A PHYSICAL EVALUATION OF THE FIRST ”13% W 566 WATERSHED racy-m - ; m MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree of M‘ S, _ MiCHl-GAN STATE UNIVERSITY - GARREN ROGER TITUS 1973 ' ..... 7. h LIBRAR 1 Michigan Sta .3 University V shaman ”MG 8 SUNS' 800K BINDERY INC. LIBRARY amosas - mine-n" nun-Ann: 1L ABSTRACT A PHYSICAL EVALUATION OF THE FIRST PUBLIC LAW 566 WATERSHED PROJECT IN MICHIGAN BY Garren Roger Titus The first watershed project in Michigan to receive financial assistance through the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566, was the Muskrat Creek- Morris Drain Watershed Project located in Clinton County. The benefit—cost analysis of the entire Muskrat Creek Water- shed revealed that only a channel improvement of Morris Drain was feasible. The installation of the 4.8 mile multi- ple purpose channel, to resolve the problem of agricultural water management, was completed in 1960. The present study is an evaluation of the physical changes that have occurred in the watershed since the proj- ects completion. A number of critical change indicators were identified; these were the extent of conservation prac- tice implementation, and changes in land use patterns, crop- ping patterns, yields, and livestock numbers. The data was Garren Roger Titus collected during May and June 1972, through a series of per- sonal interviews with all landowners of ten acres or more in the watershed. The problem of agricultural water management was re- solved by the installation of the improved channel. The project enabled the landowners to utilize a greater number of conservation practices, especially tile. The land use shifted toward more cropland. The data indicated a change in cropping patterns toward increased acreages of corn, soy- beans, and hay. The yields of all crops on a per acre basis increased substantially. Likewise, the number of beef cat- tle, hogs, and dairy cattle increased notably as compared to the pre-project data. A PHYSICAL EVALUATION OF THE FIRST PUBLIC LAW 566 WATERSHED PROJECT IN MICHIGAN BY Garren Roger Titus A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1973 6 1:3 4i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The meaningful assistance and guidance provided this student by the Michigan State Office of the Soil Con- servation Service, the District Conservationist and his staff of the Clinton County Soil Conservation District, and the farmers of the Morris Drain Watershed, made the comple- tion of this thesis possible. It is with a deep sense of gratitude that the interest and involvement of several peo- ple are acknowledged. First appreciation to Mr. Russell G. Hill, Executive Secretary of the State Soil Conservation Committee for as- sisting with the study selection, problem identification, and various support materials. Credit is also due to Mr. Robert S. Fellows, Assistant State Conservationist, and Mr. John Okay, Watershed Planning Staff Leader, for guidance throughout the study in addition to finish up assistance. Secondly, much appreciation is due to Mr. Lloyd B. Campbell, District Conservationist for the Clinton County Soil Conservation District, for providing considerable per- sonal interest in addition to the physical support mater- ials and guidance in designing the study. Also, apprecia- tion is extended to Mr. Campbell's staff for providing re- views and support for the study. ii Thirdly, the real success of this study is due to the wonderful interest and cooperation of all the farmers in the Morris Drain Watershed. These farmers are truly some of the finest gentlemen that I have had an opportunity to associate with. Finally, I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Clifford Humphreys, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, for his reviews and guidance. Likewise, much recognition is due to many of my personal friends who have helped me with various stages of the study. The contributions of my friends are known only by him from whom all strength comes. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History . Definition of Terms {0454:- H II. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Physical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Early History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Surface Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Drainage Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Economic- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Human Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 III. METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . 26 Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Questionnaire Categories . . . . . . . . . 28 Questionnaire Interpretation . . . . . . . 28 IV. DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 General Farm Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Specific Farm Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . 49 Conclusion . . . . . . . 49 Problem Areas and Recommendations . . . . . 53 iv B IBLI OGRAPHY APPENDIX 56 58 Table LIST OF TABLES Years of tenure by farmer classification . . . . Conservation practice utilization Comparison of tile and open dain utilization Land use comparisons Cropping patterns Livestock comparisons vi Page 34 38 41 43 45 48 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The utilization of soil and water conservation prac— tices provides a means for improving agricultural water man- agement. These practices yield many benefits; not only to the people who use them, but to the surrounding communities. The primary benefits received would include increasing the lands productivity and valuation, greater protection against floods and drought, and ultimately a higher income level. For these conservation practices to be most effec- tively utilized, a common base unit of action should be se- lected. The watershed area concept fulfills this need.1 This concept like other definitive terms has undergone re- vision over the last half century. The former definition was limited to its physical interpretation; that of simply being a drainage divide that separated the waters flowing into different rivers or oceans, i.e., Continental Divide. On the other hand, the present day interpretation of the watershed area concept is ”a social and economic unit for 1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agri- culture, 1955 (Washington, D.C., Government—Printing Office, -, p. . community development and conservation of water, soil, for- ests, and related resources."2 In an attempt to make a watershed project more rele- 'vant to a local community, the small watershed concept evolved from the presently used watershed area concept. It is generally felt that the large river basin programs can be handled by large flood control damage and other similar structures, but without the small watershed support the suc- cess of a large river project is greatly diminished. More importantly, the small watershed concept concentrates on the active conservation support by individual landowners. There- fore, the small area watershed aids in the insurance that the local residents have a sense of project identification and involvement. This is necessary in order to effectively implement the needed conservation practices to obtain the desired results. In an effort to coordinate the landowners conserva- tion practices on the small watershed, a large number of watershed groups, associations and legal organizations have been formed over the years. To further this concept, in 1954, the 83rd Congress of the United States, approved the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566).3 This Act provides for extensive cost sharing aid to 2Ibid., p. 161. 3Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, PL 566, 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666, and subsequent amendments. local organizations to assist in implementing small water- shed projects. The Act places the primary responsibility of project initiation and follow up activities on the local residents. As can be visualized, Public Law 566 provides the instrument through which the federal, state, and local residents could cooperate to solve common water management problems. Such was the case in Clinton County, Michigan, on the Muskrat Creek—Morris Drain Watershed. The local resi- dents had long ago identified the problem of agricultural water management and flood prevention as an area of immedi- ate concern. In an attempt to find a solution for their dilemma, the local residents carried the initiative of the project with the support of the local Soil Conservation District and the Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. This presented the perfect sit- uation for the first utilization of the Public Law 566 assistance in Michigan. Funding was granted to the water- shed for the purpose of renovating Morris Drain. The im- proved channel would allow the installation of enough con- servation practices to adequately drain the 19 percent of the watershed identified as having inadequate drainage and occasional flooding problems.4 4Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drain Drainage District, "Watershed Work Plan, Muskrat Creek Watershed," St. Johns, Mich., 1959, p. l. (Mimeographed) Objective Ever since man began utilizing conservation prac- tices, he has encountered the need to devise various meth- ods to evaluate their effectiveness. The resulting methods for evaluation are quite varied in both nature and scope. