United States
                 Environmental Protection
                 Region V
                Great Lakes National
                Program Office
                536 South Clark Street
                Chicago, Illinois 60605
CPA c^R/c or-_p
 j'\ _«-/  I.'*. ^
xlovenber 1 £79

     This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program
Office, Region V, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
              This study was conducted in cooperation with:

        Wisconsin Board of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
                          U.S. Geological Survey
                     U.S. Soil Conservation Service
                Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
             Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
          Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District
           Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
              National Association of Conservation Districts
                    The University of Wisconsin System
                       Village Board of Germantown
                         Washington County Board

                  The Washington County Project
                            Final Report

Development and Implementation of  a Sediment Control Ordinance or
Other Regulatory Mechanism: Institutional Arrangements necessary for
  Implementation of Control Methodology on Urban and Rural Lands.

                            F.W. Madison
              Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
             University of Wisconsin — Soil Science Department

                               J.L.  Arts
                            S.J. Berkowitz
                             E.E. Salmon
             University of Wisconsin — Water Resources Center
                             B.B. Hagman
                Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
                           Grant No. G005139
                    Project Officer — Ralph V. Nordstrom
                   Grants Officer — Ralph G. Christensen
                         Section 108(a) Program
                   Great Lakes National Program Office
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    536 South Clark Street, Room 932
                         Chicago, Illinois 60605


       Introduction  	'.'.'.'.	

  *I.  Legal and Institutional Unit Final Report  .                            T ,
          Summary of Goals and Accomplishments'
          The Institutional Setting
          Programs Completed in Washington County' .*. '.	     -A"?
          Implications for Future Sediment Control Programs''.'.'.'.'	     f,S
          References 	                        	     -L-OO
          Bibliography 	....'.....'..'.'.'..'.	     I~36

 *II.   Technical Unit Final Report 	
          Contents 		     II-i
          Figures 	   	   II-ii
            «j                         **•••••••••••••••••......            TT-I-J4
          Tcibl^s                                         ••••••••••••••.  -LJ.~*in

          Summary of Goals,  Methodology and 'pindings .'.'.'.'.'.'.	    jT~T
          Water  Quality Monitoring Network 	      	    tt~t
          Monitoring Results 	   	   IT 7q

          Operational Problems and Alternatives'of'the'Monitoring'system   IlI33
          Conservation Tillage Systems  	                        TT An
          Erosion  Control at Residential  Construction "sites	   TTSfi
         Models and Predictive Tools  	    	   -L-L-^O
         Future Research Needs 	    	   II~, .
         References  	          	   i:t-64

III.   Education and Information Program  Final Report                       TTT .,
         Contents 	         	      7.
         Introduction  	'.'.'.'.	  HI-ii
         Informational Activities  	."!.'!.'!!!.'!.'!.".'	   TTT~T!
         Interactional Activities	 ', I..'.......'.',.	   TTT A
         Summary 	                   	   111-4

         Bibliography 	"•'•"••.''.*.''-.*!.'!.'!.".'!.'!.'!."!.'!*;.'!.'.'.'  III-1Q
 *Detailed contents are presented at beginning  of  section.


     The Washington County Project was funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Section 108 of the 1972 amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500).  The Wisconsin Board of Soil
and Water Conservation Districts was the prime contractor for the project,
which also involved the University of Wisconsin-Extension, the Water Resources
Center of the University of Wisconsin System, the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Washington County Soil and Water
Conservation District.

     The overall project goal was to determine which institutional mechanisms
and land management changes would be most effective in reducing erosion
and sedimentation in Washington County, Wisconsin.  A reduction in sediment
loadings is needed to reach the 1983 water quality goal of fishable-swimmable
water established by P.L. 92-500.

     Washington County was selected for the project because it has a strong
rural tradition, but is under intense urbanizing pressure from the nearby
Milwaukee metropolitan area.  Thus, the county serves as an excellent
location to develop rural and urban sediment control programs.
                 Washington County Environmental Setting

     Washington  County  is  located in southeastern Wisconsin, northwest
 of  the Milwaukee metropolitan  areas.   In 1975 the county population was
 76,577, half of  which reside in 13 unincorporated towns, the remainder in
 2 cities  and 5 villages.   Farms account for  60% of  the  land area  in Washington
 County but  only  6% of the  county's population live  on farms.

     Land use patterns  in  Washington County  are representative  of many areas
 in  the Great Lakes Basin which are adjacent  to rapidly  expanding  metropolitan
 areas.  The northern tier  of the county is relatively stable and  consists
 mainly of dairy  farms averaging about  40 milk cows/farm.  Patchwork resi-
 dential development is  more common in  the southern  part of the  county and
 surrounds the major urban  centers of West Bend and  Hartford.  Farming in
 these areas more often  is  a transitional activity;  dairy farms  have fre-
 quently been converted  into cash-crop  operations.

     Open space  and recreational activities  center  around the county's many
 lakes, streams,  wetlands and forests.  The Kettle Moraine crosses south  to
 north through the center of the county.  Many beautiful farm and  forest
 scenes result from the  unique, varied  Kettle Moraine topography.

 nrnhl      f    was gathered on water pollutants, erosion and sedimentation
 problems  and on public perceptions of these conditions in Washington
 County.   This  information was needed to help identify, at least pre-
 liminarily, the nature of the problems and to provide an information base
 for use in evaluating the impacts of alternative sediment control programs.

      Water quality conditions and problems in the county vary widely
 Some streams and lakes have very high quality water  and support diverse
 productive fisheries, e.g., Allentown Creek, Oconomowoc River, Pike Lake'
 Water quality  is degraded in other lakes and streams, e.g., Hartford
 Millpond, Cedar Creek, Monomonee River.   Pollutants are generated from
 point and nonpoint sources.  The most common nonpoint source problems in
 streams and lakes result from excessive nutrient loadings.   Suspended
 sediment levels also are frequently higher than desirable.   It has been
 estimated that agricultural nonpoint sources contribute about 65% of the
 sediment and phosphorus to Washington County waterways;  construction sites
 account for about 20%;  and urban point and nonpoint sources account for
 the remainder.   Agricultural contributions of phosphorus are attributed
 primarily to livestock,  while sediment arises mainly  from croplands   It
 has also been determined that most  of the  sediment  is contributed by only
 a  small portion of the  county's  cropland  (1).   In Washington County most of

 Dlow^°     ,TS1TTf  f°Und  t0  be fr°m lands with sl°Pes  > « Cither
 plowed  up  and_down hill  or planted  to continuous corn.   It  is concluded
 that  substantial  water quality improvements are  possible  if control efforts
 could be focused  on areas most in need of  treatment,  i.e.,  the "so-called"
 nydrologically  active areas.
                     Attitudes Toward Water Quality

     Washington County residents in general do not see pollution of their
 lakes and streams as a major concern.  Only about 30% of the rural and
 urban residents surveyed felt water pollution in the county is a "very
 serious  or  'somewhat serious" problem (2).  Participants in public meetings
 were much more concerned about preserving prime farmland.  Overuse of
 lakes was seen as the main water resource management issue.  Many residents
 of rural areas felt that city residents using the waters for boating and
 swimming are the primary beneficiaries of the rural water pollution control

     Potential benefits for recreationists from improving water quality
were found to be high.   The survey of about 500 day-users at eight lakes in
 southeastern Wisconsin indicated:

     - People are generally aware of water quality differences between lakes.

     - Water quality and aesthetic considerations are the most important
       factors influencing the  selections of a lake for recreation.

     - At Pike Lake, the cleanest lake in the survey area and the only lake
       entirely within Washington County, 28% of the respondents perceived
       a pollution problem.   Moreover, Pike Lake users expressed a willingness
       to pay nearly $1.00/visit to improve lake water quality (3).

     The surveys also indicated a general lack of awareness of the connection
between water quality problems and erosion or other nonpoint sources of
pollution.  Less than 20% of the county residents and < 10% of the lake
users felt agriculture was the major source of the county's pollution
problems (2).  County residents living in urban areas tended to place
greater blame on agriculture than those living in rural areas.  While about
70% of the farmers surveyed considered field runoff to be the major
agricultural problem, > 95% felt that soil losses from their land were
either lower than or the same as the losses from other farms.  Only 2%
thought that soil loss from their land was higher than average.  From a
study of other survey results, however, it was concluded that about 15
to 20% of the land could be considered to have erosion rates greater
than the county average (1).

     These survey results indicate a general lack of knowledge of the
relationship between sediment pollution and water quality conditions, and
highlight the necessity for a strong educational and informational effort
if sediment control programs are to be successful.
                     The Project in National Context

     The Washington County Project was an ambitious one given the objectives
of demonstration as well as related research undertakings.  In considering
the accomplishments as well as the shortcomings of the project, it is
necessary to be aware of the context in which the project was carried forward.
The project in temporal terms was carried out concurrently with the area-
wide quality planning process under Section 208 of P.L. 92-500. Therefore,
proposals for project demonstration necessarily were put forward for con-
sideration before regional plan consensus was firm and before the State of
Wisconsin and the federal establishment had settled on their first phase
action program for nonpoint pollution abatement.

     The most significant factors affecting the project are summarized below:

     1.  The national clean water policy as defined in P.L. 92-500 (1972)
         dealt with all facets of water pollution abatement.  The point
         source program was built on substantial operating experience,
         but nonpoint source abatement programs were "uncharted seas" for
         all levels of government and the body politic.  Potential regulation
         of nonpoint sources under federal mandate was required "to the
         extent feasible".  However, such a dynamic program was subject
         to sitifts in emphasis during the course of its development.


      ™?«  P  f    rCe abatement  Programs  dealt with  pollution  from
      specific sites,  nonpoint  programs  by  definition  involved  substantial
      areas of urban,  urbanizing  and  rural  lands which generally have not
      been subject  to  federal and state  intervention;  rather  these  lands

                      11                                            and
                                   state government programs affecting
      t-*nh  •   i     • a8ricultural a*"1 f°rest lands have involved education
      tion  The asnA'!;Teiard Cost-sharin8 ™ inducements to remedial ac-
      tion. The USDA s Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Stabiliza-
      tion and Conservation Service operated cooperatively with state and
      local instrumentalities.  The nonpoint program, however, potentially
      introduces an element of governmental control of private lands
                          represents a comPlex maze of intergovernmental
                          the federal and state systems.   All levels
                 S°vernment are involved.  Both water and land related
     t ho^n al ^T68/" essentlal Participants in the program.  But
    at both national and state levels there are distinct differences in
     and Wisconsin's Soil and Water Conservation District  structure).

     Institutional responsibility within  Wisconsin  state  government
     for a nonpoint program is lodged with two  separate  agencies.
     Wisconsin s water quality agency,  the Department  of Natural
     Resources  functions under broad state mandate, but does  not
     exercise direct control over private  land  usage,  and  is not
       PSo±rteH admini^ratively at  the county level.   The State Board
        Soil  and Water Conservation Districts is  a separate state entity
                °nly.mirions  of suPP-t to the Soil and Water Conservation
               organized  on  a  county  by  county  basis.
 6.  The project was necessarily limited to existing state legal
    authority as the basis for proposed governmental actions.  That
    which_ could be considered and proposed at the county level had to
    tit within powers already granted by state statute.

 7.  The demonstration elements of the project were a social experiment
         S                   t0 the lnstituti™al constraints and the
                    variables operable at the several levels of
    government.  Changes in state and national programs served to
    complicate what was recognized at the outset as less than a
    controllable experiment

8.   The institutional demonstration efforts were carried forward in
    a  real political world" context as distinguished from physical
    and biological demonstrations,  subject only to the  vagaries of
         ^;   ?•  realP.olitical world" was grass roots,  local government
         the policy-administrative  decision-makers accountable to their

         voting constituents.   The Washington County authorities  were
         generally responsive  to project recommendations,  but the substance
         and timing of their actions were properly conditioned by  their
         judgment of their political responsibilities.

     We believe a major contribution of the project, albeit difficult to
document in a formal report, was to serve as a focal forum for discussion
among the several agencies as  each proceeded concurrently  with their
respective responsibilities.  County and state and federal agency positions
influenced the project's work.  Likewise, we believe the project  team was
influential to some degree with these agencies.

'' J' andR'R> Schneider- A Ascription and
Madison, 1978.  183 pp
Schneider, R. R., and N. W. Bouwes.  The Public and Its Attitudes
S^ri^^^v vs fwrtlmp-roved Water QuaS-
                       /y-02, Water

            PART I
            JIM ARTS

                             CONTENTS - PART I
 TITLE PAGE 	     I_i

 CONTENTS  .... t	     I_i±



   Local Level Agencies	     I_3
   Sub-State Regional Agencies  	     1-12
   State Level Agencies  	     1-13
   Federal Agencies  	     1-14


   Sediment Control Ordinances	     I_17
   Administering a Sediment Control Program  	     1-24


   Federal and State Policy Effects on Local Regulations	     1-33
   Likelihood of Local Enactment of Sediment Control Regulations  ..     1-34
   Need for Local Administration of Sediment Control Programs  	     1-34

 REFERENCES 	     !_36


     The overall goal of the institutional unit of the Washington County
Project was to design and implement programs to control sediment pollution
in Washington County (1).  The project was designed to determine whether
local governments—given technical assistance and financial support—would
be willing to enact and implement sediment control programs, and to deter-
mine whether these programs would be effective in reducing sediment
loadings.  The information obtained from the project research will aid
policymakers in evaluating future sediment control strategies.  Specific
goals included:

     1.  Evaluation of legal, economic, political, and administrative
         effects of alternative regulatory programs for sediment control.

     2.  Review of the alternative programs with local officials.

     3.  Assistance to local officials in their effort to enact and
         administer effective and politically acceptable sediment con-
         trol programs.

     4.  Analysis of the impact of related state and federal programs.

     To ensure that the sediment control programs were politically accept-
able and could be administered efficiently and equitably, it was deemed
essential to have the continued input of local officials.  Valuable
exchanges of information and ideas came from the Washington County Soil
and Water Conservation District (SWCD) supervisors, and representatives
of the project attended most of the monthly SWCD meetings.  Local project
advisors met quarterly to review and discuss alternative programs.  Mem-
bers of the Washington County Board of Supervisors and county level
representatives of University of Wisconsin-Extension, the U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service, and the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service also provided valuable information.

     Research focused on agencies and sediment problems in Washington
County, but in some cases, programs in other counties and states were
studied to give a broader perspective to the Washington County research.
All implementation programs occurred in Washington County.

     Proj ect researchers and advisors included representatives from a wide
variety of agencies and academic disciplines.  Day-to-day operations of the
program were conducted by a group of University of Wisconsin-Madison per-
sonnel from urban and regional planning, soil science, water resources man-
agement, law, economics, and political science.  Biweekly meetings brought
together these members with the project director and representatives


of several state and federal agencies, including the Wisconsin Board of
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, the U.S.  Soil Conservation Service, and the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission.

