Spatial Similarities and Differences of Attributes of Three Subwatersheds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fort Hays State University FHSU Scholars Repository Master's Theses Graduate School Fall 2010 Spatial similarities and differences of attributes of three subwatersheds within the middle Smoky Hill river watershed and their relationship to instream total suspended solids Dustin Fross Fort Hays State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Fross, Dustin, "Spatial similarities and differences of attributes of three subwatersheds within the middle Smoky Hill river watershed and their relationship to instream total suspended solids" (2010). Master's Theses. 168. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/168 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of FHSU Scholars Repository. SPATIAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF ATTRIBUTES OF THREE SUBWATERSHEDS WITHIN THE MIDDLE SMOKY HILL RIVER WATERSHED AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO INSTREAM TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS being A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the Fort Hays State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science by Dustin Fross B.S., Fort Hays State University Date____________________ Approved ______________________________ Major Professor Approved ______________________________ Chair, Graduate Council GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL Committee Chair ______________________________________ Dr. Tom Schafer, Geosciences Professor Committee Member ______________________________________ Dr. Richard Lisichenko, Geosciences Professor Committee Member ______________________________________ Bill Heimann, Geosciences Adjunct Professor Kansas Department of Health and Environment Committee Member ______________________________________ James Leiker, Biology Adjunct Professor Big Creek Middle Smoky Hill River WRAPS i ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to spatially analyze the attributes of three subwatersheds, Hydrological Unit Code 12 (HUC 12), of the Middle Smoky Hill River Watershed in west-central Kansas and relate the variances of the attributes to the concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) entering the Smoky Hill River during storm events. This was accomplished by comparing land cover, including cropland, grassland, and urban factors; agricultural practices, such as tillage methods, condition of terraces, and the presence of grass waterways; geomorphology, including soil types, topography, and visible erosion; and lastly, precipitation variance. The three HUC 12s that were studied were Buffalo Creek, Landon Creek, and Oak Creek. Cumulative results found that when statistically ranking characteristics of the HUCs from most to least desired, the mean rank of Buffalo Creek was 1.6, which was statistically lower (t = -2.51) than Oak Creek with a mean rank of 2.2, which was statistically equal (t = -0.11) to Landon Creek with a mean rank of 2.2. Therefore, out of the three watersheds, Buffalo Creek contained the most desired attributes that minimized erosion. According to the statistics in this study, the primary determining factors as to the increased TSS concentrations for Landon and Oak Creek are an increase in the number of fields with visible erosion, increase in population density, increased amount of impervious surface, and a greater proportional area of highly erodible soils. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and support of many people. I thank Dr. Tom Schafer, my advisor, for guidance during this process. I also thank my graduate committee Dr. Richard Lisichenko, Mr. Bill Heimann, and Mr. James Leiker for their assistance and time in overseeing my thesis. I am extremely grateful for the assistance of Mrs. Stacie Minson and Mr. James Leiker of the Big Creek Middle Smoky Hill River Watersheds as well as Mr. Brent Goss, Mr. Brad Kratzer, and Mrs. Donna Fay Major who assisted in the watershed condition survey in their respective counties. Finally, I thank the many reviewers who reviewed and commented on my writings. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL................................................................... i ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 BASIC PRINCIPALS....................................................................................................3 Tillage Methods................................................................................................3 Suspended Sediment ........................................................................................4 Erosion by Water .............................................................................................4 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ..............................................................................................5 Effects of Tillage...............................................................................................5 Effects of Best Management Practices ...........................................................6 Effects of Land Use..........................................................................................7 Effects of Rangeland Management.................................................................7 DATA AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................................9 Stream Monitoring and Study Location........................................................9 Field Condition Assessment ..........................................................................14 Urban Factors.................................................................................................17 iv Topography ....................................................................................................17 Soils..................................................................................................................18 Precipitation ...................................................................................................18 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................20 Field Condition Assessment ..........................................................................20 Land Cover...........................................................................................20 Tillage Method.....................................................................................22 Rangeland Condition ...........................................................................24 Grass Waterways .................................................................................25 Terrace Height.....................................................................................25 Visible Erosion.....................................................................................27 Urban Factors.................................................................................................29 Topography ....................................................................................................30 Soils..................................................................................................................31 Precipitation ...................................................................................................32 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION .........................................................................33 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................37 v LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Stream assessment conditions as of June and July of 2008 at the stream monitoring sample sites. ...............................................................................13 Table 2. 2010 Watershed Condition Survey: Land cover classification summary with number and percentage of hectares.......................................................21 Table 3. 2010 Watershed Condition Survey: Tillage method summary with total assessed and percentage of hectares. ............................................................22 Table 4. 2010 Watershed Condition Survey: Rangeland condition summary with total assessed and percentage of hectares. ....................................................24 Table 5. 2010 Watershed Condition Survey: Presence of a grass waterway summary with number of fields and percentage of assessed cropland fields. ..............25 Table 6. 2010 Watershed Condition Survey: Terrace height summary with number of fields and percentage of assessed cropland fields.........................................26 Table 7. 2010 Watershed Condition Survey: Visible erosion type summary with number of fields and percentage of assessed cropland fields. ......................27 Table 8. Soils summary of the subwatersheds............................................................31