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the phy- sical effectiveness of the Muskrat Creek-Morris Drain Water- shed Project. The evaluation was completed through the use of a census interview of the farm owners and/or Operators. Several indicators were identified as critical over time, in determining the project effectiveness. These were: the extent of conservation practice utilization, land use changes, cropping pattern alterations, and livestock changes. Since the project was primarily concerned with agricultural water management and flood prevention, the conservation prac- tices of tiling and open drainage systems are perhaps the most important indicators. With the renovation of the chan- nel, these two indicators would be the first conservation practices utilized in order to obtain increased productivity from the land. History Man has always experienced problems with water man- agement. Often he was faced with the paradox of having either too much or too little water. At times, man's con- tinued existence has depended on his ability to manage the water resource . In an attempt to resolve water management problems, man conceived the art of land drainage, partially to ful- fill the need to bring land of a lower agricultural produc- tivity to a higher level of productivity by the removal of the excess water. The land drainage philosophy existed prior to the first century. One of the early Roman agri- cultural writers, Columella, described the use of stone 5 Yet the earliest known use of sub- brush and open drains. surface tile drains was in 1620 A.D., in the "magic garden" of a monastery in France, where the soil was very fertile even in times of drought.6 In the early history of the U.S., the reclaimable marsh lands encompassed approximately 75,000,000 acres or an area roughly equivalent to twice that of the state of Iowa, while wet farm land included several times this amount.7 In the early 1800's, the public marsh lands in the Central States were disposed of at $0.01 to $1.00 an acre. It was during this same era, John Johnson of Geneva, New York, introduced tile drainage in the United States. This ultimately led to the reclamation of the fertile marsh lands by the combined use of surface and subsurface drain- age methods. 5W. L. Powers and T. A. H. Teeters, Land Drainage (New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19227, p. l. 6 Ibid. 7 . Ibid., p. 2. Yet, through the unwise land management practices, the concern arose for widespread soil conservation measures. In 1933, the federal government responded with the creation of the Soil Erosion Service (SBS), within the U.S. Depart- ment of Interior. "On April 27, 1935, Public Law 46 di- rected the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an agency 8 At that known as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).” time, the SCS incorporated all the functions of the 2 year old SES. On February 15, 1951, the Secretary of Agricul— ture issued Memorandum 1278, which made the SCS responsible for all technical phases of the permanent types of soil con- servation work undertaken by the Production and Marketing Administration (now ASCS).9 This revision designated the SCS as the primary action agency responsible for having projects developed that qualified farms for federal assis- tance. The early years in Michigan found the Soil Conser— vation Service setting up a number of erosion control demon- stration projects, along with promoting other conservation practices, such as strip cropping, contour farming, sand dune stabilization, sod waterways, land drainage, etc.10 8Soil Conservation Service, "History of the Soil Conservation Service in Michigan, Chronological Events and Related Activities," East Lansing, Michigan, 1972, p. 4. (Mimeographed). 9Ibid., p. 17. loIbid., pp. 4-9. Nearly paralleling in time the development of the SCS, was the beginning of the local Soil Conservation Dis— tricts (SCD). The conservation minded Michigan citizens be— gan to organize the districts following the passage of Mich— 11 Since the igan‘s Soil Conservation District Enabling Act. Enabling Act was approved by the State legislature, the SCD's are an entity of state government. With the SCD's a reality, its primary objectives were to assist landowners and tenants to: reduce wind and water erosion; maintain or increase productivity of the soil; direct misused land into some productive use; manage surface waters; bring about changes in land use in accordance with land capability and users goals.12 The first SCD organized in Michigan was Ottawa County in 1938.13 It‘s primary purpose was to control erod- ing sands which were filling roadways and ditches, making roads impassable and covering valuable agricultural land. Soon afterwards, other districts began organizing, until presently all of Michigan's 83 counties are encompassed with- in a SCD. 11Act 297 of the Public Acts of 1937 as amended. 12Michigan Department of Agriculture and State Soil Conservation Committee, Michigan Soil Conservation Districts, Conservation-Self Government, (East Lansing,’Michigan, 1971), p. 4. 138011 Conservation Service, "History of the Soil Conservation Service in Michigan, Chronological Events and Related Activities," East Lansing, Michigan, 1972, p. 5. (Mimeographed). The SCD's are organized through the process of a local petition, a public hearing, and a referendum carried out under the supervision of the State Soil Conservation Committee.14 Since the SCD does not have the power to levy taxes, borrow money, or issue bonds, its financial viabil- ity is provided in part through state legislature and the County Board of Commissioners appropriations, funds earned by the districts, and gifts. The final major development that aided in the suc- cess of the watershed project came on August 4, 1954; the 83rd Congress approved the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566), in which the SCS was des- ignated as the USDA action agency, with primary responsi- bility for the Department's cooperation with local organi- zations in small watersheds throughout the nation. Later on January 7, 1955, Governor Williams of Michigan named the State Soil Conservation Committee to act on all watershed proposals.15 In this capacity, the primary objective of the State Soil Conservation Committee was to provide a fi- nal review of a Watershed proposal to determine a watershed project's feasibility. In order to aid the SCC in its 14 Section 5. 15Soil Conservation Service, "History of the Soil Conservation Service in Michigan, Chronological Events and Related Activities," East Lansing, Michigan, 1972, p. 20. (Mimeographed). Act 297 of the Public Acts of 1937 as amended, decision making function, a Watershed Work Plan Party was established during 1956 to better evaluate through the use of Benefit-Cost comparison a watershed project proposal.16 It was not until January 18, 1960 that a watershed project in Michigan was approved to receive aid under Pub- lic Law 566.17 The original application requested for as- sistance on the entire Muskrat Creek Watershed which in- cludes 25,222 acres. However, as the work plan was devel- oped, it was determined that project action was feasible only on the Morris Drain Subwatershed. Due to the lack of legal ability to issue contracts or levy assessments, the Soil Conservation District cannot solely sponsor a water- shed project. Therefore, the project was co-sponsored with the Clinton County Drain Commissioner. With the approval of the Watershed Project, the 10- cal residents could begin planning for the implementation of the conservation practices to meet the needs of each landowner. Definition of Terms The majority of the terminology used in this thesis has acquired various meanings and definitions, depending on 16Ibid. 17Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drain Drainage District, "Watershed Work Plan, Musk- rat Creek Watershed,” St. Johns, Michigan, 1959, p. 1. (Mimeographed). 10 the agency, interest group, or research group using them. It is best to define those several terms and words which will appear throughout the text of the study. 1) 2) 3) Conservation Practices - the physical manipula- tion of agricultural land in an effort to con- serve the natural resource of land, improve pro- ductivity, increase water quality, and reduce stream sedimentation. Agricultural Water Management - is concerned with surface and subsurface removal of excessive water either generated by a naturally high water table and/or impaired surface drainage which limits agricultural production. Soil Conservation District Cooperator - any land owning resident, who after technical consultation with the Soil Conservation Service, files a farm conservation plan which serves as a guideline for the implementation of the necessary conservation practices on his land. CHAPTER II STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION Physical The Muskrat-Creek-Morris Drain Watershed is located in the center of Michigan's lower peninsula, as illustrated in Figure 1. Further references to the Muskrat-Creek-Morris Drain Watershed Project will be designated as the Morris Drain Watershed Project. The watershed lies entirely with- in Clinton County. According to the watershed work plan, the watershed consists of 7654 acres or slightly over 2 per- cent of the county's total area. The watershed includes the northeast corner of Eagle Township-~the most southwesterly township in Clinton County-- and the southeast one-fourth of Westphalia Township. Morris Drain outlets into the Muskrat Creek in section six of Riley Township, Clinton County. The watershed is included in the Grand River Watershed Basin. All of the land in the watershed is privately owned. There are no towns or cities located within the boundary of the watershed. Agricultural production is the primary land 11 12 u' H w par An. FIGURE I LOCATION MAP MUSKRAT CREEK WATERSHED 1..