     Specific and  identifiable accomplishments of the institutional unit

     1.  Enactment of construction site erosion control ordinances for all
         of the unincorporated areas of Washington County  and for some of
         the incorporated cities  and villages.

     2.  Completion of an analysis of the mission and performance of related
         federal, state, and local programs.   This information is found
         summarily in this report and in more detail in the papers listed
         in the bibliography.

     3.  Completion of studies in governmental decision-making, including
         inter-governmental and interest group dimensions,  comparisons
         among states, and decision processes in Washington County compared
         to other Wisconsin counties.

     4.  Extensive land use and water quality information has been collected,
         analyzed, and furnished  to local decision-makers for their use in
         program planning.

     5.  Local programs have been expanded  and focused in  a coordinated
         fashion upon critical sediment problems.

     6.  An ordinance to regulate sediment from farmlands has been drafted,
         and projected economic and water quality impacts discussed in
         detail with local officials and other residents.

     7.  The Washington County Board of Supervisors has,  by resolution,
         approved a  policy statement endorsing the 3 ton/acre soil
         loss limit.

                       THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING
     An initial objective of the project was to determine the set of
agencies involved in erosion and sediment control programs and to
evaluate the effectiveness of these programs.  The following analysis
summarizes the essential features of key agencies in Washington County
but it is generally applicable to other Wisconsin counties.
                         Local Level Agencies

County Board of Supervisors
     As the governing body for the county, the 30-member Washington
County Board of Supervisors form the heart of local government for the
unincorporated areas of the county.  The county board has a direct or
indirect effect upon most local programs.

     As a general unit of local government, the county has been delegated
—by the state legislature—substantial administrative and policy-making
authority over a wide range of local concerns.  With regard to sediment
control, the county presently:

     1.  Enacts and administers county zoning, subdivision plat review,
         and building permit ordinances;

     2.  Administers state shoreland and floodplain zoning and farmland
         preservation programs;

     3.  Provides locally-derived revenue for Soil and Water Conserva-
         tion District (SWCD) operations;

     4.  Promotes coordination among county level committees (agricul-
         ture and extension education, zoning, county planning commis-
         sion, and SWCD);

     5.  May fund local cost-sharing program.

     Whatever particular focal point for the local sediment control
program is selected, the county board and its committees will play a
vital role.

     Analysis of the Washington County Board of Supervisors shows that
the board is composed of members who are older than the median age of
the population (half are retired) and who, as a general rule, have had
substantial experience at other levels of government, particularly the
town board (2).  Although town board members no longer serve ex officio
as members of the county board, some town board members are still
elected—in separate elections—to the county board as well as to the
town board.  In Washington County four of the 13 town board chairpersons
serve on the county board.

     The studies show that little competition exists for county board
positions.  In fact, most board members feel that their constituents
are generally unaware of the board's functions; however, most members
believe that their perceptions of the needs and interests of the dis-
tricts are similar to those of their constituents.

     The board exhibits a consensual decision-making style; that is,
on virtually all issues, all, or very nearly all, of the members reach
agreement.  Rarely is a serious difference of opinion expressed once a
question reaches final vote.

     This tendency of the Washington County Board to reach a consensus
is caused by three factors:

     1.  There is extensive use of the committee system with consequent
         increase in individual expertise in certain areas and mutual
         deference to this expertise.  Thus, decisions made in committee
         are seldom challenged by the whole board.

     2.  A high level of homogeneity and congeniality exists among the
         members; they share many common interests, and like and respect
         each other.

     3.  Little citizen pressure is placed on board members.  Generally,
         the members are entrusted to represent the best interests of
         the community and, respecting this trust, they vote as they
         believe the average well-informed citizen would vote.

     These observations suggest that the immediate and direct involve-
ment of the appropriate committee is the best way to secure meaningful
consideration of desired local legislation.

     In Washington County, two committees of the county board deal most
directly with the sediment control issues.  These are the Park and
Planning Commission and the Agriculture, Extension Education, and Con-
servation Committee.

     The Park and Planning Commission has seven members, four of whom
are not county board members.  The commission is responsible, among
other things, for duties relating to county zoning ordinances and
county subdivision (or land division) ordinances.  These programs are
administered by the Land Use and Park Department, which is responsible

to the Park and Planning Commission.

     The Park and Planning Commission (or its equivalent in other counties)
may play an important role in sediment control in at least two areas:

     1.  As the agency responsible for the administration of subdivision
         ordinances, it may recommend to the county board the adoption
         of erosion control amendments to those ordinances and, if such
         amendments are adopted, to administer them.

     2.  It may propose revisions to county zoning ordinances, including
         shoreland zoning ordinances.

     The commission will play a central role in determining which of these
programs will be adopted  and will guide the administration of the pro-
grams once adopted.

     The five-member Agriculture and Extension Education Committee directs
the work programs of the county extension agents who, in addition to other
duties, may provide information on sediment control programs to farmers,
other landowners, and the general public.  In addition, the members of
this committee serve as the supervisors of the Soil and Water Conservation
District.  This dual responsibility provides the potential for close
coordination of the programs of the SWCD and of the extension agents.
The Soil and Water Conservation District
     The Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD or district) is re-
sponsible for a wide range of resource conservation programs.  Boundaries
of the district are coterminous with county boundaries.  Operating under
authority of Chapter 92 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the district is gov-
erned by the five county board supervisors who comprise the Agricultural and
Extension Education Committee.  The county board has the authority to
appoint one or two additional members (not members of the county board)
to serve as district supervisors.  Board powers related to sediment
control programs have been delegated to the district.  It is directed
to develop long-range "comprehensive plans for the conservation of soil,
water and related resources within the district" which should also
specify how the plans will be implemented [Wis. Stat. §92.08(4)].  An
annual plan is to be developed "which shall describe the action pro-
grams, services, facilities, materials, working arrangements and esti-
mated funds needed to carry out the parts of the long-range program
that are of the highest priorities" [Wis. Stat. §92.08(4)(b)].

     The district is also given the authority to administer state or
federal programs for soil conservation, flood prevention, water manage-
ment, erosion control and prevention, and to participate in any other
programs related to conservation of natural resources within its
boundaries [Wis. Stat. §92.08(7)].

      The SWCD has close working relationships with the Soil Conserva-
 tion Service (SCS)  and the University of Wisconsin-Extension;  these
 relationships are defined in memoranda of understanding between the
 SWCD and the agencies.   In addition,  the state Board of Soil and Water
 Conservation Districts (BSWCD)  provides information,  assistance, and
 some state-appropriated financial  support.   A close association also
 exists  between the  county board, town boards (in Washington County,
 four of the  five  SWCD  supervisors  are chairmen of  their respective
 town boards),  the Agricultural  Stabilization and Conservation  Service
 (ASCS),  the  Southeastern Wisconsin Regional  Planning  Commission (SEWRPC)
 and  the Wisconsin Department  of Natural Resources  (DNR).  Representatives
 of these and other  agencies  participate in the drafting of  the district's
 annual  work  plan  at its annual  planning meeting.   The  SCS,  Extension,
 and  BSWCD representatives usually  participate in the  SWCD monthly meet-
 ings  (3).

      The SWCD has authority  to  enter  into cooperative agreements with
 other governmental  bodies and with private landowners  to promote erosion
 control and  flood prevention  programs.   The  SWCD provides technical assis-
 tance—usually with the help  of the SCS— to design and install needed
 conservation practices.

      Wisconsin Statutes (§92.09) provide that the  SWCD may  propose  and
 the  county board  may enact land use regulations for erosion and sediment
 control in incorporated areas.  People   living in  the  area  to  be affected
 by the  regulations  must approve them  in a referendum  before the regulations
 are  effective.  In  the  entire state only Vernon County has  enacted an
 ordinance to control soil loss  under  this section,  and it. is too early
 to say  whether this ordinance has  been  effective in reducing erosion.

      The combination of the district's  legal authority to administer
 sediment control  programs and its  extensive  interagency relationships
 suggest  that the  SWCD  is  an appropriate focus  for  sediment  control programs.
 However,  this  conclusion   is  not reached without acknowledging  that the
 districts have limitations as well as strengths.

      One shortcoming is  that  the districts have, as a  general  rule, not
 effectively  exercised all of  the authority they have.   Neither  the SWCD
 long-range nor annual planning  processes  have  yet  been effectively utilized
 to establish the  authority of the  district over program policy  within  its
 jurisdiction.   Neither  sufficiently acknowledges past  program  deficiencies,
 quantifies treatment needs, prioritizes  a sequence  of  objectives, nor
 specifies where needs are  greatest in the district.  This has  resulted in
 implementation  efforts which  are frequently  inconsistent with district
 policy.   The district's weakness in this  area  can  be attributed—at least
 in part—to  its inadequate professional  staff.

      In many counties,   including Washington  County, the  district has not
been able to convince the county board  that  it should  provide the district
with funds to hire professional staff.   In some cases,  there is a
reluctance to pay the salary required to employ such a person or persons;

 in other  cases,  there  is  a fear  that  the  SWCD  staff,  in  assuming  their
 legitimate duties, may conflict  with  the  SCS District Conservationist
 who has been doing many of the administrative  and  policy-making duties
 in the past.   In Wisconsin 50% of  the counties have a total  SWCD  budget of
 < $25,000,  some of which is  appropriated by the state (3).  Without
 adequate  staff,  the district  supervisors  are unable to manage  an  expanded
 sediment  control program.   It should  be noted  that SWCD  supervisors serve
 on  several other committees  and have many  other governmental  duties in
 addition  to being employed and having other community responsibilities.
 It is not possible for them to give a substantial  amount of  time  to district
 duties.   There is nothing tragic in this; it simply means that they must
 rely on others for information and policy-making assistance.

     In many cases, the SCS has  provided  this  assistance.  Although memoranda
 of understanding make  it  clear that SCS service to the district is limited
 to technical assistance,  in many cases the  SCS District  Conservationist
 has served a greater role in  program  planning  and  administration  than a
 strict interpretation  of  SCS  duties would suggest; but without this assumption
 qf responsibility by the  District  Conservationist  or,.in some  cases, the
 Extension Agent,  many  districts  would have  been even  weaker.

     The  failure of the district to assert  full authority over the county
 soil and  water conservation program is also demonstrated by  the fact that
 in the past over 50% of the SWCD/SCS  staff  time used  for providing technical
 assistance in Washington  County  was spent on ASC cost-shared projects
 under the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)  (4).   The  decisions on
 which projects to cost-share  were made by  the county ASC  committee; very
 limited input was provided by the  SWCD.

     Another  weak point of the districts  is that most districts have not
 successfully  directed  their manpower  and  financial resources (including the
 technical assistance of the SCS  which is, by agreement,  to be  responsive
 to district direction)  toward solving the most critical  erosion problems in
 the  county.   Rather, the  districts, through their  voluntary cooperator
 program,  have tended to provide  service on  a first-come,  first-served basis.
 If farmers  with  the most  critical  erosion problems have  not come  to the SWCD,
 the  SWCD  has  made little  effort  to go  to  them.  Despite  the educational,
 informational, and technical  assistance programs sponsored by  the district,
 the  amount  of land needing treatment  has not decreased significantly over
 the  past  several  years  (4).

     To become an effective resource  conservation  agency,  the  SWCD must
 take the very difficult step  of  clearly stating that  farming practices
which cause excessive  soil  loss  are improper,  and  identifying  farmers who
are  using  these practices.  Then a deliberate  effort  must be made to persuade
 those farmers  to  change their attitudes and practices by offering technical
and  financial help.   This  step—though it falls short  of regulation—will
be very difficult for  districts accustomed to  offending no one and to
providing  some -degree  of service to a wide clientele.   If districts have not
been able to  secure sufficient financial support from the county board
when they were providing service to many  and  offending no one, it remains
to be seen how they will fare when they begin to make  the difficult decisions
connected with identifying the problem-causing landowners and proposing
specific solutions to  the problems.


     The answer may lie in the ability of the district to expand its services
to other interested groups.  Thus far, most districts have not developed a
clientele which includes many different interest groups; instead, the clien-
tele has been limited almost entirely to farmers.  If the district expands
its services to cities and villages and if it provides further services to
other groups such as Inland Lake Protection and Rehabilitation Districts, it
may gain sufficient political support to offset any loss of support from
farmers.  Also  the district might consider requesting the county board to
add one or two district supervisors who are not county board members;
this option is authorized under §92.06 and §59.87(2) Wis. Stat. but presently
is used by only 10 to 15% of Wisconsin counties (3).  For example, the
district should consider requesting the county board to appoint a represen-
tative of city or village government; or, alternatively, the district itself
could invite any municipality to designate a representative to advise the
SWCD on issues concerning the municipality, as provided in §92.07(3).  This
would give the district better insight into the problems and concerns of
the incorporated areas and might give the cities and villages confidence
that the district would be a capable and reliable agency with which to
cooperate in erosion control programs, including ordinances to control
erosion from construction sites.

     The district also might consider using a citizen advisory committee
to obtain information and advice on county soil conservation and water
quality conditions.  Citizen committees have participated in the areawide
water quality planning process.

     In addition, consideration should be given to the appointment of a
representative from the educational system; conservation education is a
vital component of a long-range strategy for sediment control, and input
from a school administrator or teacher could assist the district in this
objective.  Consideration might also be given to the appointment of a
representative of an environmental organization.  The objective of the
district should not be to avoid conflict at all costs, but rather to
encourage discussion and debate of important local issues.  Decisions can
then be based if not on consensus, at least on an appreciation of alternative
points of view.

     The SWCD has no regulatory power in incorporated cities and villages,
and the authority of the district to enter into agreements to provide plans
and technical assistance to cities and villages upon their request is not
often used.  Few cities and villages have sought SWCD assistance, although
there are indications that the level of cooperation is increasing (3).  If
the district is to serve as a county-wide agency with substantial authority
and responsibility, there must be better cooperation between it and the
incorporated areas.

     It should also be noted that the SWCD has no explicit authority to
administer programs which have  as their objective, the prevention of water
pollution, except for sediment pollution.  This did not present a problem
for the project because we dealt only with control of erosion and sediment,
but it does mean that the district will require additional authority before

serving as a general nonpoint source regulatory agency.   This limitation
contrasts with the broader authority to prevent water pollution delegated
to counties under the shoreland zoning statute (Wis.  Stat.  §59.971).

     In Wisconsin the unique relationship of the SWCD to the county board
merits discussion.  Selection of district supervisors from the members of
the county board (except when one or two additional members are appointed)
presents  special opportunities and problems.   District supervisors tend to
identify themselves primarily as county board supervisors,  and the district
as a committee of the board.  This enhances the opportunity for communication
and coordination of county level programs.  Furthermore, since the county
board generally defers to committee decisions, it would superficially appear
that this arrangement would provide an effective way for the district
supervisors, operating as a de facto committee of the board, to translate
district objectives into county board policy.   However, this has not been
the case.  In fact, this arrangement has tended to make the SWCD a more
conservative body, more reluctant to push aggressively for strong district
programs, because:

     1.  The SWCD supervisors are elected in county board elections and
         candidates are selected usually because of their interests in and
         positions on issues unrelated to soil and water conservation.  In
         Washington County, contested elections are uncommon, and an
         election in which the SWCD is mentioned is rare.  Successful
         candidates feel no constituent pressure to advocate SWCD concerns.

