed. Using this data, project partners will also determine the effectiveness and cost efficiency of specific construction and reclamation projects. Projects to be evaluated include the Rock Run gob pile, Brush Fork, Sycamore Hollow, and the Majestic Mine site. Most restoration will be carried out by cutting off the source of the mine drainage or by some form of alkaline addition like limestone or sodium hydroxide.

Working Conclusions
We make an assumption that acid mine drainage conditions are improving because of the SMCRA laws mandating mine reclamation. Recent monitoring indicates that there are more fish in the headwaters and tributaries of AMD-affected streams than previously thought. 

The Ohio University study for Monday Creek states a number of interesting and important points for water quality and fish health.

• Some of the small headwater streams (sources of the water that flows into Monday Creek) that are isolated by acid water downstream have good water quality and good habitat. 
• Having healthy headwaters matters, because they can re-populate downstream areas once they are cleaned up. 
• Because fish and insects "drift" downstream, they are dependent on good habitat over the length of the stream for their survival. 
• Most insect populations thriving in isolated headwaters have a flight phase in their life cycle that enables them to avoid acidic waters. 
• Using Federal Creek (a much cleaner watershed) as a benchmark, streams of the same size and water quality near Federal Creek support 12 fish species, compared to four in Monday Creek. 

Connections
A watershed damaged by AMD cannot support aquatic life, linking AMD to animal, fish and human health. Economically, clean water full of healthy fish brings tourism and increased recreational opportunities, which expands local jobs. A variety of restoration efforts, ranging from highly technical to those geared to watershed residents, contribute to watershed cleanup. Community volunteers support and coordinate the work and ultimately restore the watershed, including stream cleanups and log jam removals and also participation in watershed management planning.

Specifically, the overall health of the Monday Creek watershed has been improved by volunteers who stabilized 300 feet of eroding stream bank in Carbon Hill. Efforts also diverted good-quality surface water from entering the underground Essex Mine complex, removed tons of trash along highways and roadways, and eliminated log jams in the Snow Fork tributary. Over the last two years, 17,000 trees were planted in the Monday Creek Watershed. All of these activities make a difference in the appearance and health of the watershed.

Suggestions for Additional Research
Monitoring efforts in our region are just beginning and should be strongly encouraged to continue. We are only now setting the baseline from which to evaluate future improvements. Additional studies should include how groundwater is affected by surface water contamination, and the effect of interbasin flow (water flows from one watershed to another through underground mines).

Other indicators for a healthy watershed could be tracked to tell us if we are moving towards sustainability, like numbers of stream banks with full tree cover, size and activity levels of community watershed groups, and numbers and types of fish species in the watershed. Watershed restoration indicators should also include measures that show the connection between people and the watershed and people s feelings toward the watershed, including the persistent problem of flooding. 

NEXT: Human Needs Indicators >>>