-... MORRIS DRAIN SUBWATERSHED CLINTON COUNTY, MICHIGAN “It! I O I l 3 C 5 llt!’ halo ”1“,- 13 use. The land use before the project was broken down is as follows: cropland 76.5 percent, pasture 6.9 percent, woodland 13.6 percent, and other 3.0 percent.1 Early History The first permanent settlement made in the Muskrat Creek Watershed was in 1839. David Wells settled in section 36 and became the first pioneer to break into the southern part of Westphalia Township.2 The pioneers' task of carving a livelihood out of this new land was not easy. The county was covered with heavy forests of oak, elm, beech, maple, ash, tamarack, birch, cedar, black-walnut, and occasionally a small tract of pine.3 To compound the problem of settlement, the pio- neers were also faced with a county that was generally wet and scarcely a section could they locate which had no low- lands or marshes.4 The successful farming of the swamp lands has generally awaited greater settlement, clearing 1Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drain Drainage District, "Watershed Work Plan, Musk- rat Creek Watershed," St. Johns, Michigan, 1959, p. 4. (Mimeographed). 2Judge S. B. Daboll, Past and Present of Clinton County, Michigan (Chicago: S. J. Clafke Publisfiing Company, , p. 0 3Ibid., p. 443. 4Ibid., p. 442. 14 of the better tracts, and the development of an artificial system of drainage. Soils The soils of Clinton County are varied in nature due to the geologically recent deposition of glacial mater- ial. Within the watershed boundary only three of the Gen- eral Soil Areas are found as illustrated in Figure 2.5 General Soil Area I This soil area is typified by the Miami-Conover- Brookston Soil Association. These soils are usually loams and silt loams, varying in drainage from poor to well drained, with a rather even distribution of all the soils in the association. The soils are typified by being level to gently sloping with some steep slopes, and largely iden- tified in soil capability classes I, II and III. The Miami soils are generally located on gently rolling to strongly sloping upland. The soil type is iden- tified as being light colored and well drained, deep, loamy soil. The Conover soils are located in the lower part of lepes, toe slopes, and the less wet upland depressions. 5Soil Conservation Service, "Soils of Clinton County, Michigan." (E. Lansing, Michigan, 1970). 15 The District incuudu all a! Clinton CounIy Hafiz—4E1 Scala in mil" FIGURE 2 GENERAL SOIL MAP CLINTON COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT -- MORRIS DRAIN SUBWATERSHED TMO' octeooe 355-440 LOCATION m BOUNDARY LINE Total acreage in farms 327,4I9 Mun-"GA" I970 16 As compared to Miami, the Conover soils are intermediate in drainage and have a darker color. The Brookston soils are located in low lying, dish shaped depressions, long narrow drainage ways and depressed flats. As compared to the pre- vious soils in the association, the Brookston is a natural- ly wet, deep loam with a dark color and the need for arti- ficial drainage to be highly productive. General Soil Area II This soil area is typified by the Blount-Miami- Pewamo Association. Soils of this area are predominantly loams, silt loams, and clay loams. The poorly drained and imperfectly drained soils are dominant, with areas of well drained soils interspersed among them. The soil's topogra- phy is typified by being level to gently sloping and for the most part rated in soil capability class I, with some class II and III. The Blount soils are generally located in depres- sional areas. The 5011's type is identified as being a naturally wet and somewhat poorly drained clayey soil. The Miami soils, as described before, are located on the gently sloping uplands, the Pewamo soils, like the Blount soils, are located in depressions and drainageways. The Pewamo soil has poorer internal drainage, as compared to the Blount soils. 17 Specific to this soil area is a rather large per- centage of the organic soils. Approximately one-eighth of the watershed area has organic soils. These areas are clas- sified as low lying, wet, depressional areas along the Morris Drain Channel. General Soil Area III This soil area is typified by the Blount-Pewamo- Morely Association. Soils of this area are quite similar, in most respects, to Soil Area II, except this area has a greater percentage of poorly drained soils and the upland soils are of a finer texture. The Blount and Pewamo soils as previously described, occupy relatively broad areas of nearly level to gently sloping clay loam naturally wet soils. The Morely soils are generally located in the gently sloping uplands. This soil is typified as being well to moderately well drained. Being of a finer texture, the soil is more prone to erode than are the heavier and wetter Blount and Pewamo soils. Overall, the 5011's productivity potential is good, but is limited by improper soil drainage, especially in the organic soils. The Watershed Work Party, calculated that 19 percent of the watershed needs some form of artificial drainage before an increase in productivity can be realized.6 6Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drain Drainage District, ”Watershed Work Plan, Muskrat Creek Watershed," St. Johns, Michigan, 1959, p. l. (Mimeographed). 18 Surface Geology The surface geology of the Morris Drain Watershed is the result of continental glaciation. High ice masses moved through the area from the north, crushing and mixing the rock and soil materials in their paths. The foundation rock primarily sandstone, is generally buried from 50 feet in the southern part of the watershed to 200 feet in the northern part below the unconsolidated glacial debris.7 This material mix, deposited in the Pennsylvanian Era more than 10,000 years ago, formed the parent material from which the geologically "young" soils were formed.8 The geologic and topographic nature of these soils determine in a large measure the kinds of soils and water management problems that are present today. Two types of glacial features are present in the area. These are described below and depicted on the Sur- face Geology Map. (Figure 3.)9 Moraines are typified by hilly to gently undulating glacial deposits of boulder clays, sand, and gravel which 7James Akers, compiler. Isopachous Contours - Drift Thickness Map 3528 (Lansing: Geological Survey DIVISIOn, Michigan Department of Conservation, 1938). 8E. P. Whiteside, I. F. Schnider, and R. C. Cook, Soils of Michigan (East Lansing: Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1968), p. 13. 9Helen M. Martin, Map of the Surface Formations of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan, Geological SurveyTDivi- sion, Publication 49 (Lansing,*Mich., Department of Conser- vation, 1955). 19 FIGURE 3 SURFACE GEOLOGY MAP MUSKRAT CREEK WATERSHED MORRIS DRAIN SUBWATERSHED "”8 CLINTON COUNTY, MICHIGAN zen-4 2““ ' LEGEND - U S '0‘"va LINE , __ SECYIOI LINE , , SECTION Nunufl ,. PAVEO ROAD_ _ CIAVIL ROAD , . on" now _ 7 .- .QIOOE..OIDU _ , .UILOI~G_ 1 SCNOOL._L- ._, enuncur. _ -- _ - ((uEYtl'. - _ DEM-mu STQIAI.SHALL. INYIIIIYYINY STDEAU. "It-mun Lu: our Pono _ _ __ stun... , ,_ _ - tAYIISNID IOUNDA-v ‘SUIIAYEISNEO Iouumnv CNAIIIL mnovtltuL “gaucu .- u-(«can I GROUND MORAINS - MORAINS 20 was deposited at the leading edge of the ice sheet. This geologic feature is present in the southern two-thirds of the watershed. Ground moraines (till plains) are derived from the debris carried at the base of an ice sheet, then deposited as a horizontal sheet of boulder clay when the ice sheet recedes rapidly. The resulting topography can be described as gently undulating to moderately rolling. The soil is seldom very stony. The ground moraines deposits are found generally throughout the northern one-third of the watershed. Drainage Pattern The drainage pattern of the watershed is largely the result of topography and surface geology. The area's topography is characterized by low undulations or swells of smooth contour, which grade into shallow depressions with only slight changes in elevation. Long steep slopes are un- common.10 Large streams, including Stoney Creek, traverse the county in an east-west orientation. These streams have not greatly altered the original surface either by dissection or by deposition. These streams have developed very few 10Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drain Drainage District, "Watershed Work Plan, Musk- rat Creek Watershed," St. Johns, Michigan, 1959, p. 3. (Mimeographed). 