     2.  After election, the board members named to the Agriculture and
         Extension Education Committee also serve as SWCD supervisors.  This
         presents an opportunity for close coordination of the two committees,
         but problems also emerge.  Some Agriculture and Extension Education
         Committee members are very interested in that committee, but not
         so interested in promoting district business.

     3.  Although the board as a whole tends to defer to committee decisions,
         committee members are careful not to abuse the trust bestowed
         upon them.  Thus, district supervisors are seldom aggressive
         advocates for special programs or funds.  Such aggression would
         mark them as supervisors who are trying to gain power beyond that
         customarily accepted as appropriate.  Since the SWCD is not viewed
         as the special governmental district which it is, but rather as
         another committee of the county board, district supervisors who
         press for assuming their legitimate authority are seen as usurping
         authority.  Washington County supervisors, out of respect for
         their fellow supervisors, do not want to appear to be taking
         advantage of their unique SWCD authority.

     In some cases an influential board member who is also a district super-
visor may be able to persuade the board to provide additional funds to the
SWCD and to support district programs.  The board member is influential
precisely because he does not abuse his power; thus, he is not likely to try
to push the board very far.

 Cooperative  Extension Service

     University  of Wisconsin-Extension  (UWEX)  is a joint federal-state-county
 educational  agency.  Agents  employed  in  the  county generally have  their
 salaries  supported from  all  three  sources.   The county also provides office
 space  and other  support.  Agents develop  their work program subject to
 approval  of  the  Agriculture  and Extension Education Committee of the county
 board  and the UWEX district  director.  Extension also has  specialized staff
 at  the state level who—independent of the county staff—provide technical
 support to county staff,  carry out studies,  and teach various aspects of
 water  quality.

     The  role of Extension in sediment control in most counties is presently
 limited,  although it could have several  roles  in county sediment control
 programs.  Also, it could be involved heavily  in developing expanded
 educational  materials and activities  relating  to sediment  control  for the
 general public.  It could be involved in  organizing specialized educational
 activities for landowners, such as technical aspects of land management
 practices, issues surrounding varieties of crops, rotations, soils, etc.,
 and farm  budgeting and financial management, if significant changes in
 farming practices were necessary for  sediment  control.  County extension
 staff  generally  agree that additional activity in sediment control work
 is possible, but it would either be at the expense of some other ongoing
 activity  or  require additional staff.

     The  state-level UWEX response to expansion of work in sediment control
 would  most likely involve some growth of  state-level specialist staff to
 train  county agents, develop educational  materials, assist county-level staff,
 and carry on direct educational programs  for specialized segments of society
 such as the  construction  industry or municipal  officials.
Inland Lake Protection and Rehabilitation Districts

     Inland Lake Protection and Rehabilitation Districts (ILPRD) are special
purpose units of government, authorized under Ch. 33 of Wis. Stats.  Local
property owners are authorized to form a district to protect and improve
lake water quality.  Technical and financial assistance are available from
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.  The district has the power
to tax, bond, borrow, or make special assessments; the budget is determined
at an annual meeting of property owners within the district.  A board of
commissioners is selected which consists of three elected property owners,
an SWCD supervisor, and a representative of the town, village, or city
having the highest property valuation in the district.

     There are three ILPRDs in Washington County, i.e., Big Cedar Lake,
Little Cedar Lake, and Silver Lake.  Water quality studies have been
completed for Silver and Big Cedar Lakes, and management programs have been

     In many cases, the goal of protecting lake water quality requires
upland management of land use practices.  This naturally suggests the
desirability of a relationship with the SWCD to work toward the common goal
of land management in the interest of improved water quality.  The potential
for such a relationship is promoted by the presence of an SWCD supervisor
on the ILPRD board of commissioners.
Cities and Villages
     The most important source of sediment in cites and villages is from
construction site erosion.  Project studies regarding sediment control
in these areas focused on the manner in which these governmental units could
enact and administer regulatory programs.

     The construction site erosion control ordinance drafted for the county
affects only unincorporated areas, not cities and villages in the county.
The cities and villages do have the authority, however,  to enact
separate erosion control ordinances.  The necessity for enacting and
administering separate ordinances for each jurisdiction makes it difficult
to establish a  reasonably uniform set of erosion control requirements
across the county.  In addition, it makes it necessary to convince each
separate jurisdiction of the need for such an ordinance.  Despite these
limitations, such multiple regulations are necessary to achieve a blanket
of ordinances across the county.
     Towns are governmental units which cover all of the unincorporated
parts of the county.  Usually, but not always, their boundaries correspond
to survey township boundaries (6 miles square).

     It was not anticipated that the towns should be involved in a major
way in enacting and administering sediment control programs for Washington
County.  Although towns may adopt village powers and thereby secure adequate
authority to administer sediment control and other programs, the prospect of
13 towns (in addition to the two cities and five villages) enacting separate
erosion control programs was opposed to the project's goal of administrative
efficiency and uniformity of standards.  Certainly, circumstances in which
a town should exercise its authority do exist, particularly if the county
refuses to take action when presented with erosion control problems.  For
the project's purposes, the county was the more convenient and effective
geographical unit on which to base the program.

      There are at least two areas in which town responsibilities are important
 for sediment control.   First of all, four of the 13 towns in Washington
 County have zoning and subdivision ordinances separate from county ordinances.
 In the case of subdivision ordinance, however,  the Washington County ordinance
 applies unless the town enacts an ordinance which is equally restrictive.

      Secondly, the towns are responsible for the construction and maintenance
 of town roads.  Surveys indicate that the town  roads in most counties of  the
 state have roadside erosion problems more severe than county,  state,  or
 federal highways.   At  the present time there are no requirements for towns
 to correct these erosion problems,  nor is there any state support available
 if they do.   Thus,  conditions vary  widely from  town to town, depending
 mostly on the perception of the problem by town officials and their willingness
 to correct problems where they exist.   In some  counties,  districts have
 provided equipment, materials,  and  labor to towns to assist  in reducing
 roadside erosion.
                        Sub-State Regional Agencies

     The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission  (SEWRPC) is
 the most important regional agency with responsibilities relating to sediment
 control in Washington County.  There are at least three notable functions
 SEWRPC performs:

     1.  SEWRPC has been designated as the areawide water quality planning
         agency for a 7-county region of southeastern Wisconsin which
         includes Washington County.  In this capacity, SEWRPC has played
         a key role in  collecting and evaluating land use and water quality
         information, designing a plan for water pollution control, and
         selecting the  agencies which will manage the control programs.

     2.  SEWRPC provides assistance to governmental units in the county in
         drafting ordinances and land use plans, including plans and programs
         to control sediment.

     3.  SEWRPC has provided water quality and land use information to local
         units of government to assist local sediment control program

     As a general rule,  the state and federal agencies described below have
multi-county regional offices.   For the most part, these regional offices
serve as a communication link between the state and local office, although
in some cases substantial program discretion is delegated to the regional

                           State  Level  Agencies

 Department  of  Natural  Resources
      As  the  central  state water  quality  agency,  the Wisconsin Department of
 Natural  Resources  (WDNR) is  responsible  for  the  protection, maintenance
 and  improvement  of the waters of the  state  (Wis. Stat.  §144.025).   In non-
 designated areas of  the  state, WDNR has  served as the areawide water quality
 planning agency.  The agency also is  responsible primarily for the  admin-
 istration of the state's nonpoint source grant program  known as  the Wisconsin

      Although the authority  of WDNR to enforce state laws relating  to
 water pollution  control  is clear,  it  is  much less clear what role the
 agency will  have if  regulation of land uses  becomes necessary to protect
 and  improve  water quality.   Land use  regulation  has been delegated  tradi-
 tionally by  the  state to local units  of  government, and it is highly unlikely
 that state regulation of land use by  WDNR would  be politically acceptable.
 Should regulation be necessary,  the challenge will be to define a set of
 institutional relationships  which retain regulation at  local levels while
 insuring that WDNR is not forced to yield its position  of responsibility
 for  water quality protection.  Such a relationship exists in the state
 shoreland and floodplain zoning  program  in which local  governments  are
 required to  enact ordinances with  minimum standards set by the state.  The
 crucial  task of  administering the  ordinances is  handled locally; thus, local
 governments  with limited enthusiasm for  the  state program may be tempted
 to hamper it  by  failing to provide adequate  administrative personnel.  It
 may  be advisable for the state to  financially support local administration
 of these state programs.
Board of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

     The Board of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (BSWCD) is a state
level agency with regional representatives which is primarily responsible
for coordinating and assisting local SWCD programs.  In addition, the BSWCD
administers cost-sharing programs under Wis. Stat. §§92.20 and 92.21 which
provide relatively modest assistance for SWCD staff and for the installation
of practices to control nonpoint source pollution.  Furthermore, the BSWCD
assists the WDNR and local management agencies in the administration of the
Wisconsin Fund grant program.  The BSWCD is attached to University of
Wisconsin for adminstrative purposes.

                             Federal Agencies

 Soil Conservation Service
     The Soil Conservation Service  (SCS) was established in 1935.  The 1935
legislation provided that the SCS would be the lead federal agency in programs
to provide technical assistance to  farmers to reduce soil erosion.  Since
then, SCS responsibilities have been enlarged by subsequent legislation
including the Watershed Protection  and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, the
Rural Clean Water Program, and by the Soil and Water Resources Conservation
Act  of 1977.

     In counties which have established a conservation district, the SCS
has provided technical planning assistance to farmers and other landowners
according to an agreement with the  conservation district.  Although rapid
progress was made in installing conservation practices during its first 2
decades, in recent years the SCS and cooperating agencies have been able
to plan and install only a few additionally needed practices.  The rate of
practice removal also has been increasing in many counties (4).

     Studies in Washington County indicate that the SCS has not focused its
work effort on the areas most in need of conservation but rather has tried
to provide services to all who request assistance.  In addition, we have
found that the SCS has spent a great deal of time developing elaborate con-
servation plans which there is little time to implement.  When the practices
called for in the plan are installed by the farmer with SCS assistance,
there is little attempt to follow up the practices by encouraging and
assisting the farmer in maintaining them.  Furthermore, there is a substantial
amount of time spent in adminstrative duties, which further detracts from
the time available to work with landowners to install vitally needed con-
servation practices.  It is essential that District Conservationists, with
the assistance and approval of the Area Conservationist to whom they are
responsible, develop a work program which maximizes the time spent on
technical assistance in priority areas.   Most District Conservationists
find it impossible to meet all the demands for their services, even with
the most effective time management.   Nevertheless, it is important that
priorities be established and followed and that the District Conservationist
be rewarded for the demonstrated accomplishment of these priority items.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

     The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), among
other responsibilites, administers the Agricultural Conservation Program
(ACP) which provides cost-sharing funds to farmers.  A wide variety of prac-
tices have been cost-shared by the ASCS over the years, but in the past many
of the funds have been directed toward production-oriented practices.  This
has reduced the availability of funds for conservation to meet water quality

     Washington County receives about $50,000 annually for ACP cost-sharing.
This money is allocated by the ASC county committee which consists of three
farmers elected by fellow farmers.  This county committee also hires a
county executive director to administer the programs, but the committee
makes policy and program decisions.  Costs of administering the ACP and
providing technical assistance for implementing cost-shared practices are
fairly high, nearly equal to the amount of funds actually cost-shared (4).

     All farmers in the county are eligible to apply annually for ACP cost-
sharing funds.  Cooperation with the SWCD is not required.  Although
coordination between ACP and SWCD programs is provided for through an
agreement between the agencies, their programs have—until recently—developed
fairly independently.

     The effectiveness of the ACP has been limited by a high degree of
uncertainty with respect to potential funding levels and practice eligibility.
The ACP has undergone four substantial revisons in the past 8 years, result-
ing in confusion about cost-sharing rates and funded practices.  This has
made it very difficult for farmers to plan ahead for conservation.

     Recently the ACP in Washington County has been directed more effectively
toward high priority erosion and water quality concerns, even in light of
continued high demands for production-oriented practices.  In 1977 80%
of program expenditures went into practices to erosion control, a much
higher percentage than previously.
Environmental Protection Agency
     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) has, as a con-
sequence of the amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
assumed a central role in the programs related to the control of nonpoint
source pollution.  Areawide plans required by §208 of P.L. 92-500 are being
prepared in accordance with EPA regulation, but it is not yet clear what
standards the agency will require with regard to sediment.  Nor is it
certain whether regulation of erosion-causing activities will be required.


      The  development of programs for implementation  in Washington County
 followed  these general guidelines:

      1.   All programs must be developed with the advice and consent of local
          officials who would be responsible for program implementation
          after the project was completed.  In addition, adequate consultation
          with these officials is necessary to adopt  a program.

      2.   To the extent possible, ordinances should be easy to understand
          and administer.  Landowners  and other citizens have a low tolerance
          for complex bureaucratic regulations; failure to appreciate this
          fact would cause controversy and misunderstanding beyond that
          normally anticipated for a  program of this  kind.

      3.   Regulatory controls should not be imposed except in circumstances
          where lack of control allowed the continuation of practices which
          clearly result in excessive  sediment pollution.  It is not easy
          to define with any precision the effects of alternative land
          uses on water quality.  For  this reason we  decided that controls
          would only be imposed where  the effects could best be documented,
          and where standards required by the proposed regulations could
          be met by adopting relatively simple and inexpensive management

      4.   Although financial and technical support from the project made
          program design and implementation unique, it was considered
          important that the programs  could be adopted by other local
          governments without imposing an unrealistic administrative burden
          on other counties.

      5.   All programs must be within  the scope of existing enabling legisla-
          tion.   It is expected that the Wisconsin Legislature will in the
          future enact legislation granting clear authority to local govern-
         ments to deal with sediment pollution control.   Within the time
          frame of this project the program design was limited to those
          local powers previously delegated by the state Legislature.

     The major sources of sediment  pollution in Washington County are
construction site erosion and erosion from cropland.   Development of
programs  to control these erosion sources focused on two basic tasks:

     1.  Designing ordinances to control the problem; and

     2.  Developing an institutional structure effectively to administer
         the ordinances and non-regulatory programs.

                       Sediment Control Ordinances
The Rural Sediment Control Ordinance
     The Chapter 92 ordinance was selected as the focus for sediment control
because the authority to regulate land uses to control sediment was an
explicit goal of Chapter 92, and because the SWCD was considered to be the
most appropriate administrative focus for the sediment control program.
In addition, zoning traditionally has not been used to regulate agricultural
land management practices.

     Nevertheless, for certain problems particularly eroding streambanks and
barnyards near waterbodies, modifications to the county shoreland zoning
ordinance were drafted for consideration by county officials.

     A major problem in drafting the Chapter 92 ordinance concerned the
nature and scope of the requirements which should be imposed.   It is
possible under Chapter 92 to require that various erosion control structures
be used, such as terraces, diversions, and sediment traps, or that particular
cropping programs and tillage practices be observed [§92.09(5)].  This
substantial authority to require specific management practices would require
close supervision of individual farming practices with accompanying
bureaucratic intrusion and administrative requirements.

     Rather than use this approach a requirement was included in the
ordinance that each farmer meet a performance standard; that is, his farm
could not exceed a certain rate of soil loss, as determined by the Universal
Soil Loss Equation (USLE).  If soil loss exceeded the specified rate, a
farmer could meet this requirement using any practices he wished as long
as the predicted soil loss met the standards.  This approach has several

     1.   The ordinance does not dictate which specific practices must be
         used to meet requirements; this means greater flexibility for the
         landowner and less government interference.

     2.   A "tolerable" soil loss limit has a history of endorsement as a
         legitimate goal from the standpoint of conserving soil and main-
         taining cropland productivity.

     3.   It sets a uniform standard for everyone.

     4.   Such an ordinance is easier to draft and easier to understand and

     5.   This approach is supported by local decision-makers and particularly
         by SWCD supervisors.

     It was also recognized that this approach has some disadvantages:

     1.  The uniform standard for all farmers ignores the probability that
         sediment from certain farms may be causing more damage, depending on
         the nature of the receiving body of water, than the same amount of
         sediment from another farm.  In addition, eroded soil from farms
         distant from a waterbody is less likely to reach the water than
         soil eroding from a farm adjacent to the waterbody. Furthermore,
         the approach fails to consider that natural buffers along the
         waterway could protect it from soil eroding from a nearby field.

              A partial solution to this problem is the proposed development
         of a list of priority areas in which sediment reduction was con-
         sidered to be most effective in decreasing pollution.  Since
         manpower to administer the ordinance was limited, the idea was to
         approach these critical areas first, insuring that farms in these
         areas met the standards.  This combination of a uniform standard
         and discretionary administration was the most practicable method.

     2.  The USLE is not applicable to barnyards, streambanks, and gullies.
         These crucial problem areas contribute substantially to the sediment
         problem.  Amendments to the county shoreland zoning ordinance
         were drafted in an attempt to deal with some of them (5).

     3.  Farmers in hilly areas, especially in areas with highly erosive
         soils, would find it more difficult to reach the standard than
         would a farmer owning less erosive land.  Therefore, some farmers
         could have a greater financial burden than others, but they could
         also receive a long-term benefit by keeping productive soil in place.

     4.  Farmers on less erosive soils, who could cost-efficiently reduce
         soil loss below 3 tons/acre/yr (6 tonnes/ha/yr), would have no
         incentive to do so.

     The soil loss limits set by the ordinance are a long-term average of
3 tons/acre/yr (6 tonnes/ha/yr) for the entire farming unit and 9 tons/acre/yr
(18 tonnes/ha/yr) for any given 200 square feet area (approximately one
acre).   The 3tons/acre/yr (6 tonnes/ha/yr) was set because studies
indicated that compliance would yield significant sediment reduction with
reasonable cost burdens to farmers (7).  The 9 tons/acre/yr (18 tonnes/ha/yr)
limit was established to eliminate the possibility that a farmer might meet
the 3 tons/acre/yr (6 tonnes/ha/yr) limit as an average for his farm and
yet have a particular piece of land which had a very high rate of soil loss.

     The requirements of the ordinance are not hard to meet.  Investigations
indicate that only 10 to 20% of Washington County farmers would be required
to make some change in farming practices, such as a change in crop rotation,
to meet the standards.  Other farmers would not be affected at all.  In
addition, it was found that for a typical noncomplying  dairy farm, net
income would be substantially unchanged after the farmer comes into compliance
with the ordinance (6).  The burden of compliance is further lessened by

the fact that if capital expenditures are required for compliance, at
least 50% cost-sharing must be available to the farmer before he needs
to meet the requirements.  Furthermore, low interest loan programs and
tax benefits are available to farmers who install conservation practices
(7, 8).

     The ordinance was designed to be administered by the SWCD efficiently
and non-intrusively.  No farmer would be required to take any action unless
the SWCD completed an inspection and, by using the USLE determined that
soil loss for this farm exceeded the limits.  In that case the farmer, or
the SWCD if the farmer so requested, would be required to complete an
erosion control plan (less extensive than an SCS conservation plan), and
to comply with this plan.  However, if the farmer had a district-approved
conservation plan on file he would be presumed to be in compliance for
5 years after the plan was approved.  In addition, the SWCD could approve
a variance from the requirement of the ordinance if conditions warranted.
Penalties for  noncompliance with the ordinance are not severe.  If a farmer
is required to submit an erosion control plan and he does not do so, he
can be fined $5/day for each day he is late, up to $100.  Negligent failure
to follow the plan is punishable by a fine up to $100.  Blatant and willful
disregard of the requirements is punishable by a fine up to $100/day for
each day of  noncompliance.  The district or any owner of real estate in the
area affected by the ordinance may enforce compliance with the erosion
control plan by obtaining an injunction from the circuit court.

     Chapter 92 imposes several procedural conditions for an ordinance of
this type.   First of all, the ordinance, although proposed by the district,
must be approved in a referendum by the people who live in the area to be
affected by the ordinance.  This is a substantial obstacle since voters
are not inclined to support regulations in general, and are even less
likely to approve a regulation concerning a subject about which they had very
little knowledge (9) .   The lack of awareness of sediment problems and of
nonpoint source pollution in general, mandates a substantial educational
and informational program (see Part HI).

     Secondly, the ordinance, if approved by the electorate in the referendum,
also must be approved by the county board.  In Washington County this was
not considered a major problem since the district supervisors are themselves
county board members and as a committee of the board traditionally demonstrate
some influence on the board as a whole.  In addition, it the residents of
the area approved the regulation it would be unlikely that the county board
would reject it.

     Thirdly, Chapter 92 allows the SWCD to design the area affected by
the ordinance to include all or any part of the unincorporated part of the
county.  Incorporated areas would not be covered by the ordinance and
other parts of the county could be excluded apparently for any reason.
This suggests that the ordinance could be limited to areas with the worst
erosion problems (which might make passage less likely), or that it could
include areas with less severe problems and also include areas with non-farm
landowners, who might  be more likely to approve the ordinance.  In Washington

County, as a whole, the non-farm population in unincorporated areas far
exceeds the farm population.   Thus, the possibility exists that an ordinance
could be approved in a referendum even though none of the farmers to be
affected voted for it.  To avoid this problem and to give the affected
farmers a meaningful voice in the referendum, the area affected by the
ordinance could be limited by excluding the unincorporated areas inhabited
by non-farm residents.  The obvious disadvantage of such limitation is
that the farmers—as self-regulators—would most likely approve no
regulation at all.  Furthermore, rural non-farm residents, as well as
urban residents, have a real interest in water quality and should have
a voice in pollution control programs.
Shoreland Zoning Ordinance Amendments
     The Chapter 92 ordinance was the focus of efforts to induce sediment
control regulation in Washington County.   To complement this ordinance,
it was proposed that the Washington County shoreland zoning ordinance,
enacted in accordance  with Wis. Stat.  §59.971, be amended to provide
erosion controls.   In general, the objectives of these proposed revisions
include the prevention of highly erosive tillage practices along lakes
and streams, the prohibition of cattle access to easily erodible streambanks,
the control of pollution from barnyards and feedlots within the shoreland
zone, and the prevention of manure and fertilizer spreading on frozen
ground when the manure or fertilizer would run off into navigable waters.

     Although erosion in the area for which shoreland zoning is applicable
[300 ft (100 m) from rivers and streams and 1000 ft (325 m) from lakes] is
a major contributor to water quality problems, the shoreland zoning approach
has several drawbacks:

     1.  As with all county zoning ordinances, shoreland zoning ordinances
         exempt uses which do not conform to the ordinance at the time it
         is enacted.  Thus, future land uses may be regulated while non-
         conforming uses are not controlled, unless they are discontinued
         for a 12-month period.

     2.  Zoning has not traditionally been used to control farming practices
         within the area zoned for agriculture (5).  Such zoning regulations
         may be legally permissible, but the Chapter 92 ordinance seemed
         to be more politically acceptable.

     3.  Shoreland zoning, by definition, affects only a limited part of
         the county.  Thus, farmers in the shoreland zone are subject to
         stricter requirements than those in non-shoreland areas.  The
         argument can be made that this merely insures that those people
         causing the most pollution are those on whom the regulations are
         focused.   However, many local officials disagreed with imposing
         different requirements, particularly with regard to cropland
         erosion control.

      4.  The administering agency for shoreland zoning in Washington
          County is the Park and Planning Commission which competently
          administers that program.  Nonetheless, the greatest source of
          expertise regarding agricultural problems, however, lies with
          the SWCD.
 Fate of the Ordinances

      Neither the Chapter 92 ordinance nor the amendments to the shoreland
 zoning ordinance have been adopted.  The Chapter 92 ordinance faces a
 difficult test (SWCD approval, referendum approval, and passage by the
 county board).  To overcome opposition, an extensive informational and
 educational campaign as well as consultations with the supervisors of
 the SWCD was initiated.

      This work proceeded in the belief that the areawide water quality
 plans required by §208 of P.L. 92-500 would call for regulation of agricul-
 tural nonpoint sources of pollution, unless it could be demonstrated that
 voluntary programs would be effective (such a policy was indicated by
 the U.S.  EPA memorandum SAM-31).   It was the general understanding among
 Washington County officials that  while the Washington County regulatory
 program would be enacted in advance of regulations in other areas and
 thus would provide a valuable demonstration of the effectiveness of a certain
 type of regulation,  other areas of the state and county would soon be
 required to follow with regulations of their own or face a  state or national
 mandate for regulations.   There was little indication that  the 1983 and 1985
 goals established by P.L.  92-500  could otherwise be reached.

      As the areawide water  quality planning proceeded,  however,  suggestions
 were made  that  there would  be no  such requirements,  at  least  not in the
 foreseeable future.   This  sentiment was  indicated informally   in the
 letters and speeches of  the U.S.  EPA Administrator (10). In addition,  the
 Wisconsin  Legislature enacted a statute  (Wis.  Stat.  §144.25)  intended to
 control nonpoint  source  pollution through  a voluntary program with a
 provision  that  an  evaluation  of the effectiveness of  this type of  approach
 be  completed by 1982.  Such actions made Washington  County  officials
 skeptical  that  regulation of  agricultural  sources of  sediment  pollution
 would be required  by state  or  federal  law  in the  foreseeable  future.

     Given  these circumstances  and  the fact that  public opinion  in Washington
 County  did not  appear nearly  ready  to approve  the  proposed  regulations,  the
 Washington County  SWCD decided  in early 1978 not  to recommend  the ordinance
 for  enactment.  The  supervisors were reluctant to  propose a regulation
 which was almost certain to be defeated.  Surveys  indicated that awareness
 of nonpoint source pollution in Washington County was not high enough to
make passage likely, even after the extensive informational effort    In
addition, it was felt that the chances for future enactment of ordinances
would be reduced if this one was defeated decisively.

     Thus, no rural ordinance was enacted.   In its place,  however,  the SWCD
adopted and the county board passed a resolution which incorporates the
objectives and standards of the regulatory ordinance.   While there  is no
authority to compel compliance, this resolution  serves three purposes.
First of all, it shows that local decision-makers are  aware of the  sediment
problem, they recognize changes are needed to solve the problem and they
endorse the standards required by the ordinance.  Secondly, the ordinance
provides the SWCD with an additional incentive and justification for
identifying erosion-causing land use practices and the responsible  land-
owners.  Thirdly, the SWCD, using this policy statement as a guide, will
be able to test the administrative procedures and the  feasibility of the
soil loss standards which would have been used under the ordinance.

     Thus, an adminstrative procedure can be designed  which is similar to
that which would have been employed had the ordinance  been enacted.  However,
since no authority exists to require compliance with the standards, the
SWCD will need to rely on its powers of persuasion and the availability
of limited cost-sharing funds to induce compliance.

     The revisions to the county shoreland zoning ordinance also have
not been adopted, although the Park and Planning Commission has given them
serious consideration.  These revisions basically were considered to
complement the Chapter 92 ordinance, and they were not examined thoroughly
by the county board until after it became clear that the Chapter 92 ordinance
could not be enacted.  The county may shortly be enacting some amendments
to its shoreland zoning ordinance to regulate erosion  and other nonpoint
sources of pollution.
Subdivision Erosion Control
     The subdivision erosion control ordinance is intended to control
sediment by requiring review and approval of all plats and certified survey
maps by the SWCD (5).  This procedure requires review by the SWCD within
the same time frame allowed for plat review by other reviewing authorities
acting under the authority of Wis. Stat. Ch. 236.  Thus, no additional
delays occur, provided the plat meets erosion control requirements.

     Chapter 236, under which authority the county and certain other local
government bodies may review plats, does not provide explicitly  that
compliance with soil and water conservation standards may be used by local
governments as a requirement for plat approval.  The chapter does provide,
however, that approval of a plat shall be conditioned upon compliance with
any county ordinance [§236.13(1)(b)], and we considered this to be adequate

     These requirements are fairly modest.  They include a land suitability
test.  Sites with a slope of 12% or greater are presumed unsuitable for
development, unless the developer can show that potential erosion and

 sedimentation problems will be eliminated.  Secondly, the ordinance requires
 that stormwater management facilities be constructed to accomodate maximum
 potential flow from a 10-yr, 24-hr storm.  These facilities must be designed
 to retard, temporarily store or allow infiltration of stormwater runoff
 to prevent downslope erosion.  They must also be consistent with existing
 county and areawide hydrology plans.  Thirdly, conservation practices are
 required to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation if substantial cutting,
 grading, and other land disturbing activity is carried out during development,

      The procedure for enacting this ordinance is less complex than that
 used for the Chapter 92 ordinance.  In this case, the substantive portions
 of the ordinance were drafted and incorporated into the existing Washington
 County Land Division Ordinance by the Washington County Corporation Counsel
 with review and recommendations provided by the Washington County Project.
 The Washington County Park and Planning Commission and the SWCD took active
 roles in the design and promotion of this ordinance.   With the endorsement
 of these two groups the erosion control amendments were enacted by the county
 board without a dissenting vote in June 1978.