21 tributaries. As a result of this weak development of a natural drainage system, numerous areas of wet land occur, both as depressions and as level plains.11 The elevation at the end of the Morris Drain, West- phalia Township, Section 14, is approximately 760 feet above sea level at the headwater, Eagle Township, Section 2.12 Morris Drain has two major tributaries: the Lehman Drain, from the west, and the Kelly Drain, from the east. In addition, the Morris Drain is the recipient of water from these smaller drains; Maurer from the west; Lee from the south; and Feneis from the east as illustrated in Fig- ure 4. There is only one small lake inside the watershed boundary, Mud Lake. Climate The climatic features of the area are typified by moderately cold winters and mild pleasant summers, with moderate precipitation and low wind movements. Periods of extremely hot or cold weather are usually of short duration. Precipitation is almost uniformly distributed throughout the year; with the amount during the winter slightly below 11Kenneth G. McManus, "A Proposed Approach to the Muskrat Creek Watershed Information Program,” (unpublished term paper, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1957), p. 2. 12Ibid. 22 a CONTOUR LINES N STREAMS AND DRAIMS --— WATERSHED BOUNDARY LINE / ‘\ —-- SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY I I I .I I ‘ WEST PHALIA ’—-“:,s ‘5. 50 \\ I 0' to 7 Cid—IL; , ~--—---" 750 " \ O r’ I ‘vw \\ Q / v ‘0 ‘ J C_ ° ‘\ / I .. x" \ a 76 Q I <3 0 I /° °1~. 7’ \C U . ’ «b . / \' . 010w ' \ / \ a, I F‘n.“ ’- . n -' (- Loo/nan / \ o/ \ \ \ \fir '~ ~‘- -"\ MUD 5‘\ M E 7816 ./ I t 04., s I ‘~ 1. o \‘ " / I a, '\ 'o I E 0° I. O I a ‘ \ o‘ \ \- I) ‘ \ . ”‘7.” \' ME , 9 I 2 ’ f _ I o 5000 Io.ooo ~-----' FIGURE 4 F557 CONTOUR INTERVAL IO FT. CONTOUR AND STREAM MAP SCALE - 52,500 MUSKRAT CREEK WATERSHED MORRIS DRAIN SUBWATERSHED CLINTON COUNTY, MICHIGAN 23 that of the other seasons.13 However, the time of planting of some crops, particularly on the low lying heavy clay and muck soils, is often delayed due to excessive rains in the early spring, which contributes much overburden water to these areas. The nearby Weather Bureau Station at Lansing has recorded an average rainfall of 31 inches. The average an- nual temperature at the station is 40° Fahrenheit. The mean temperature during July is 71° Fahrenheit and the Jan- uary mean is 26° Fahrenheit.14 The growing season in this locale averages 146 days.15 Economic Presently there are 67 farms located in the water- shed. The average farm size is approximately 130 acres. The majority of the farms are owner operated. Based on the 1969 Census of Agriculture, Clinton County data, the aver- age value of the land and buildings in the watershed is ap- proximately $329.13 per acre or $42,786.90 per farm.16 13Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drain Drainage District, "Watershed Work Plan, Musk- rat Creek Watershed," St. Johns, Michigan, 1959), p. 3. (Mimeographed). 14Ibid. 15Ibid. 16U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1969 Census ongriculture, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969), p. 153. 24 The economy of the watershed is based largely on diversified general farming. The principal grain crops grown are corn, wheat, oats, and soybeans. Considerable alfalfa hay is grown for livestock feed. The primary source of income is derived from the sale of cash grains, livestock, and livestock products. In livestock income production, dairy cattle rank first, beef cattle second, and swine third.l7 In grain crop income production, corn ranks first, wheat second, oats third, and soybeans fourth. Markets for the farm produce are locally located at St. Johns, Fowler, Lansing, Westphalia, Eagle, and Port- land.18 Human Resource The area in which the watershed is located was orig- inally settled by pioneers of German descent. The German people are renowned for their abilities to manage the soil and water resources to obtain sustained maximum returns. The ownership of the area has been maintained through the years by a strong lineage of hard working, prosperous, thrifty, and devoted tillers of the soil. Through 17Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drain Drainage District, "Watershed Work Plan, Musk- rat Creek Watershed," St. Johns, Michigan, 1959, p. 4. (Mimeographed). 181bid. 25 partnerships, inheritance and close ties, these German fam- ilies will continue, as they have in the past, to follow their main interest and occupation, that being farming. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS Technique The subject of project effectiveness has been a major concern to every person, group, or agency that has expended money, in an attempt to obtain better returns. Likewise, in the Morris Drain Watershed Project, federal and local money was invested in the improvement of Morris Drain and the further installation of conservation prac- tices on the affected farm land. Therefore, this study re- sults in evaluation of the physical effectiveness of the Morris Drain Project. As previously mentioned, this par- ticular project was selected for study since it was the first watershed project in Michigan installed with aid pro- vided through Public Law 566. The method for data collection was a questionnaire administered by the researcher to each farm owner and/or operator within the watershed boundary. This particular method was selected after considering the following points: 26 27 l. The size of the watershed and the number of farms involved was small enough to effectively utilize this method. 2. The proximity of the study area to the Michigan State University campus required little travel time. 3. The feeling that the personal interviews would not only maximize local participation and in- crease resident identification with the study but also result in a higher accuracy of data collected. The final form of the questionnaire evolved through several reviews by state and local soil conservation staffs and by Dr. Clifford Humphrys, Professor, Michigan State Uni- versity. To test the effectiveness of the questionnaire, three farmers were utilized to act as a pretest sample. The interview sessions with each farm owner and/or operator were conducted during the months of May and June, 1972. Before each session began, the researcher presented the interviewee a statement of credentials on Clinton County Soil Conservation District stationary which was signed by Mr. Clarence Manning, Vice-Chairman, Clinton County Soil Conservation District. The letter in its entirety is in the Appendix. Upon receiving consent of the interviewee, the approximately 20 minute interview was conducted. Due to the 28 seasonal timing of the interview sessions, many of the farmers were attempting to get their crops planted, there- fore, at no time did the researcher attempt to question a farmer who was engated in spring planting. The entire list of farmers contributing data for the study is presented in the Appendix. Questionnaire Categories The questionnaire covered a variety of variables related to determining the physical effectiveness of the project. This wide spectrum of variables was desirable in an attempt to probe possible effects of the watershed proj- ect on the farmers. The questionnaire in its entirety ap- pears in the Appendix. As with most questionnaires, especially those ad- ministered personally, there are a certain amount of defi- nitional problems that need additional clarification. A short list of terms pertaining to the questionnaire follow the questionnaire in the Appendix. Questionnaire Interpretation The questionnaire provided for a variety of re- sponses. Both open and closed response questions were in- cluded in an attempt to offer the interviewee not only an opportunity to provide the factual data but also voice his general opinions on the project. 29 Items 1, 2, and 3 of the questionnaire are for the most part self—explanatory. The data requested was primar- ily of a factual nature. This data would illustrate the changes and trends in the watershed that could be related to the project. Item 4 needs a degree of interpretative explanation. The first question concerning the status of the interviewee with the Soil Conservation District can be determined with a yes or no. Parts a and b concerning the status of the farm conservation plan can be likewise answered with a yes or no. Part c deals with the conservation practices that have been defined in the list of definitions. The list originated from the Morris Drain Watershed Work Plan. The intent here was to draw comparisons from the watershed work plan projections with the present figure and future inten- tions of the farmers. Concerning item 5, the response depends on the re- ply given in item 4, part c. If the response in item 4, part c was affirmative, then item 5 could be omitted. Item 6, part a, is directed toward identifying the existing land use pattern of each farm. The data received was evaluated in terms of land use patterns prior to the watershed project and the existing land use patterns. Part b is involved with determining the types of crops raised, the number of acres planted and the average yields of each crop. To aid in determining the number of acres planted 30 and the average yields, the farmer was to average his past three years. It was felt this would give an accurate esti- mate of each farmer's situation. The field crops of corn, wheat, oats, and soybeans were measured in bushels per acre. Hay was measured in tons per acre. Pounds per acre was used in yield determination of white beans and mint. Part c of item 6 was presented to the farmer in an attempt to deter- mine if the project had any effect on his preplant tillage techniques. Changes that could be included would be fewer trips over field to prepare the seedbed, mellower soil, earlier planting, etc. Part d, like part c, was given to determine if the project had any effect on the individual farmers crop selection. In item 7, the first query can be satisfied with either a yes or no reply. If a negative reply is recorded, then parts a, b, and c can be omitted, but part d could be asked. Yet, if a positive reply is indicated, then proceed to the remaining parts. In part a, the total number of feet of tile installed is requested. Part b was asked to deter- mine how much tile was laid before the project's completion. Part c determines if any correlation exists between the chan— nel improvement and the installation of additional tile. Part d probes into the future plans of the individual farmer in terms of his additional utilization of tiling. Item 8 deals with the identical points as does item 7, except this item is directed toward evaluating open drains. 