      Penalties for violation of the erosion control part of the ordinance
 are the same as for violation of any other part of the land division
 ordinance.   Failure to comply with the terms of the ordinance  may result
 in a fine of $25 to $200/day.   Compliance also may be enforced by an

      Although the ordinance has been enacted by the Washington County Board
 of Supervisors,  and administration is proceeding without undue difficulty,
 there are two areas which need some improvement.   Firstly,  informational
 brochures and guidelines  for developers on ordinance  requirements and how
 best  to meet  these requirements need to be written.   Secondly,  administration
 of the  ordinance requires a substantial time investment  by  SWCD staff.   The
 SWCD  has expanded its  staff,  however,  and when techniques for  review of
 plats are perfected,  the  time  required for each review is expected to

      Although this  ordinance was designed to control  erosion from most
 construction  sites  in  the unincorporated  parts  of  the county,  there are
 some  situations  in  which  it  is  not  effective.   For  example, if  the sub-
 divider whose plat  or certified  survey  is  reviewed has no  intention of
 developing at  the  present  time, but  instead  sells  the lots  for  development
 by others, the ability to  regulate  the  actions  of the subdivider  is
 meaningless since he will  not develop  the  lot.   In addition, there are some
 developments  for which neither  a plat nor  certified survey  is required,
 e.g., where there is no subdivision of  land.  A subdivision is  defined'
 as a  land division  creating 5 or more parcels of 1 1/2 acres (.6  ha)
 or less within a 5-yr period.   [Wis. Stat.  §236.02(8)].   If there  is  no
 subdivision, or if no certified survey map is prepared, the development
may escape the requirements of  the ordinance.

     It is too soon to assess completely the effects of the passage of the
construction site erosion control ordinance.  At this point such a measure
seems to be feasible politically.  It can be administered without excessive
difficulty,, and in general has the cooperation of developers.   As a result,
this kind of control appears to be highly beneficial at limited public and
private cost.
Subdivision Erosion Control in Incorporated Areas

     The county erosion control ordinance described above does not affect
the incorporated parts of the county.  To achieve the goal of a reasonably
uniform set of erosion control requirements for subdivisions, it is necessary
for cities and villages to enact similar ordinances.  So far, four of the
seven cities and villages in the county have enacted, or are in the process
of enacting, or are considering such an ordinance.   In general, the provisions
of these ordinances are similar to those of the county ordinance, except
that the cities and villages use their own engineers (or hire consulting
engineers) to review the plats and certified survey maps.  In some cases,
the SWCD is included as an agency from which advice and recommendations may
be solicited, but the SWCD does not yet have meaningful review of the
developments in most incorporated areas.
                Administering a Sediment Control Program

Coordinating Local Programs
     In the previous section the many agencies which have responsibility
for programs dealing with sediment control were discussed.  A major project
objective was to coordinate the programs in Washington County in order to
obtain reasonably effective direction of the sediment control programs.
Minimally, this meant that the authority for and resources available to
the various agencies needed to be defined, coordination of the programs
needed to be promoted wherever possible, and in some cases new inter-agency
relationships needed to be designed.

     Although several agencies were involved in programs which were clearly
related to sediment control, the goal of sediment control in the interest
of water quality was not pursued actively.  Traditionally, responsibility
for water quality protection was exercised by state and federal agencies,
and responsibility for control of land uses was held at the local level.
In the future, effective sediment control programs in the interest of water
quality will require that these two previously separate functions be united,
if not under the jurisdication of a single agency, then by a combination
of agencies working cooperatively toward a common goal.  Such a program is
not unique.  Wisconsin's shoreland and floodplain zoning programs already


serve as a model of state requirements of land use control for water quality
protection with the control programs administered locally.  These programs,
however, require the joint efforts of the WDNR and either the county
zoning agency for county shoreland and floodplain ordinance administration
or the city/village zoning office for administration of the floodplain
zoning program in the incorporated areas.  The sediment control program will
involve the WDNR and several other agencies.

     Several organizational alternatives were considered in the search for
the most advantageous combination of agencies operating at the county level.
It was concluded that at the very least the SWCD, SCS, ASCS, University-
Extension and the Park and Planning Commission should be involved.   Further-
more, it was decided WDNR, SEWRPC, ILPRD, and the county, cities, villages,
and towns should be involved.  Several patterns for coordination emerged:

     1.  Staff level coordination would involve the SWCD staff, SCS District
         Conservationist, Extension agents, ASCS county executive director
         and the Land Use and Park Administrator.  Interaction would be
         based on the particular programs involved.  Determination of
         priorities for cost-sharing and technical assistance would require
         information from all agencies.  In other cases, such as administration
         of the erosion control amendments to the county land division
         ordinance, close interaction of the SWCD and Land Use and Park
         Adminstrator would be essential with the input of the other agency
         staff more limited.   This approach presumes a desire to cooperate
         on the part of the various agencies, and, of course, acknowledges
         that final policy decisions would, in all cases, be made by the
         committee, board or officer to whom that responsibility has been

     2.  Using shared committee membership some or all of the relevant
         policy making bodies (SWCD Supervisors, ASC Committee, Park and
         Planning Commission, Agriculture and Extention Education Committee)
         would share one or more members or use members of the other com-
         mittees as advisors.  This kind of arrangement already exists to
         a substantial degree and the Extension Committee has the same
         membership as the SWCD.   The ASC Committee, under an agreement,
         holds joint meetings with the SWCD as least annually in addition
         to the annual program development meeting.  The important  relation-
         ship, which does not yet exist, is a closer tie between the SWCD
         and the Park and Planning Commission.   This could be solved by
         adding a non-county board member of  the Park and Planning  Com-
         mission as a sixth member of the SWCD supervisors,  under the
         provisions of Wis.  Stat.  §92.06.

     3.   The Washington County Board could establish a formal joint  committee
         by appointing the same board members as the members of the SWCD
         and the Park and Planning Commission.   These board  members would
         then have jurisdiction over the SWCD,  Extension, and the county
         zoning and subdivision ordinance programs, although they would
         continue to exercise their authority through the separate  committees.
         Seven counties in Wisconsin have such an arrangement (11).

     4.  A water quality and land use advisory committee, which would
         consist of representatives of all of the major agencies listed
         above, could serve as a center of information exchange and program
         coordination.  Its decisions and recommendations would be advisory

     Each of these alternatives was proposed at one time or another to the
Washington County officials.  Ultimately, parts of alternatives 1 and 2
have been adopted.  Alternative 3 would have required a major revision of
county committee structure, and it was not clear that the advantages were
substantial enough to merit such a change.  Alternative 4 was rejected as
being unnecessary and needlessly time-consuming, since most of the functions
envisioned by this arrangement are already performed at the SWCD annual
meeting or ACP development meeting of the ASCS.
Selecting a Management Agency
     An examination of the available options suggested that the Washington
County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD or district), rather than
the county board, was the most appropriate focus for project activity
in the unincorporated areas.  The individual cities and villages could
best handle ,:he sediment problem in the incorporated parts of the county.
This decision was based on these reasons:

     1.  The Wisconsin Legislature, in Chapter 92 Wis. Stat. , has delegated
         to the SWCD the responsibility for county level sediment control
         programs, and particularly for regulatory sediment control programs
         (§92.09).  The county, on the other hand, has no explicit authority
         to enact and administer a sediment control program except for those
         land use regulations which are proposed by the SWCD.  Nonetheless,
         the county has some powers which might be used.  The county is
         required to  enact a shoreland zoning ordinance which arguably
         could be used to control land uses which cause excessive sedimen-
         tation in the limited shoreland zone.  The county could also use
         its traditional zoning authority to achieve similar ends.  Further-
         more, the county could use its building and sanitary codes for
         sediment control.  However, the authority for a county to enact a
         sediment control ordinance is not explicit.  In fact, §92.15(2)
         provides that if an SWCD is discontinued by the county board,
         "the county board may not pass any more ordinances adopting land-
         use regulations or effecting changes in such an ordinance pre-
         viously adopted ..."

         This provision may mean that any land-use regulations controlling
         sediment from agricultural sources may only be enacted through
         the Chapter 92 process.

      2.  Although  the  SWCD  regulatory authority does not extend  to  incor-
         porated areas,  Chapter  92 does provide that the SWCD may provide
         plans, standards,  and technical assistance to cities and villages
         upon  request.   Thus, the SWCD could not only manage the county
         programs,  but could have an advisory role in incorporated  areas
         as well,  thereby promoting the project objectives of providing
         uniform and efficient administration of sediment control programs.

      3.  The Washington  County SWCD supported the objectives of  the project,
         and was small enough in size (five members) to allow easy  and
         substantial exchange of ideas during the ordinance drafting process.
         Furthermore,  its members also were county board members, and this
         furnished  a practical and effective way to transmit project ideas
         to the board.

      4.  The sediment  control program would involve cost-sharing and
         educational programs as well as regulation, and the existing
         relationships between the SWCD, SCS, ASCS, and University-
         Extension  would promote a coordinated program.

      5.  The SWCD,  with  the assistance of the SCS, had the best  technical
         conservation expertise.

      6.  The SWCD,  since 1943 in Washington County, had worked cooperatively
         with  farmers to develop conservation programs.  This alliance with
         farmers made it likely  that the SWCD would be willing to promote
         only  moderate regulations, but, as discussed above, even the
         relatively modest  regulations, properly administered, would control
         most  of the problem.  On the other hand, severe regulations
         administered by an agency unfamiliar with farmers could neither
         be enacted nor  effectively administered.

      7.  Cities and villages were the logical managing agencies  for programs
         within their jurisdictions.  They have broad police power, thus
         clear authority to enact the programs.  They also have  the authority
         under §66.30 to enter into cooperative agreements with  other
         governmental units should such cooperation be desired;  §92.08
         also  allows muncipalities to enter into limited cooperative
         agreements with SWCDs.

      The formation  of special districts for each problem the government
is called upon to address,  is not encouraged.   In the case of sediment
control,however, the SWCD,  although possessing some of the features of a
special district, is tied very closely in a legal sense to the county
board.  In reality  the Washington County SWCD serves almost as a committee
of the county board.  Its boundaries are the same as the county boundaries;
its members are selected from the members of the board; and—having no
taxing authority—it is  dependent on the county board for locally-derived
revenue.  Furthermore,  only the  county board may create or discontinue a

     There is a vital relationship between the county and the district.
The cooperation of the county board is essential if an effective nonpoint
source pollution control program is to be developed; but for the limited
sediment control program, it was decided to focus the sediment control
programs on the district.

     Use of the SWCD as the focal agency places emphasis upon the relationships
the SWCD has with other agencies in Washington County.  Some of these are
as follows:

     1.   The SWCD-Park and Planning Commission relationship has been
         particularly important in the development and administration of
         the erosion control amendments to the land division ordinance.
         The SWCD and Planning Commission jointly developed, held hearings
         on, and endorsed this amendment for county board approval.   Now
         after its passage, they are developing procedures for efficient
         administration of the ordinance.  This relationship is also important
         with regard to the shoreland zoning amendments to control sediment
         and other nonpoint source pollution.   These amendments have not yet
         been adopted,  and may not be enacted.   However,  the two committees
         have discussed general objectives of  the revisions and further
         cooperation is anticipated.   If the provisions relating to  control
         of soil loss in the shoreland zone are enacted,  the administering
         agency (Land Use and Park Department)  would probably rely closely
         on the SWCD for assistance.

     2.   The SWCD has close relationship with  the SCS in  Washington  County,
         as it has in most counties.   The SCS  has provided the SWCD  with
         vital soil conservation expertise and  has—in some cases—provided
         the SWCD with  administrative and policy-making assistance as well.
         It is not likely that these  latter functions are within the scope
         of agreement signed by the two agencies.   It is  also possible that
         where the SWCD decides to hire staff  for administrative purposes,
         a conflict may arise with the SCS District Conservationist  over
         administrative responsibilities.   This is a delicate problem
         which will probably have to  be handled on a county by county
         basis,  although the state and area representatives of the two
         agencies may provide assistance in reaching an agreeable solution.
         In any case,  the relationship has been and will  continue to be
         crucial for both agencies.

     3.   The SWCD-ASCS  relationship is important because  the availability
         of cost-sharing assistance for landowners is imperative whether
         a voluntary or regulatory sediment control program is pursued.

              In large  measure,  this  has been  supplied traditionally by
         the Agricultural Conservation Program  (ACP)  of the ASCS,  although
         in recent years,  other federal and state cost-sharing programs
         have been devised.   The ACP  will continue to be  important,  however,
         and therefore  the agreement  between the SWCD and the ASCS,  which
         recognizes  the  common  objectives  of the conservation of land and

          water resources, is important.  When the SWCD identifies the areas
          and practices causing the most  water quality problems,  it would
          be beneficial if the SWCD, in addition to providing SCS technical
          assistance,  could also induce the ASCS to allot some cost-sharing
          funds to the identified landowners.  The agreement between the
          agencies does generally provide for such coordination,  but it has
          not been rigorously observed.   During the past year, however,
          the ASCS has focused much more  of its cost-sharing money on
          practices designed to improve water quality suggesting  that a
          closer relationship between the two agencies may emerge.

      4.   The SWCD and Inland Lake Protection and Rehabilitation  Districts
          have mutual  objectives.   In Washington County, the SWCD and Big
          Cedar Lake District have signed an agreement which calls for the
          completion of a comprehensive management plan for the Big Cedar
          Lake watershed, and for the implementation of practices needed
          to provide sufficient control of erosion to protect the quality
          of the lake.   Thus, the lake district's objective of reducing
          pollution in the lake can be aided by the SWCD performance of
          traditional  planning and technical assistance to landowners.

      5.   The relationships between the SWCD and incorporated cities and villages
          arepresently the weakest of the relationships discussed.   Although
          the SWCD is  authorized to provide assistance to municipalities
          [§92.08(2) and §92.08(4)(e)], municipalities have rarely requested
          such assistance.   This is changing somewhat in Washington County
          since the SWCD has a primary role in  the administration of the
          county subdivision ordinance.   Although this ordinance  does not
          affect incorporated areas,  some of the municipalities will be
          relying on the SWCD for  assistance in drafting and  administering
          their own erosion control provisions  to their subdivision ordinances.
Manpower Needs
     The above sections describe an institutional arrangement and the legal
tools which are considered desirable in reaching sediment control goals.
Unanswered is the question of which individuals in these agencies should
be responsible for which tasks, and, further, how much time will be needed
to complete these tasks.

     Project research indicates that manpower to implement the proposed
sediment control program in Washington County is inadequate, both in the
number and training the personnel.  Only recently has the Washington County
SWCD hired its own full-time staff person.  A backlog of several dozen
requested but uncompleted conservation plans exists at the SCS office, and
more requests are expected as farmers move to comply with the requirements

of the Farmland Preservation Act.   This law requires that to be eligible
for tax benefits farmers must be in compliance with an SWCD approved farm
plan.   It is possible,  however,  that a better determination of priorities
and improved time management could significnatly improve the output of the
agencies working on present programs.

     For an expanded sediment control program to be administered effectively
the following steps are necessary:

     1.   Recognition by state and  federal agencies that the key to the
         success of a voluntary  or regulatory program lies at the local
         level.  Well-trained soil conservationists (and some farm management
         specialists),  who through performance have gained the respect of
         farmers, will be much more effective in convincing farmers to
         implement the needed management practices than will staff from
         state or regional agencies.   The farmer's willingness to make the
         needed changes is essential for a program's success.