31 Items 9.and 10 offer the farmer the chance to air any adverse opinions or feelings concerning the watershed project. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS Introduction Due to the diversity of the variables sampled in the questionnaire, the analysis categories will be sepa- rated into two areas; general farm data and specific farm data. The general farm data includes items presented to provide a feeling of the area; in terms of tenure, farm type, farmer affiliation and farm size. The specific farm data includes the variables that can be directly related to the watershed project. These would encompass specific conservation practices, livestock, land use, cropping patterns, tile and open drain utilization. Also, within each data area, the information will be further divided into the categories of soil conservation district coopera- tor, noncooperator and riparian landowners. The figures listed as totals for the area will be a summation of the cooperator and noncooperator data. The riparian data is presented for comparative purposes. Within each area, trends and relationships will be presented to illustrate the changes derived from the watershed project. 32 33 ‘General Farm Data Tenure of the farmers is the first variable to be analyzed. Out of the total 67 farmers in the watershed, 71.6 percent have resided there longer than twelve years, as shown in Table 1. Subsequently, they were farming in the area before the project construction was initiated. The data illustrated the fact that farmers with tenure greater than 12 years tended to employ a greater number of conservation practices, as opposed to farmers whose tenure was less. Closely associated with tenure is the farm turn- over rate. Presently there exists a relatively high rate of farm ownership change. In the last three years, 16.4 percent of the total farm numbers have changed, as illus- trated in Table 1. This turnover has involved 12.9 per- cent of the total watershed area. The ownership change can be largely attributed to the number of older farmers retiring and thus, turning the land over to younger farmers. Another point of comparison is the ratio of soil conservation district cooperators to those who are not cooperators. As represented in Table l, 38 out of 67 farmers or 56.7 percent are cooperators. Also, all of these cooperating farmers indicated they did have working conservation plans for their farms. As the data reveals, the noncooperators did not have working conservation plans. 34 .mcssHoo Hmst>Hch Ho ucouhomm o.ooH OH o.OOH mN o.oOH mm o.oOH no mHmuoe N.Hw mH o.mo oN n.mm wN o.Hn we +NH m.o H m.o N m.n m m.n m HHIN o o e.m H m.m N m.w m use m.NH N u.ON o H.mH m e.oH HH m-o mwcoouom Nonssz audaoyom Honssz «Hemogom AODEJZ mucooNom Nonssz mkMM» mamHAmem mpoumuomooocoz mpoumpomoou mHoEAmm HH< ONSOOH .eoHpmoHHHmmmHo HoEHmm kn OHSOOH Ho mpwow .H oHan 35 Out of the 38 cooperators, l4 rented additional farm land, of which 8 indicated the rented land was under a working conservation plan. On the other hand, only 2 noncoopera- tors rented land; both of whom had no conservation plans. Of the 16 riparian owners, 12 were cooperators and had conservation plans on all land they farmed. The remaining 4 were noncooperators and had no conservation plans on file with the Soil Conservation Service. Out of the total watershed area of 8,749 acres, 70.7 percent of the area was owned by cooperators. On a per farm basis, the cooperators farms averaged 163 acres, the noncooperators averaged 89 acres, and the riparians averaged 150.6 acres. These figures clearly indicate the majority of the watershed land was under working conser- vation plans. To summarize, the present farm size was computed to be approximately 130 acres in comparison with the Watershed Work Plan which stated the average size to be 127 acres.1 These figures would tend to indicate that the total farm numbers and average farm size has gener- ally remained stable since the project was initiated in 1959. 1Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Morris Drainage District, "Watershed Work Plan, Muskrat Creek Watershed," (St. Johns, Michigan, 1959), p. 4. (Mimeographed) 36 Likewise, the farm type change has also been small. Presently, there are 18 cash grain farms, 46 cash grain and livestock farms, and 3 farms classified as "other." The other farm category includes those lands which are not used for the raising of livestock or grain crops. The cooperators, noncooperators and riparians exhibit similar farm type preferences. The cooperators have 30 cash grain and livestock operations, while the remaining 8 have only cash grain operations. Similarly, the non- cooperators have 16 farms classified as cash grain and livestock, and 10 farms classified as only cash grain operations. In similar manner, the riparians operate 12 cash grain and livestock farms, while the remaining 4 operate only cash grain farms. In describing the farm type change, it was observed of the farmers that have been in operation for more than 12 years, only 2 cooperators and 2 noncooperators have deleted livestock from their operations. In contrasting circumstances, 3 cooperators and l noncooperator have expanded from cash grain to include livestock in their operations.’ Also, only 1 noncooperator has switched from livestock to only cash grain. For comparative purposes, the riparian data exhibits similar trends in that l coopera- tor and 2 noncooperators have deleted livestock from their operations. On the other hand, 1 cooperator and 2 non- cooperators have expanded operations to include livestock. 37 The data exhibits a general trend for the farmers to include livestock into the farm operation. The water- shed project has a secondary effect, to the extent that the utilization of conservation practices enabled the farmer to raise more feed grain and, therefore, have the potential to feed more livestock. Specific Farm Data The implementation of additional conservation practices are directly relatable to the watershed project. As illustrated in Table 2, the present status of conserva- tion practice utilization is given, in addition to the projected watershed work plan figures.2 The watershed work plan figures represent the optimum number of conser- vation practices that could be utilized in an effort to increase agricultural productivity and still maintain soil conservation. The large variation between the pro- posed and the present status of conservation practices can be attributed to the changing of the individual farmers management techniques resulting from increased farm technology, i.e., larger machinery and improvement of prevplant tillage techniques. The column titled future additions was derived from the responses given to that subject in the questionnaire. The figures are 2Ibid., p. 9. 38 Heosamgmooesz .E .m .HmmmH .aamHnon .mcnou .pmu :.po:mpopmz xeopu panxmsz .eaHa xhoz vosmhouwz: .uoHHumHo ommcHaAa mHNHoz paw poHHumHo :oHum>Hom:ou HHom Hucsou coucHHum II mayo :oHuoouond mH no oHH omH mnH < UGOH awakenH mOAo pcoso>onmEH hm hm vm ooH mm HmH < OHSHmMA II monsuoshum HON“ vH w mH oH 5N Honssz Icou :onONm MGHQQOHU o mH mH omm HHN Nm mono< QHHum mm Sm mm cm I- wHH mvo< wcHAaoHu Iw. Emma :H ooE mm o NNH oom mm NNH mono< .nuwamm on o omva oome II omva poo chade a xmonneaHz m.m o 4H on .. 