     2.   State financial assistance for manpower should be given to local
         agencies.  These local  agencies should have considerable discretion
         over the hiring and work  program of the employees.   Information
         and assistance must be  provided to these local employees by state
         agencies, but in general  the state role should be more supportive
         than directive.  It is  suggested that the most effective way to
         reduce sediment and other nonpoint source pollutants—especially
         from agricultural sources—is to make maximum use of local govern-
         ment agencies.

     3.   Many people working at  the local level (including federal employees)
         are not adequately trained in the areas which are crucial to
         solving sediment pollution problems.   Some of these areas include
         methods to control construction site erosion; an understanding of
         the maze of institutional arrangements inevitably involved in
         sediment control programs; farm management alternatives which could
         reduce cropland erosion;  and alternatives to cost-sharing such
         as loan and tax deductions,  which could reduce the cost to the
         farmer of implementing  best  management practices.  New and existing
         training programs should  consider these needs.

     4.   A short term program to identify and control sediment and other
         nonpoint pollution sources may be helpful, but it should riot be
         viewed as the total solution to the nonpoint source pollution
         problem.   A set of continuing conservation programs should be
         established in all parts  of  the state, not only in those selected
         for priority attention  at this time.   To obtain the required
         professional personnel  to manage these programs, an additional
         investment in manpower  is needed.

     5.   If a more aggressive campaign to locate and convince the worst
         polluters to use alternative management practices is adopted,
         human relations skills  will be needed.  Under the best of circum-
         stances it is  a major challenge to convince farmers, developers

         and others of the need to use sediment reducing practices.  If
         agency representatives are insensitive to the legitimate economic
         concerns of the farmer or developer, however, farmers will be
         unlikely to cooperate.
Focusing Institutional Resources

     It was found that the best way to improve water quality through changes
in land management practices involves a "critical areas" or "worst-first"
approach.  By focusing resources  (planning, technical assistance, and
cost-sharing) on areas with high  levels of erosion and sedimentation, the
maximum improvement in water quality for each public dollar invested
will be obtained.  In addition, it is generally suggested that attention
be given to the quality of the waterbody for which improvement is desired.
It may be that for some waters even a substantial reduction of sediment
would have little effect, while for other waterbodies a relatively small
sediment reduction could effect a substantial improvement in water quality
and would probably be the most cost-effective.

     Hence, an obvious pre-condition for the implementation of a "critical
areas" approach is knowledge of the water quality of the streams and lakes
of the county, as well as information on soil types and land uses.  A
substantial effort has been made  in Washington County to determine the
types of information now available and to collect and integrate this into
a useful form for county decision-makers (12, 13).  This information included
data from the Conservation Needs  Inventory (CNI) which details land
management practices on a random  2% sample of county land; the SCS soil
survey; the SCS 99 Report summarizing the extent of conservation practices
in the entire county; and the SEWRPC land use inventory.  In addition,
information on the quality of the waters in the county has been collected
and related to the land use information.  Most of this information has
been collected from other agencies, but it has proven useful to pull it
together in a meaningful fashion.  In a series of meetings, this information
was presented to the SWCD supervisors in Washington County.

     In addition to basic land use and water quality information, it is
essential to get information on public concerns and priorities regarding
water quality.  Extensive surveys of Washington County have been conducted,
and a series of meetings have been held across the county to elicit information
from the public.   This information is being evaluated as priorities for
county sediment control programs are established.

     Information available to the county decision-makers is much better now
than it was a few years ago, but areas still exist needing improvement.
For example, the 2% survey is too limited in its coverage to give more
than a general idea of land management practices and needs.  Also, more
detailed information is needed, both at the county level to aid in the
selection of watersheds on which to focus resources, and at the watershed
level, to determine which specific areas are causing sediment problems.

     Information collection is not only a vital component of a program to
focus resources, but is also necessary for the effective management of
agency staff and programs.  In preparing its long-range and annual plans,
the Washington County SWCD has recognized that it has limited resources
and that not all of the programs can be completed.  Therefore, in selecting
which programs are most important, the SWCD has focused on those which
have the greatest potential for water quality improvement.  Other programs,
such as drainage of lowlands, although popular with landowners, have been
downgraded in importance.  The SWCD has also in the past year improved
its coordination with the SCS Annual Plan of Operation (APO) by holding
its planning meeting at the same time of the year as the APO is prepared.
The APO for the SCS in Washington County also emphasizes the need for land
treatment in priority areas.  Furthermore, ASCS has responded to the need
for emphasizing water quality practices in the distribution of ACP cost-
sharing funds, although it does not appear that the state allocation of
funds to the counties is based on the relative needs of each county for
practices to improve water quality.

     It is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs.  The
response of county agencies (and federal agencies operating at the county
level)  to the need to focus resources on prioirity areas is commendable,
but we do not yet know whether the agencies will be able to make the very
difficult decisions required to keep the programs focused on the selected


           Federal and State Policy Effects on Local Regulations

      One objective of the project was to determine whether local governments,
 given federal support, would be willing to enact regulatory programs to
 control sediment.   At the beginning of the project, local officials shared
 the widespread belief that a regulatory program for control of sediment
 from construction sites and farmland would be required in order to meet
 the national goal of fishable,  swimmable water by 1983.   These requirements
 would be in the form of state law induced by federal sanctions,  in particular,
 by the withholding of federal grants for municipal facilities construction.
 While Washington County was offered incentives in the form of assistance  in
 designing and implementing the program,  the threat of federal or state
 mandated controls  was perceived to be near at hand.   Washington County
 officials saw the  project as a demonstration of which form of politically-
 acceptable regulation would lead to measurable sediment  reduction.   Results
 of the study would help federal and state policymakers devise feasible
 regulations for sediment control.

      Midway through the project,  perception of  the imminence  of  state or
 federal requirements for regulations changed.   Whether this change  was  a
 correction of  a misperception,  or whether the position of  state  and federal
 officials changed  is not important.   It  is  important  to  note  that as the
 likelihood of  a federal or state mandate  for  regulation  diminished,  the
 willingness  of local officials  to  enact  a regulatory  program  decreased.
 The  regulatory program for control of  erosion from farmland,  a central ob-
 jective of the project,  was  originally supported  in  concept by the  Washington
 County  Board of  Supervisors  (Washington  County  Board  Resolution No.  53-73-74,
 Nov.  1,  1973).   This  program was  developed with  the advice and support of
 the  Washington County  Soil and Water Conservation  District, but was  rejected
 by these local officials when it became  clear  that regulation of sediment
 from farmland  would not  be required at the state or national  level, at
 least in the near  future.    Instead of regulation, the voluntary approach
 to farmland erosion  control was endorsed by areawide water quality  plans,
 and  by  the Wisconsin Legislature in the Wisconsin  Fund grant program (Wis.
 Stat. §144.25), at least until 1982 when an evaluation of voluntary programs
 in Wisconsin will be completed.  Washington County officials were not willing
 to consider the imposition of regulations, however modest, on their county's
 farmers  unless there was a reasonable prospect that farmers in other areas
would be required to operate under similar restraints.

      We learned  from this  experience  that projects of  this kind are handi-
 capped  by the  lack of  a  consistent  and clear  national  and  state policy for
 sediment  control.  It  is understandable  that  a precise national policy is

difficult to formulate because technical information on the water quality
impacts of sediment is lacking and assessment of the costs and benefits of
sediment control is inadequate.  Thus, the Congress, in establishing the
areawide planning process under P.L. 92-500, adopted a flexible approach
to controlling sediment and other nonpoint sources of pollution.  Nonetheless,
the credibility of state and national agencies is diminished when these
agencies are perceived to be on a shifting and uncertain course.
      Likelihood of Local Enactment of Sediment Control Regulations

     The Washington County experience suggests that local governments will
enact regulations to control sediment only in limited circumstances.  In
enacting the county construction site erosion control ordinance, the
county board showed that it would enact an ordinance which required limited
added administrative expense, which would control recognized erosion
problems, and which added a small cost to developers and home buyers.

     Conversely, the county was not willing to proceed with the rural
erosion control ordinance.  Although research suggested that additional
costs to farmers would be low, and that only about 10 to 15% of county farmers
would have any  additional requirements to meet, the perception among local
officials was that the ordinance would impose an added cost on the county
and—at least—on some farmers.  Furthermore, local officials did not
perceive a benefit to match this added cost.  Instead, they saw that
the farmers in this county would be required to operate under an additional
handicap, putting some of them at a competitive disadvantage with farmers
from other parts of Che state.  Thus, if state or national policymakers
eventually consider that a need exists to regulate farmland erosion,
incentives in the form of minimum statewide standards must be set.  Studies
suggest that Washington County is not unique in its policymaking behavior
(14).  We suspect that if Washington County was not ready to regulate farm-
land erosion, few other counties are likely to do so without greater
incentives than were present in Washington County.  A program similar in
design to the Wisconsin shoreland and floodplain zoning program in which
the state sets minimum standards and the county (or city or village)
administers the program may be successful.
          Need for Local Administration of Sediment Control Programs
     Despite the unwillingness of local officials to proceed with the
proposed rural ordinance, local officials are highly competent and con-
scientious.  Although this report has indicated what was perceived to be
some shortcomings at the local level, it is felt that the local government
administration in Washington County is as competent as that at any level
of government.

     Local officials are the key to a successful sediment control program.
These programs demand a close acquaintance with local land use conditions
and with landowners and developers.  A large measure of the success of
any program will come from inducing farmers and developers to cooperate
willingly in promotion of sediment control goals and programs.  Local agency
personnel, who understand local conditions, will be far more successful in
securing this cooperation than will representatives from agencies at
other levels of government.

     No doubt observations similar to these have been made countless times,
yet it continues to appear that whenever programs are designed to combat
sediment problems, local personnel needs are the last to be considered.
Sediment control programs will stand or fall on the ability of local
officials and agency personnel to handle the problem.  Future sediment
control programs, at whatever level initiated, must recognize this fact.
When funds for administration of sediment control programs are allocated,
the first priority should be for local technical and administrative assistance.

                                REFERENCES  - I
 1.   Daniel,  T.  C. ,  and R.  H.  Klassy.   Washington County  Project  Work Plan.
     EPA-905/9-77-001,  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Chicago, IL.,
     1977.   73 pp.

 2.   Hart,  H., and  G. Kundanis.   The Washington County  Board  of Supervisors:
     An In-depth and Comparative Analysis.  Washington  County Project Report,
     Water  Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1977.

 3.   Strauss,  E.  Land  and  Water Resources Planning at  the  County Level.
     Ph.D.  Thesis,  University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979.

 4.   Berkowitz,  S.  J.,  and  R.  R.  Schneider.   A Description  and Critique of
     Soil and Water Conservation Programs in Washington County, Wisconsin.
     Washington County  Project Report,  Water Resources  Center, University
     of Wisconsin-Madison,  1979.

 5.   Church,  W.  L.,  W.  Fahey,  and D. Kremmel.  Legal  Analysis of  Sediment
     Pollution Problems  ±n Washington County.   Washington County  Project
     Report, Water Resources Center, University of  Wisconsin-Madison, 1979.

 6.   Sharp, B. M, H. The Impact of Sediment Control Ordinances upon Agricul-
     tural  Activity. Washington County Project Report, Water Resources Center,
     University of  Wisconsin-Madison,  1977.

 7.   Moore, I. C.,  R. R. Schneider, and F. W. Madison.  The Role  of Tax
     Relief in Agricultural Nonpoint Source Polllution  Control.  Washington
     County Project Report, Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-
     Madison,  1978.

 8.   Moore, I. C.,  B. M. H.  Sharp, S.  J. Berkowitz, and R.  R. Schneider.
     Financial Incentives to Control Agricultural Nonpoint  Source Pollution.
     J. Soil and Water  Cons. 34(2):60-64, 1979.

 9.   Hutchison,  J.  K.   Urban Fringe Agriculture, Nonpoint Water Pollution and
     Policy Considerations.  Ph.D. Thesis, University of  Wisconsin-Madison, 1973.

10.   Alger, K.  Federal Misperception  in the Implementation of Water Quality
     Planning.  Washington County Project Report, Water Resources Center,
     University of  Wisconsin-Madison,  1978.

11.   DeKnatel, C.,  W.  Fahey, and E. Strauss.  Institutional Framework for
     Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control in Washington County, Wisconsin.
     Washington County  Project Report, Water Resources  Center, University of
     Wisconsin-Madison, 1977.

12.  Carpenter, A., and G. Schellentrager.   Land Use - Water Quality
     Relationship Analysis of Washington County.  Washington County Project
     Report, Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1978.

13.  Carpenter, A., and D. Wilson.  Development of Resource Information for
     Local Decision-Makers.  In:  Proc. U.S. EPA Conf., Voluntary and Regulatory
     Approaches for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.   EPA-905/9-78-001,
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Chicago, IL, 1978.  pp. 65-76.

14.  Alger, K., and H. Hart.  An In-depth and Systems Perspective on Con-
     servation Decision-Making in Wisconsin Counties.  Washington County
     Project Report, Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison,

                            BIBLIOGRAPHY - I
Alger, K., and H. Hart.  1978.  An In-depth and Systems Perspective on
    Conservation Decision-Making in Wisconsin Counties.  Washington
    County Project Report.  Water Resources Center, University of
    Wisconsin-Madison.  27 pp.

Alger, K.  1978.  Federal Misperception in the Implementation of Water
    Quality Planning.  Washington County Project Report.  Water Resources
    Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.  20 pp.

Alger, K.  1978.  Stratified Implementation:  P.L. 92-500 Sec. 208.
    Washington County Project Report.  Water Resources Center, University
    of Wisconsin-Madison.  18 pp.

Arts., J.  1979.  Institutional Design for Sediment Control in Washington
    County, Wisconsin.  Washington County Project Report.  Water Resources
    Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.  50 pp.

Arts, J., and S. J. Berkowitz.  1978.  Institutional Needs for Effective
    Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Programs.  In:  Proc. U.S. EPA Conf.,
    Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches for Nonpoint Source Pollution
    Control.  EPA-905/9-78-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Chicago, IL.  pp. 48-56.

Berkowitz, S. J., and R. R. Schneider.  1979.  A Description and Critique
    of Soil and Water Conservation Programs in Washington County,
    Wisconsin.  Washington County Project Report.   Water Resources Center,
    University of Wisconsin-Madison.  65 pp.

Bouwes, N. W., and R. R. Schneider.  1979.  Procedures in Estimating
    Benefits of Water Quality Change.  Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 61(3):535-539.

Church, W. L., W. Fahey, and D. Kremmel.  1979.  Legal Analysis of
    Sediment Pollution Problems in Washington County.  Washington County
    Project Report.  Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-
Carpenter, A., and G. Schellentrager.  1978.  Land Use - Water Quality
    Relationship Analysis of Washington County.  Washington County
    Project Report.  Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-
    Madison.  61 pp.

Carpenter, A., and D. Wilson.  1978.  Development of Resource Information
    for Local Decision-Makers.  In:  Proc.  U.S. EPA Conf., Voluntary and
    Regulatory Approaches for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.
    EPA-905/9-78-001, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL.
    pp. 65-76.

  Daniel,  T.  C.,  and R.  H.  Klassy.   1977.   Washington County Project  Work
      Plan.   EPA-905/5-77-001,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
      Chicago,  IL.   73 pp.

  DeKnatel, C., W.  Fahey, and E.  Strauss.   1977.   Institutional  Framework
      for  Nonpoint  Source Water Pollution  Control  in  Washington  County,
      Wisconsin.  Washington County  Project Report.   Water Resources  Center,
      University  of Wisconsin-Madison.   58 pp.

  Harder,  S. M.,  T.  C. Daniel,  and F. W. Madison.  1978.  Guidelines  for
      Mandatory Erosion  Control Programs.  J. Soil and Water  Cons.

  Harder S. M., T.  C. Daniel, and F. W. Madison.  1976.  Review and
      Analysis of Selected Regulatory Programs for Controlling Erosion:
      Recommendations for a Practical Approach.  Washington County Project
      Report.  Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
      120 pp.

 Hart, H., and G. Kundanis.  1977.   The Washington County Board of
      Supervisors:  An In-depth and Comparative Analysis.  Washington
     County Project Report.  Water Resources Center,  University of
     Wisconsin-Madison.   26 pp.

 Hutchison,  J.  K.  1978.  Urban Fringe Agriculture,  Nonpoint Water
     Pollution and  Policy Considerations.   Ph.D.  Thesis.  University of
     Wisconsin-Madison.   183 pp.

 Madison,  F.  W.,  and C.  P.  Runge.   1978.  The Need for Sediment  Regulations:
     The Washington County  Example.   In:  Proc. U.S.  EPA Conf.,  Voluntary
     and Regulatory Approaches  for  Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.
     EPA-905/9-78-001, U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Chicago, IL.
     pp. 42-47.

 Moore,  I. C.,  R. R.  Schneider, and  F.  W.  Madison.  1978.  The Role of
     Tax Relief in  Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control.  Washington
     County Project Report.  Water Resources  Center,  University  of  Wisconsin-
     Madison.   11 pp.

 Moore,  I. C., B. M. H.  Sharp,  S. J. Berkowitz, and R. R. Schneider.   1979.
     Financial Incentives to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
     J.  Soil and Water Cons. 34(2):60-64.

 Pollard, R. W., B.  M. H. Sharp, and F. W. Madison.   1979.  Farmers'
     Experience with Conservation Tillage:  A Wisconsin  Survey.  J. Soil
     and Water Cons. 34(5):215-219.

Runge, C.  P.   1978.  Legal and Institutional Arrangements Being Sought in
    the Washington  County Project.   In:  Proc.  American Water Res. Assn.,
    Wisconsin Section,  Second Annual Meeting, Planning and Managing
    Wisconsin Water Resources,  Milwaukee,  WI.  pp. 317-321.

 Runge, C. P.  1976.  Land Management Institutional Design for Water
     Quality Objectives.  In:  Proc.  U.S. EPA Conf., Best Management
     Practices for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Seminar.  EPA 905/
     y-76-005.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL.
     pp. 59-64.

 Schneider, R. R.  1977.  Valuating Recreational Resources:  Further
     Methodological Issues.   Washington County Project Report.  Water
     Resources Center,  University of Wisconsin-Madison.   28 pp.

 Schneider, R.  R.  1978.  Planning Diffuse Pollution Control:  An
     Analytical Framework.  Water Res.  Bull.  14(2):322-336.

 Schneider, R.  R.,  and  N.  W.  Bouwes.   1979.  The Public  and Its Attitudes
     Perceptions  and Willingness  to Pay for Improved Water Quality
     Technical  Report No.  WIS WRC 79-02.   Water  Resources Center
     University of  Wisconsin-Madison.   27  pp.                    '

 Schneider, R.  R.,  and  R.  H.  Day.   1976.   Diffuse Agricultural Pollution-
     The Economic Analysis of  Alternative  Controls.   Technical Report
     No. WIS WRC  76-02.  Water Resources Center,  University of Wisconsin-
     Madison.   98 pp.

 Sharp,  B.  M. H.  1977.  The  Impact of  Sediment  Control  Ordinances upon
     Agricultural Activity.  Washington County Project Report.  Water
     Resources  Center, University  of Wisconsin-Madison.   36 pp.

 Sharp,  B.  M. H., and S. J. Berkowitz.  1978.  Economic  Issues  of Con-
     trolling Nonpoint Sources  of  Pollution.  In:  Proc.  American Water
     Res. Assn., Wisconsin Section, Second  Annual Meeting, Planning and
    Managing Wisconsin Water Resources, Milwaukee, WI.   pp.  219-236.

 Sharp, B. M. H., and S. J. Berkowitz.  1979.  Economic,  Institutional
    and Water Quality Considerations in the Analysis of  Sediment Control
    Alternatives:  A Case Study.   In:  Proceedings of the 1978 Cornell
    Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Ann Arbor  Science
    Ann Arbor, MI.                                              '

Strauss, E.  1979.   Land and Water Resources Planning at the County Level.
    Ph.D.  Thesis.  University of  Wisconsin-Madison.

      PART II

                             CONTENTS - PART II



                       ........................................ r r • - • •    H-v
  SUMMARY OF GOALS, METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS  ....................... .    n_z
    Goals  .............................
    Metholology  .......... '.'.'.'.'. .....................................    II~1
    Findings  .................... '•'..'.. i .....!.!.!.!.!.'!.'!!!! i  '"    ii~l

 WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK .................. . ........           IT_4
    Watershed Selection
    Description of Agricultural Sites in Kewaskum ' .'.'.'.'.'.'.'!.' .........   TT'A
    Description of Residential Construction Sites in Germantown .'.'.'!   11-7
    Monitoring Equipment and Station Installation ..... ____ ,..         II-,13
    Water Quality Sampling and Data Analysis ......... !!.'!!!!!!!! ','. '.   11-15

 MONITORING RESULTS ...................
                                  .................. •••••i«»f»....tf   11—19
    Precipitation Variability ................................. ^       11-19
    Kewaskum Agricultural Watershed Results ..... '"I.'!!.!!!!!..*.'.'.*"   11-42
    Germantown Construction Site Results ........... .!.*!.'.'.'!.'!.*!.'."*   11-27


    Concentration Variations Due to Sampler Intake  Location .......    11-33
    Composite and Discrete Sampling .............................   '    11-35
    Monitoring Snowmelt and Spring  Runoff ............ !!!!!!!!!!!!"    11-38
 CONSERVATION TILLAGE  SYSTEMS ......                                    TT ,n
                                .................... • ...............   II-i40
    Inf iltrometer  Studies  .................................             11-40
    Case  Study of  Farmers' Attitudes  and  Experiences 'with ...........
     Conservation Tillage  ............................                 IT 4fi

    The Problem .......................
    Project Efforts ............. ................. .......... T .......   TI sfi
    Control Techniques  .............    ............. ' ..............   TT c-?
                                     "*** ................ • . • t ..... . .   4-i— J /

MODELS AND PREDICTIVE TOOLS  ..................................         11-59

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS  ........                                         TT £/
                              ......................................   11-64
REFERENCES ....................                                        TT ,_
                              ........................ • .............    Il-o5

      PART II


                             CONTENTS - PART  II
  TITLE  PAGE  ..............
                          ........................................ t . .   II-i
  CONTENTS  ..............
              [[[   Il-ii
  FIGURES  .............
  TABLES .................
                                                     f • • ...... r r
    Metholology ..................                       ...........      ~
    Findings .......................... * """!!!!!!!!!"!!!!!!! i!"    iilj

 WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK .......                               TT /
                                           .......... *••• .......... t    J.i-4
    Watershed Selection ..................................... ^          IT,
    Description of Agricultural Sites in Kewaskum ..... ..'..'] ..... '"    ji-,4
    Description of Residential Construction Sites in Germantown  ....    II-7
    Monitoring Equipment and Station Installation ................      11-13
    Water Quality  Sampling and Data Analysis  .............. !!.'!!".*!!    11-15

 MONITORING RESULTS ......................................              II 19
    Precipitation  Variability ...................................       11-19
    Kewaskum Agricultural  Watershed Results  ....... *'.*'.!!!!!..'.'.'.].'    11-22
    Germantown Construction Site  Results .................. !!!!!!!!!    11-27

    Concentration  Variations  Due  to Sampler Intake Location ........    11-33
    Composite and  Discrete Sampling .............................  *    11-35
    Monitoring  Snowmelt  and Spring  Runoff ......... ..*' i !^ !!..!!.!!!!    11-38
 CONSERVATION TILLAGE SYSTEMS  .......                                  TT /r.
                                   ......... ............ ...... ......   ll-i4U
    Inf iltrometer Studies  ....................................         11-40
    Case Study of Farmers' Attitudes and Experiences 'with ...........
     Conservation Tillage ........................... f ..........      11-46

    The Problem ........................
    project Efforts ............... i " i !.'.'!! 1 !!!!!!!!,"!!!!.'!!!.'!.'"*•   11-55
    Control Techniques ....................... .!!!!!!!!.!.! .........   11-57

MODELS AND PREDICTIVE TOOLS ..................................         11-59

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS .......................................         11-64


 II-l    Washington County, Wisconsin, showing its geographical
         location and selected proj ect sites 	   II-5

 II-2    Location of Kewaskum Watershed within Washington County
         and location of K-North and K-South subwatersheds 	   II-6

 II-3    Kewaskum subwatersheds, showing location of monitoring
         sites and monitored watersheds  	   II-8

 H-4    Developing portions of Germantown showing monitoring
         sites associated with Old Farm and Legend Acres
         Subdivisions  	   11-11

 II-5    Diagram of a monitoring station exhibiting:   a.  basic
         physical components; and b.  details of  the instrumen-
         tation 	   11-14

 II-6    Probability distribution of  rainfall erosivity  at
         Hartford,  Wisconsin, May through October period,
         1949  to 1978 	   11-21

 II-7    Pollutograph showing "first  flush"  effect on suspended
         solids (SS)  concentrations  (mg/L)  at Station G5,
         June  11,  1977	    11-31

 II-8    Diagram of monitoring  site,  depicting two alternative
         sampling positions  	    11-34

 II-9     Typical hydrograph  depicting different methods of
         sampling and calculating event loads  	    11-36

 11-10    Comparison of CEL and  SMEL event load computations with
         true values  (DEL) 	    11-37

 II-ll   Mean sediment losses,  conservation tillage infiltrometer
         studies	          11-42

11-12   Mean total phosphorus losses, conservation tillage
        infiltrometer studies  	    11-43

II-13   Mean dissolved molybdate reactive phosphorus (DMRP)
        losses, conservation tillage infiltrometer studies 	   11-44

Number                                                              Page

 11-14   Mean losses of resin-exchangeable phosphorus, con-
         servation tillage infiltrometer studies 	    11-45

 11-15   Degree of satisfaction with conservation tillage 	    11-50

 11-16   Corn yields with conservation tillage as compared to
         conventional tillage 	    11-51

 11-17   Reasons for trying conservation tillage 	    11-52

 11-18   Problems encountered by farmers using conservation
         tillage 	    11-53

 11-19   Flow of information concerning conservation tillage to
         farmers 	    11-54

Number                                                              Page

 II-l     Description of Kewaskum agricultural watersheds 	    II-9

 II-2     Conservation practices in Kewaskum agricultural
          watersheds 	    11-10

 II-3     Description of Germantown urbanizing watersheds 	    11-12

 II-4     Installation costs of automated water quality mon-
          itoring stations 	    11-16

 II-5     Water quality parameters evaluated 	    11-17

 II-6     Precipitation data for Washington County, 1976-1978 ..    11-20

 II-7     Runoff, sediment and chemical yields, and "normalized"
          yields for Kewaskum agricultural watersheds 	    11-23

 II-8     Concentration averages and ranges of water quality
          parameters for Kewaskum agricultural watersheds 	    11-24

 II-9     Kewaskum monitoring results,,  sediment delivery
          ratios 	    11-26

 11-10    Runoff, sediment and chemical yields, and "normalized"
          yields for Germantown urbanizing watersheds 	    11-28

 II-ll    Concentration averages and ranges of water quality
          parameters for urbanizing  watersheds in  Germantown ...     11-29

 11-12    Grain  yields  and plant populations for threee tillage
          systems,  with and without  manure 	     11-47

 11-13    Corn budgets  under  three alternative cultivation
          systems 	     11-49

 11-14    Soluble reactive  phosphorus loading  (SRPL)  model  	     11-61

 11-15    Predicted  total phosphorus loads  from the  Kewaskum
         watersheds  	     11-62


      The primary goal of the Washington County Project technical unit was
  to demonstrate the relationship of certain land uses to water pollution
  and—in specific areas—to determine the effectiveness of several sediment
  and erosion control techniques for improving water quality (1).  The major
  objectives were:

      1.  To measure the amount of water and the concentrations of sediment
          and associated pollutants in surface runoff.from agricultural and
          urbanizing areas, and to compute pollutant loadings;

      2.  to identify those characteristics of different land uses and
          management practices that contribute to sediment-related water
          pollution problems;

      3.  to investigate the effectiveness of erosion control measures in
          reducing runoff and  pollutant discharges from specific agricul-
          tural sources—particularly cropped fields and barnyards—by
          using a "before and  after" treatment approach;

      4.  to examine methods for reducing soil erosion and sedimentation
          from housing  construction in a residential subdivision.

      Runoff monitoring  stations  were  established  in  an  agricultural  area
 near  Kewaskum and  two subdivisions  under  construction near  Germantown in
 Washington County, Wisconsin.  Water  samples  from these areas were collected
 during  runoff events.   Samples were analyzed  and  relationships between pre-
 cipitation, runoff, land use and water quality were  investigated.  Farm
 management practices, both traditional and  innovative,  were implemented and
 their effectiveness and acceptability were  evaluated.   Methods of controlling
 erosion from  residential construction sites were  studied and recommendations
 made on what  provisions should be included  in a subdivision erosion  control

     Supporting projects provided information on how to improve the moni-
 toring system.  Computer models and predictive tools were developed and/or
modified to help highlight the policy implications of agricultural

management alternatives.  These models were tested with monitoring data
from the Kewaskum watersheds.

     1.   Data were collected and analyzed for two years  from eight  moni-
         toring stations in the  agricultural and developing  residential
         watersheds in Washington County.  In addition to  providing
         valuable technical information,  these stations  served  as focal
         points for the Project's Washington County  based  information  and
         education programs.   They also helped increase  public  awareness
         of sediment and related water quality problems  and  public  accep-
         tance of institutional  and technical control  alternatives.

     2.   Well-managed croplands  on dairy  farms showed  relatively low sedi-
         ment and nutrient  losses.   Contour strip-cropping proved to be  a
         highly effective sediment  and nutrient control  practice on steep-
         sloped croplands.   The  water  quality benefits of  grass waterways
         and subsurface drainage systems  in relatively flat  watersheds,
         however,  were questionable.