4H mouo< .maH mou< OMHHEHHR mono wwwHHHH BN5 me nwnH oooH ow man < EDEHGHZ Immonu Ho>ou 0mm vN Hum ooom mmH mmw mono< HoucHz . . . . mxmzhouwz m H c H m m mH H m HH mono< mmmhu :oHumN muouwnomooo mu Oumhomo «2830265 mcoHp 9:de HH< ousmmo: mooauompm -HHHDD -eoz Rm -ou Rm :aHa Ego: Ipr< -mspmpm Ho cod . A pm>uomcou :OHmeHm GOHHNNHHHHD :OHpmNHHHps uocmHOpwz annusm uaomoad muHca . .coHpmNHHHp: OOHpomnm coHum>uomsou .N oHan 39 presented for all farmers in an attempt to illustrate future intentions of implementing conservation practices. In all cases, with the exception of two-land clearing and pasture improvement, the cooperators have utilized more conservation practices than the noncoopera- tors. This statement can be deemed reasonable, in light of the fact that the cooperators own over 70 percent of the land, have longer tenure, and operate larger farms. Due to the economy of scale, the generally smaller nonv cooperator finds it difficult to invest money into conser- vation practices. The smaller operator generally places a higher priority on the more essential items, such as yearly supplies. Consequently, the smaller operator places a lower priority on the longer term conservation practices. In Table 2, the column for riparian owners was included as a comparison, between the number of conserva- tion practices the farmers on the drain applied as opposed to the number of conservation practices the farmer further removed from the channel applied. As pointed out earlier, the riparian column is only presented for a comparison, and it is not additive to the cooperator and noncooperator column to obtain the allsfarm column figure. Two of the most important conservation practices in evaluating this watershed project, are the installation of tile and open drains. Both of these conservation 40 practices exhibit a direct relationship to the channel improvement, which provided an adequate outlet for the tile and open drains. By the availability of a better outlet, more potentially productive farm land could be drained and farmed profitably on a yearly basis. The utilization of tile and open drains is ex- tensive, as illustrated in Table 3. Of the 38 coopera- tors, 35 have installed tile, while 15 have installed open drains. A similar trend is true with the noncoopera- tors in which 16 have utilized tile, and 8 have utilized open drains. The riparian farmers indicated the same preference in that 12 have installed tile, and 7 have installed open drains. Even though the riparian farmers only number 16, they own 27.5 percent of the watershed land. This sizable ownership is reflected in the number of tile and openedrain footage installed by the land- owners. The riparians should receive the greatest amount of benefits since it is they who, on a prorated basis, pay the highest drain tax per acre for the improvement of the channel. As the previous table illustrates, there has been an increasing preference for tile, and, consequently, a decreasing preference for open drains. The farmers are installing more tile, even though the cost per foot for installation is considerably higher than for open drains. The basis for converting to tile is derived from a number 41 HwocmmywooEqu .N .d .HmmmH .ammfinqu .magoe .pmv :.emamtppaz Hpopu pmpxmsz .emHa HA0: eocmtppmz: .uoHHumHQ omwnHmAQ mHHHoz paw HOHHHmHQ :oHum>Homcou HHom xucsou :OHGHHUN mcoHHUOHOAm -- oww.44 -- -- ooo.om -- a cmHa MAO: wonmuouaz NAC.NH omm.n Nw4.m mam.ONN wmm.mmH Emo.nw mcmHnmmHm HmH.eH omm.e H4N.@ SSH.ON wwe.m wuo.oe weepmhpaooueoz Amm.Hm mo4.m N¢H.NN Amm.HMN mmo.Nov N04.Nmm wheneuomoou wmn.m4 mmm.eH mme.Hm mmm.4ow mwm.HH4 04H.mmm HH< HOOnOHm nuanohm pummohm pummopm mHmpoH Houm< opomom kuoe Houm< opomom eoHuwuHmHmmeo HoczoccmH Hpoomv mcHaHQ mono Hpoomv oHHH II II'I .aoHuwNHHHH: :Hmnw Como mam OHHH Ho :omHnmmEou .m oHamH 42 of reasons: no open drains to maintain, tiling does a superior job of field drainage, and no land is taken out of production as would be the case with open drains. As related to drainage, the researcher went one step further and asked each farmer to appraise the extent of his problem areas caused by the lack of adequate drain- age. The cooperators reported to have 423 acres in this category. The noncooperators listed 516 acres as problem areas. The above figures total to 939 acres or 10.7 per- cent of the entire watershed area. This clearly indicates more drainage work needs to be done, to enable the farmers to receive even greater benefits from the project. Associated with conservation practices, especially tiling and open drains, are the land use changes which have occurred since completion of the channel improvement. The projected changes indicated in the watershed work plan are included for comparison in Table 4. The variation of the total acreage figure in the first column is the result of a number of house lots, with less than 10 acres, being sold. In all cases, with the exception of the noncoopera- tor column, a notable increase in cropland acreage is accompanied by a similar decrease in the remaining land use categories. The increase in cropland acreage is directly a result of the project's success, as far as enabling the farmers to utilize more conservation practices, 43 .poHHumHQ ommanHQ mHHAoz paw HOHHpmHQ :oHuw>Hom:ou HHom xpcsou coyaHHum muonmmpmooEsz .m .a .HmmmH .:EMHEUH2 .meeOm .Umv :.ep;mgopmz Hmong pmgxmsz .cmHa Ago: epnmtppaz: N.o- o.HHe.N o.mHe.N 0.0 o.oom.~ o.Hom.N o.mou.w Hmpoe e.HN- m.oOH m.mmH o.m+ o.omH o.me H.m0N Rogue m.H- o.mmH o.HOH H.o- m.HmN m.emN o.Nwm mwooz w.o- m.omH m.HOH o.o o.mom o.mom o.onm agapmmm o.N+ c.0mm.H o.nmm.H m.o- m.NeN.H m.NNN.H m.mmm.o ecmHgogo owcmnu powwohm omcmnu poonopm ucoohom Hammopm opomom unoopom ucomopd ogomom MMWMOMMWMH xpomoumu Om: wcmH mcmHHmmHm onpmHomoouzoz EDAmNoumz m.o- o.me.o o.wom.o N.o- o.m¢u.w o.mou.w o.mou.w Hmpop m.wH- o.MNN n.muN «.m- o.mHe A.No< H.moN Hague w.HH- o.nmm m.moo m.w- m.mnm o.oom o.Nwm mwooz m.mH- o.an w.meN m.w- o.Nom w.omm o.onm Dynammm H.m+ o.NwH.m o.mNo.m N.N+ m.mea.o m.mmn.c m.mmm.o ecmHQOAu omcmcu Hoonopd omcmnu Huanopm Hemopom Haemogm owomom pcoopom Hammopd ouomom :oHpoonopm zhomoumu :mHm Hpoz cosmHOHHZ om: wcmH mpoumhomoou mspmm HH< .mcomHHmmEoo om: pumH .v oHan 44 especially tile and open drains. Now farm land that once was classified as too wet can be farmed profitably. The categories of pasture and woods declined markedly with the conversion of the land into field crops. The large difference between the work plan projection for "other" and the actual figures is not clear. The ”other” land use category did decrease in all other instances, except for the noncooperators, where it increased. These figures clearly indicate the noncooperator received little benefit from the project in terms of land use change. Synonymous with land use is the cropping patterns. As represented in Table 5, the watershed work plan data for cropland yields and acreages was collected for all farmers in the watershed by the Soil Conservation Service. Therefore, only a comparison of all farm totals, before and present, is possible. A direct comparison between the watershed project and the increases in yield has limi- tations in that other factors besides improved drainage, have played a major role in obtaining yield increases. The other factors referred to are primarily advanced farm technology—-hybrid seeds, commercial fertilizer, and herbi- cides. As an illustration of a general trend, compare the yield figures for the cooperators and noncooperators as opposed to the all farm total. In all cases, with the exception of oats, the cooperators have an edge in the 45 .HmmmH .emmflgon .mchemq Sammy :.xpmassm wHoH> paw om: wcmq mop< pHmocomIIwonmnoumz xoonu umhmeZ: .OOH>Aom QOHpm>Homcou HHomm o.ov N.m o.mN N.N w.m «.mH N.HN v.w N.mv m.w v.Hm m.om mcmHnmmHm I I o o o o o o o a a a WHO“ o mN N m m m H om m we o HH m NV 0 HH o N» c we Imaomooocoz o.ov H.H o.mN m.o o.v o.NN v.mo n.w n.mv m.m m.Nm o.om mnoumhomoou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mcHOH> :de m . o Nm o m < z < z m N o mH o He O NH o 0N o NH 0 mm o mv HA0: mmmH o.oe m.o m.oN o.o o.m H.VN N.mo H.m o.mv H.oH m.mw m.wv mHoENmm HH< oao< pcwH Ono< vzmH oao< wqu Oho< ucmH ono< wcmH ono< wcmH pom Imouu Hon Imoau you Imohu pom Igonu pom Imono Mom Inchu :oHpmo vHoH> mo N OHOH> mo N OHOH> mo N uHoH> mo N EHOH> mo N wHOH> mo N IHmHmmmHu 90:30 unHz mcmoaxom kw: mpmo pawn: choc .mcpoupnm mchmoau .m oHnmb 46 yield per acre figures. This advantage in yield per acre can be attributed to many factors, including economy to scale, increased utilization of conservation practices, and adoption of advanced farm technology methods. Even though the cooperators and riparians devote a higher percentage of their land to corn production, the nonco- operators have a higher percentage of land in wheat, oats, and hay production. The individual farmers were also asked to comment on any change in cropland planting preparation they had experienced that could relate to the project. The majority of the comments came from the cooperators, but all indi- cated items such as earlier field work, earlier planting, mellower ground, improved soil structure, increased use of minimum tillage, etc., as benefits derived from the project. Also, the farmers commented on crop selection changes that could be attributed to the project. The majority of the answers were directly dependent on their individual livestock situations. This usually followed the sequence of the more grain produced; the more live- stock raised. Closely related to land use, cropping pat- terns, and farm types are the species and number of livestock raised by the farmers. Often the number of livestock exhibits a direct relationship to an improvement that provided a greater amount of feed grain. 47 Table 6 illustrates the species of livestock pre- sently owned as compared to pre-project figures in relation to the various operator-owner classifications. The trend is quite clear. The cooperators and riparians have increased in their livestock numbers, while the nonco- operators have decreased. One can infer that the coopera- tors and riparian owners have experienced greater benefits from the project, judging from the increase in livestock numbers and feed grain yields. In addition, each farmer was asked if any changes in their livestock numbers or species could be related to the watershed project. The majority of the farmers indi- cated the project had enabled them to produce more feed grains and, therefore, raise more livestock. The majority also indicated the benefits derived from the watershed project did influence their decisions to alter their livestock numbers. 48 II II II o.ooH+ oH o II II II o.ooH oH o momno: II II II o.ooHI o OON m.mH mmNm cmNN m.m mmNm ommN mcox0Hco o.ooHI o omH o.ooH cm o n.0wI 0N omH m.mmI on omH moocm w.mm va omm N.mHI mmN com H.Hv oHvN ONvH o.mm QEON ONNH mmom N.wm mow HNH w.mNI HmH NNN w.No mom com «.mv meH Nmo moom n.mo mum mNH m.vHI on oNH n.wN Hwn 5mm N.mN mww mwo thma OMMNAU xHucomoam ouomom owmmnu.>Hp=omonm Onomom omwmnu xHucomonm oncmom ommwnu prcomonm Ohomom HOOHmO>HH mcwHammHm mAOHNNOQooocoz mNOHNNOQOOU manna HH< nnuHuuuuHHHHHuuuuuuuuuunuuwuuullllnu um NI .mcomHnmmEoo xooumo>HH .o oHamH CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The Muskrat CreeksMorris Drain Watershed project can be classified as successful. The primary reason for the success of the project rests upon the residents of the watershed. The residents were able to identify a common problem, band together, and cooperate with state and federal agencies in an attempt to solve the problem. The problem was one of inadequate drainage and flooding of highly productive farm land. The Clinton County Soil Conservation District provided the organizational struc- ture for the watershed residents. The Soil Conservation Service provided the technical assistance to the water- shed in terms of channel design and individual landowners' implementation of conservation practices. Financial assistance, for the channel improvement of Morris Drain, came from the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 566, and the costvsharing assistance, for the individual landowners' implementation of conservation practices, came from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The combination of all of the 49 50 preceding units enabled the initiation of the Morris Drain Watershed project. Only after the cooperation of the afore mentioned units, which resulted in the improved channel, could the physical aspect of the project be evaluated. As a general overview of benefit distribution, the basic conclusion is that the cooperators have received more benefits than have the noncooperators. This is due to the fact that the cooperators have invested more in conservation prac- tices in an attempt to realize greater productivity from the land, while at the same time attempting to maintain the present condition of the soil. The data for the most part bears out these statements. Other factors, also, point toward the success of the project. As evidenced by the preceding data, the relative long tenure of the farmers and the large per- centage (70%) of the watershed area being under farm con- servation plans, the majority of the farmers have utilized long—planning horizons. The longvplanning horizon allows the farmers to view the utilization of the conser— vation practices as a longvterm investment. This is necessary in order to obtain the maximum return from this type of investment. The conservation plan, as designed by the farmer, with technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service, provides a priority-time guide in the selecting of the practices that would resolve the 51 cooperators soil and water conservation problems. It should be noted that without the financial assistance as received through the various Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service programs, many of the farmers who did implement conservation practices would have been un- able to do so. The evidence of a longerange planning horizon is clearly depicted in the tables (2 and 3) dealing with conservation practices. The projections of the watershed work plan for conservation practice implementation deviates from the present number of conservation practices imple- mented. The variation can be attributed to advancing farm technology. In some instances the new technology has reduced or eliminated the need for such practices as strip-cropping, land smoothing, winter cover crops, and open drains, in favor of increased use of minimum tillage and tile drainage. As the data illustrated, the improvement of Morris Drain and the increased use of conservation practices have ultimately resulted in a substantial shift in land use patterns toward more cropland, and a definite increase in crop yields and livestock numbers. In all cases, the cooperators experienced a more radical shift in land use patterns, as opposed to the noncooperators. Many of the farmers indicated they received not only primary benefits, in terms of improved water management, but also secondary 52 benefits, such as earlier field work and planting dates, longer growing season, better soil structure, increased land value, and less maintenance required on roads and culverts. Tflue crOp yields in all crops increased according to pre-project data, as compared with the present study data. It should be noted that the watershed project did enable the yields to increase, but other factors, such as improved hybrid seed, increased use of fertilizer and herbicides, and adoption of new tillage methods, have also aided in the increase of yields. The cooperators experienced a greater increase in yields, as compared to the noncooperators. The factors behind the greater yield increases by the cooperator are, as discussed previously, primarily the result of larger farms, longer tenure, and a greater number of applied conservation practices. It is interesting to note that the noncooperators had a higher percentage of land devoted to the crops of wheat, oats, and hay; whereas, the cooperators primarily concen- trated on corn production. There seems to be no readily discernable explanation for this trend. The livestock numbers exhibit a direct correlation to the crop yields and crop acreages; as the yields and acreages increase, so do the livestock numbers. For all the farms, the number of beef cattle, hogs, and dairy cattle, in that order, increased the greatest on a 53 percentage basis. The cooperators livestock numbers increased the greatest on a percent basis. To the con- trary, the noncooperators experienced a decrease in beef cattle, hogs, and dairy cattle. The only feasible expla- nation for this trend is that a number of the small non- cooperating farmers sought employment off the farm to bolster their income. Consequently, they had less time to devote to the raising of livestock, so they either decreased the herd size or dropped livestock from the farm program. In view of the previous data and discussion, the majority of the farmers in the watershed have seen their levels of productivity and income rise substantially since the completion of the project. Problem Areas and Recommendations After any project is completed there will still be areas where problems exist. Such is the case here; the farmers in the upper reaches of the watershed were little, if at all, affected by the channel improvement. The origi- nal channel design was to provide these farmers with an adequate outlet for their tile lines. Yet, when the channel was completed, it wasn‘t deep enough to allow for adequate fall in the tile lines. Consequently, the farmers paid their drain taxes, yet received no direct drainage benefit. After conducting some research, it was determined 54 that the grade of the drain was so slight that deepening the channel at the upper end would yield a negative grade to drain. On the other hand, deepening the whole channel was not economically feasible. As a result, an alarming number of improperly drained acres are located in this headwater region. Another problem area, as identified by some of the farmers, concerned the lack of cooperation needed to reopen and maintain the smaller tributary drains which would allow these farmers to drain their lands. This problem contri- buted to the high number of improperly drained acres. Many of these farmers indicated they were willing to utilize a greater number of conservation practices, if they could get the tributary drains reopened. Both of these problems illustrate areas where the Clinton County Soil Conservation District could become more involved. The method and/or degree of involvement is not for the researcher to determine; nonetheless, the problem areas do exist, and review and action is needed. At the initiation of the Muskrat Creek Watershed project, only the Morris Drain channel improvement project was determined to be economically feasible on the basis of a benefit-cost analysis. The completion of the Morris Drain project made it possible for the Lehman Drain, a tributary of the Morris from the west, to be cleaned and deepened three years ago. The landowners served by the 55 Lehman Drain are not beginning to realize the increased drainage benefits. Therefore, the total benefits received from the Morris Drain project are likely to be increased in the near future. The Lehman Drain project, like the Morris Drain project, heavily involved the participation of the Clinton County Soil Conservation District and the local Soil Con— servation Service work unit at St. Johns, Michigan. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Akers, James, compiler. Isopachous Contous—-Drift Thick- ness Map 3528. Lansing: Geological Survey 1v151on, 1c igan Department of Conservation, 1938. Daboll, Judge S. B. Past and Present of Clinton County, Michi an. Chicago: 5. J. Clarke Publishing Company, 1906. Hill, Russell G. and Dersch, Eckhart. Watersheds for Water Mana ement. Extension Bulletin 364. Michi- gan State University. Cooperative Extension Service. East Lansing, Michigan, 1971. Michigan Department of Agriculture and State Soil Conser- vation Committee. Michigan Soil Conservation Districts, Conservation Self Government. East lansing, MiEhigan, 1971. Michigan, State of. Department of Conservation, Geologi- cal Survey Division. Publication 49. Lansing, Michigan, 1955. Michigan Statutes. Michigan Soil Conservation Districts Law. Act 297'of the Public Acts of 1937 as amended. Powers, W. L., and Teeters, T. A. H. Land Drainage. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons,’Inc., 1922. Triennial Atlas and Plat Book; Clinton County, Michigan. ROEkard, Illinois: *Rockford Map PUblishers, Inc., 1970. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva- tion Service. Aerial Photographs of Clinton County, Michigan, Scale 1:13400, Flight 1965. . National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs, 1967. StatistiEal Bulletin No. 461. Wash- ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. 56 57 . Soil Conservation Service. History of the Soil Conservation Service in Michigan, Chronological EVénts andiRelatediActivities. *East Lansing, Michigan, 1972. . Soil Conservation Service. Soil Mgp of Clinton County, Michigan. St. John's, Miéhigan,71967. Soil Survey Manual. Agricultural Handbook No. 18. Washington, D1C.: Government Printing Office, 1951. Yearbook of Agriculture, 1955. Washington, D.C.: Government PrififingiOffice, 1955. Yearbook of Agriculture, 1957. Washington, D.C.: Government’Printifig Office, 1957. Yearbook of Agriculture, 1958. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1958. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Census of Agriculture, 1969. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vol. 1, Part 13, Section 2, 1969. U.S. Statutes. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. Public Law 566, 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666. Whiteside, E. P.; Schneider, I.F.; Cook, R. L. Soils of Michi an. Extension Bulletin E—630. U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station. East Lansing, Michigan, 1968. APPENDIX 100 SOUTH OTTAWA STREET ST. ";‘P*\:» Q JOHNS. In . \- ~~.-~- d‘ ' - “\xma‘. MICHIGAN 48879 February 29, 1972 To: Landowners in the Muskrat Creek Watershed (Morris Drain) Dear Sir: Roger Titus, a graduate student at Michigan State University, is working on his master's thesis—~"Evaluation of the MUskrat Creek Watershed" in cooperation with the Clinton County Soil Conservation District. He is interested in the conservation practices you have applied, and their contribution to the planned land treatment program in this watershed. I hope you will have time to talk with him. Sincerely, @xwm flee/WW7. Clarence Manning Vice-Chairman Clinton Co. S.C.D. br 58 7 Ruth 7' r.1".'\ trrnrtrxg mtfit'ci on (“ADC TUI'K'RT MORRIS DRAIN LANDOWNERS INTERVIEWED Barber, Ben Barnes, Carl Bauer, Leo Becken, Harold Bennett, Glenn Biergan, William Boughton, O. Briggs, K. Cattin, Richard Crandall, Tom Davidson, Ed. Davis, Bill Dell, Ronald Drake, Melvin Dumond, Herman Falor, Merlin Fisher, William Gillett, Mabel Gray, Wayne Howe, Byron Huhn, Norman Kebler, Howard Keilen, Herbert Keilen, James Kline, Ronald Kneep, Richard Kolp, Joseph Lehman, Bernard Lietzke, Carl Mankey, Charles Manning, Clarence McDiarmid, Everett Miller, Don Miller, J. W. Moore, John Nourse, Robert Platte, Duane Platte, Gene Platte, Norman Platte, William Powers, Cecil Rademacher, Elmer Rosier, Earl Rueckert, Vic Ryan, Tom Schneider, Ed. Simon, Arnold Smith, Mable 59 Talmadge, Frederick Thelen, A. P. Thelen, Henry Thelen, Mike Thelen, Sylvester Triewieler, Caroline Triewieler, Francis Triewieler, Leland Vanzee, Dave Vanzee, Bill Weiland, Leon Whitney, Adeline Wieber, Edward Wirth, Anthony Wirth, William Wolfort, Leon PJH MUSKRAT CREEK QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Name- 2. Tenure on present farm years 3. a) Size of farm ; Before project HO ‘O WVO‘IU'I-fiuNI-J b) Farm type . cash grain only livestock only cash grain 8 livestock c) Livestock (kind and number) , I Before project , 3 d) Was any of the changes in number related to the Watershed Project? If yes, which ones and to what degree? Are you a Soil Conservation District Cooperator? a) If so, do you have a working conservation plan? b) If you rent farm land, does it have a conservation plan? c) Which conservation practices have and/or will you implement(ed)? Forest Land Protection and Improvement ADDITIONAL PRESENT FUTURE TREATMENT UNITS UNITS Grass waterways Acres Winter cover crops ” Minimum tillage " Wildlife Area Imp. " Windbreak Planting Rods Land Smoothing Acres Land Clearing " Strip Cropping or Contour Cultivation " Erosion Control Structure Drop Spillways No. Pasture Improvement Acres 60 61 5. If you are not a district cooperator, are you employing soil and.water conservation measures? If so, which ones (refer to previous list)? 6. Land use changes due to the project a) 13) Land Use Before (Acres) After (Acres) Cropland Pasture Woods Other Total CroppingPatterns Present Yields # Acres Planted Corn Wheat Oats Hay White Beans Mint Other Cropland planting preparation - any change? Describe Crop selection changes due to project? If any list. any of your fields tiled? If so, how many rods have you installed? Of this number, how much was installed before and af- ter project completion? 10. 62 c) Did the project enable you to install more tile than would have been otherwise possible? d) Future plans? Do you have open drains (or ditches) on your farm? a) If so, how many rods have you installed? b) Of this number, how much was installed before and af- ter project completion? c) Did the project enable you to install more drains than would have been otherwise possible? d) Future plans? . Have you experienced any losses due to flooding since the project completion? If so, describe. Did the installation of the watershed project have any ad- verse effects on your farming system? If yes, in what man- ner did it effect you? 1. 63 QUESTIONNAIRE DEFINITIONSl Conservation Plan: A document containing material relative to the conservatiOn use and treatment of soil and water con- servation use and treatment of soil and water resources of an entire individual land unit, including but not limited to appropriate soil, water and plant inventories, with needed interpretations, maps, statements about critical conserva- tion problems, record of decisions for the conservation and development of soil and water resources as made, and alterna- tives for sound land use (5) and conservation treatment when conservation decisions have not been made. The plan should eventually contain all major conservation decisions to assure that the entire unit of land will be used and treated to achieve the conservation objectives. Grassed Waterway or Outlet: A natural or constructed water- way or outlet shaped or graded and established in suitable vegetation as needed for the safe disposal of runoff from a field, diversion, terrace, or other structure. Winter Cover Crop: Protecting the soil during the dormant season by.planting suitable crops to prevent erosion from wind and water. 4. Minimum Tillage: Limiting the number of cultural operations 5. to those that are properly timed and essential to produce a crop and prevent soil damage. Wildlife Area Improvement: Retaining, creating, or managing wildlife habitat. 6. Windbreak: A strip or belt of trees or shrubs established within or adjacent to a field to aid in preventing wind ero- sion. Land Smoothing: Removing irregularities on the land surface by use of special equipment. Ordinarily this does not re- quire a complete-grid survey. This does not include the "Floating" done as a regular maintenance practice on irrigated land or the "planning" done as the final step in Irrigation Land Leveling or Drainage Land Grading. 1Correspondence from Warren Fitzgerald, Soil Conserva-‘ tion Service, East Lansing, Michigan, September 5, 1972. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 64 Land Clearin : The removal of woody vegetation in an attempt to a ter land use to either pasture land or crop- land. Stripcrgppin : Growing crops in a systematic arrangement of strips or. anks to reduce wind or water erosion. The crops are arranged so that a strip of grass or close- growing crop is alternated with a strip of clean-tilled crop or fallow, or a strip of grass is alternated with a close-growing crop. Contouring; Farming sloping cultivated land in such a wayifhat plowing, preparing land, planting, and cultiva- ting are done on the contour. This includes following established grades of terraces, diversions, or contour strips. Erosion Control Structures: A structure to stabilize the grade or to control head cutting in natural or ar- tificial channels. Does not include straight pipe over- fall structures used in drainage and irrigation systems or structures for water control. Pasture Improvement: The renovation of pasture via the removal of woody vegetation, additional fertilization, and reseeding in an attempt to improve productivity. Forest Land Protection and Improvement: Improving wood- land by removing unmerchantable or unwanted trees, shrubs, or vines. Also excluding livestock from an area where grazing is not wanted. Open Drain: An open drainage ditch constructed to a des- ignated size and grade. To aid in removing surface water. Tile Drain: A conduit, such as tile, pipe, or tubing, in- stalled beneath the ground surface and which collects and/or conveys drainage water. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllIlIlIlllIlIII 31293 02173 0027