     3.   Unmanaged barnyards were the  largest contributors of pollutant
         loads in the dairy farming watersheds.   The experimental manage-
         ment system installed in one  watershed demonstrated that effective
         management is possible.

     4.   Sediment  carried most of the  phosphorus  and nitrogen measured in
         runoff from rural  and urbanizing sites.  However, land management
         practices could successfully  reduce  loads of sediment and  their
         associated pollutants,  although  dissolved loads were often increased,

     5.   Excessive sedimentation and other water  quality problems associated
         with intensive  housing  construction  were documented.  Pollutant
         concentrations  and loads diminished  as  the  monitored subdivisions
         stabilized.   Erosion control  alternatives were identified  but the
         effectiveness  of the control measures were  not successfully demon-
         strated during  the most  critical phases  of  development.

     6.   The  feasibility  and acceptability of  conservation tillage  practices
         were evaluated  in  detail.  "No-tillage" has been poorly received
         in Wisconsin.   On  research plots in Washington County technical
         limitations were observed with the "no-tillage" system.  Other
         reduced tillage  systems, in particular chisel-plow  systems, showed
         greater promise.   Water  quality  improvements are possible but
         dependent  on how the previous year's  residue was managed.  Yield
         reductions were  small, and most  importantly, farmers expressed
         more  interest in these systems because of their labor and  soil
         saving features.

Models and predictive methods addressing many agricultural aspects
of sediment and related water quality problems were developed and
applied.  These included:  a. a series of computer programs to
predict watershed sediment yield using the USLE; b. an optimiza-
tion model that predicts farm-level impacts of alternative sediment
control policies; c. a hydrologic model for predicting watershed
soil losses on an event basis; d. a multiple-regression model for
predicting annual soluble phosphorus losses from cropped fields;
and e. a methodology for predicting total phosphorus losses from
confined livestock and winter-spread manure.


      A major objective of the Washington County Project was to establish a
 runoff and water quality monitoring network in Washington County.   A detailed
 description of the monitoring program is given by Daniel et al.  (2).  This
 section describes:  a. watershed selection criteria;  b. land use and other
 watershed characteristics;  c. station instrumentation;  and d.  methods used
 to evaluate runoff quantity and quality.
                             Watershed Selection

      Criteria established  for  selecting  agricultural and  developing  watershed
 study areas  in Washington  County  (1)  included:

      The  physical  characteristics of the watersheds,  such  as  stream con-
      figuration, must  lend themselves  favorably to monitoring.

      The  watersheds must show  evidence of  soil  erosion or other  sources
      of water pollution that can be attributed  to topography, soil type
      and  present or proposed land use  activities.

      The  agricultural  watershed must reflect common  agricultural practices
      used in  the Great Lakes Basin.

      The  developing watershed must be  a  medium  to high density residential
      area under construction within the  corporate boundaries of a  village
      or city.

      Public support for the program must be demonstrated  in the selected

Following these criteria,  agricultural study sites were selected in  the
Kewaskum  Creek basin,  and  construction sites were chosen  in Germantown
 (Fig. 1).
               Description of Agricultural Sites in Kewaskum

     The agricultural study sites lie in the Kewaskum Creek Watershed,
comprising 7,940 acres (3,210 ha) of which about 40% is land devoted pre-
dominantly to dairy farming (Fig. 2).  The dominant soils in this water-
shed are loams and silt loams in the Hochheim-Theresa association which
covers almost 50% of Washington County.   The U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) designates these soils in land capability Class I and II, and Hydrologic
Soil Group B, with only limited restrictions due to water and erosion hazards.

                   " Basin
                   Green Bay
                                   Great  Lakes Drainage Divide

                                   Study  Watershed  Boundary

                                   Watershed Streams
                                                 GREAT LAKES DRAINAGE  BASIN
                  1|                     GERMANTOWN 	
                  t                     WATERSHED
Fig.  1.
Washington County,  Wisconsin,  showing  its
geographical location and selected project sites

               GREAT LAKESX
               NDRAINAGE  BASJN
K\\x ^\\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ *v\ \\\\
                                                        1      2
       Fig. 2.  Location  of Kewaskum Watershed within Washington County
               and location of K-North and K-South subwatersheds

  These soils,  from an agricultural standpoint,  are potentially the most pro-
  ductive in the county.   Lesser  areas  are occupied by soils  in the Casco-Fox-
  Rodman association which are somewhat shallower  and  steeper and have critical
  management requirements.   Finally,  the organic soils of  the Houghton-Palms-
  Adrian association make  up a small, but hydrologically-important (Hydrologic
  Soil  Group D)  part of the watershed.   Since  extensive drainage is a  necessary
  precursor  to  cropping, the predominant land  use  on these soils is either
  pasture or marshes and woodlands.

       Monitoring stations  were installed in two intensively  farmed upland
  subwatersheds  in  the  Kewaskum basin (Fig. 3).  Although  situated near  each
  other,  the North  and  South watersheds  have very  different topographic  and
  land  use features  (Table  1).  The North watershed  is  considerably steeper,
  and rotations  are  longer;  most  common  are 5- to  7-yr  rotations with  1  to 2
  yr of^corn.  Contour  strip-cropping is  the most widely used conservation
  practice.   In  the  South watershed, rotations are shorter and normally  include
  2 to  3  yr  of corn.  Many  of  the lower  fields are tile-drained and  the  grass
 waterway is the most  important  conservation practice.

      Stations Kl and K6 monitor nearly  the entire North and South watersheds
 respectively.  Station K2 monitors a smaller portion of the North watershed
 that is mainly cropland but which also  includes a barnyard and animal exer-
 cise area.   Station K4 monitors a small, independent  watershed adjacent to
 the basin of Kl and is influenced primarily by a  barnyard and feedlot directly
 upslope.  Station K5  monitors a predominantly cropland portion of the South
 watershed.   Station K3 was abandoned early in the monitoring program due to
 equipment failures and poor site accessibility.

      Both watersheds  were intensively  treated with conservation practices
 during the  course  of  the  project (Table 2).   Most of  the  major practices
 were installed during 1977 and were operating by  the  1978 monitoring  season.
         Description  of  Residential  Construction Sites  in  Germantown

     Monitoring  stations were  established  in Germantown to  obtain  information
on  sediment and  nutrient contributions  to  surface waters  from  construction
activities.  The Village of Germantown, on the  periphery  of the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Area, is experiencing  rapid development of large  single and
multiple family  residential subdivisions,  two of which were selected for
monitoring.  The locations of  the monitored watersheds are  shown in Fig  4
and major land use features of each site are highlighted  in Table  3.  Water-
shed runoff was  sampled in storm sewers which drained to  intermittent or
perennial streams below.

     The developers of the Old Farm and Legend Acres subdivisions were
cooperative in the project's efforts to monitor treated and untreated con-
struction sites.   In the Old Farm subdivision,  the G2 watershed was to
remain untreated  while G3 was treated by applying a cover crop with mulch.

                                                                                          Monitoring Site
                                                                                          Livestock Concentration   03
                                                                                          Watershed Boundary      	
                                                                                          Contributing Area       	-
                                                                                          Intermittent Streams    	
                                                                                          County Highways        =HH=:
                            Fig.  3.   Kewaskum subwatersheds, showing  location of
                                      monitoring sites and monitored watersheds

                         Table 1.   Description of  the  Kewaskum agricultural  watersheds

Area (ha)
Slope % > 7Z

Kl (includes K2 + K3) K2
1977 1978 1977 1978
167 26.9
31 40
	 	 K SOUTH 	
K4 K5 K6 (includes K5)
1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978
9.41 32.6 116
52 5 12
 Land use, %


Conservation practices

  Strip-cropped and contour-strip-
    cropped, %
  Affected by grass waterways, %
  Conservation tillage, 7,
  Tiled, X
  Surface drained, %
  Feedlot protected

Livestock inventory, au*


                                 21    0

Dairy cows
Dairy heifers
Dairy calves
Beef calves
Beef feeders
Beef heifers
Sows 6. gilts
Market hogs
Laying hens

(1.4 au/animal)
(0.8 " )
(0.25 " )
(1.0 " )
(0.8 " )
(0.75 " )
(0.3 " )
(0.35 " )
(0.150 " )
(0.004 " )


16 .




                        *au  »  "animal  unit,"  1  au  represents  1,000  Ib  (454.5  kg)  of  live weight animal equivalent.

Table  2.    Conservation  practices  in  Kewaskum  agricultural  watersheds
A. Prnctlrcs Instilled

"* K2 K4 K5 K6**

Stripe ropp 1 UK , ,ic rt'-t 36 2
Contouring, a-:r«-s 2 2 3
Conservation Tllla^..-, acres 85 5

Tiling, ft 360 6i250 25,230 17,050
Other BarnyarJ Measures j
B. Practice costs1*
Practice: Totdl cost, $:
Contour Stripcropplng 909

19,982 - repair, regrading, additional tiling, seed, fertilizer, labor, stone removal
Surface Drainage 840
Tiling 6.549
Other Barnyard Me.inurcs 3,195 - diversion, concrete diversion, gutters and downspouts, tlltnp, for downspouts
Oilier Pavncnts 1,173 - fall plowing, crop damage
TOTAL 72,155
Time, (hr) Cost, ($)
Pl.i"n!nR 352 2,810
Technle.il Asalsl.inc-c 888 ?,000
TOTAL 1,2',0 9,900


75 85
1 11
(18, '.70 ft)
25,230 17,050

 +"l^for«-"  In,ll..tt4-s |>rncrl.-i"t prcncnt lirf(jrr prolt-ct (prr;-1976)
  "A.ldc-,1" li..ll<	 |nr r'trlora (Ifw)f roM-nlinr«  rntf)
"liirli«lf«  tln.>  ,.]•, -:ir  l.y U.i»li lii(;l -in Cuiiiil y M.S tiliil'l .n»l M.'CII I .-, Imlr I.Ml. cciHl fl,;.ir.M 
                          Mequon Road

                                                  ^LEGEND ACRES
                          Donges Bay Road
     Monitoring Site
     To  Be  Developed  With Treatment
     To  Be  Developed  Without Treatment
Fig.  4.
     1	rt	1	,—I

Developing portions of Germantcwn showing  monitoring sites
associated with Old Farm and Legend Acres  Subdivisions

Table  3.   Description of  Germantown urbanizing watersheds
Site 1975 1976
Old Farm Subdivision
Total area, ha
G2 watershed
G3 watershed
Development record
Streets, ha* 3.9 3.9
Single family homes, units 2.0 57.0
Imperviousness, % added*** 16.2 6.6
Imperviousness, % cumulative 16.2 22.8
Legend Acres Subdivision
G5 watershed, ha
Development record
Streets, ha** 0 3.4
Single family homes , units
Duplexes, units
Imperviousness, % added*** 20.5
Imperviousness, % cumulative 0 20.5
* 2735 m, (3 14.6 m width
** 643 m, @ 18.3 m width; 1615 m @ 14.6 m width
fc* Assumptions:
1. Single family houses are 158 m , driveways



74.3 m , gai



rages 60.





4 m = 29
     •J- •   «-* J-JLi^J.*— -*- C4.4.11-*. _l_ Jf  lAWU.tJ^.0 C*J_ <^- J__/W 111  y  VJ.J- -I- V tW CLy O  /**••_*  111 ,  K.O.JL ClgCO  \J \J • *+ 111  	
     2.   Duplexes are  20.4 m2, driveways  149  m^, garages  92.9 m^ = 446 m^/unit
     3.   Single family  home lots are .1 ha (1/4 acre)  and are 32% impervious
     4.   Duplex lots are  .13 ha (1/3 acre)  and are 35% impervious
                                                                                        HI / UHX t

  Similarly, Legend Acres, G5 and Gl represented untreated and treated
  developments, respectively.  Due to technical problems encountered at Gl,
  it was not possible to obtain data at this station, and it was eventually
  closed down.

      Prior to disturbance, the major soil type in each watershed was
  Ozaukee silt loam.  In a typical profile, the A-horizon (0 to 30 cm) con-
  sists of a slightly calcareous silt loam, and the B-horizon (30 to 70 cm)
  is slightly calcareous and undergoes a textural change from a silty clay
  loam to a silty clay (3).  The substrate consists of a calcareous, silty
  clay loam, glacial till.  The watershed's natural topography was gently
  sloping (<6%) and the upland soils were well-drained.  Preparing the site
  for development involved clearing the total area of each watershed and
  stockpiling the topsoil.  Leveling, grading and some redistribution of the
  topsoil followed, making all slopes <3%.

      Site preparations for 118 single family housing lots in the Old Farm
 subdivision occurred during 1975.   Two houses were built and occupied by the
 end of 1975.   Extensive housing construction activity occurred during 1976
 and 1977 with addition of 57 and 50 houses,  respectively.   Construction was
 completed on the remaining 9 lots  during  1978.   Although half of the lots
 were finished by the end of 1976,  vegetation was not established until the
 end of 1977.   Houses were constructed in  both the G2 and G3 watersheds in
 a similar fashion.

      Legend Acres,  partially monitored by  station G5,  was  platted for 131
 lots zoned for single homes and  duplexes.   Site development occurred in 1975
 and home construction began in 1976.   By  the end of 1977, 51 single family
 dwellings  and 27 duplexes were completed  and occupied;  however,  most of these
 lots were  not stabilized with  vegetation  until  the end  of 1978.   Twenty-two
 single family homes  and  two duplexes were completed during  1978.   A portion
 of  Legend  Acres  is  zoned for multiple  family apartments, and two apartment
 buildings  were constructed  adjacent  to  the G5 monitoring station during
 1978.   Site preparations  for five additional  apartment  buildings,  located in
 the northeast  section of  the watershed, were  made  in the fall of  1978.

      A combination of limited  precipitation  and  development pressure during
 1976  resulted  in construction  proceeding  rapidly.   As a result,  the mulch
 cover  and  seeding installed in the G3 watershed were completely  disturbed
 before vegetation was established.  Therefore, all watersheds were  monitored
 as  uncontrolled  home construction sites.
               Monitoring Equipment and Station Installation

     General characteristics of each monitoring station are shown in Fig. 5.
Equipment at each station consisted of a flow control structure, a flow
recorder  calibrated to determine the flow of water through the control
structure, and an automated water sample unit powered by a 12-volt-lead
acid automobile battery.  A recording precipitation gauge also was installed
at stations in each subwatershed.   Individual station design specifications








                                                          STAGE DEPENDENT WATER LINE

                                                          LATERAL  LINES
                                                                                                          SAMPLE  BOTTLES
                                                                                                        BATTERY,  12 VOLT
                                                                                                          WATER  SAMPLING
           Fig. 5.   Diagram of  a monitoring station exhibiting:   a. basic  physical
                      components;  and b.  details  of  the instrumentation

  are reported in the Washington County Project Annual Report for 1975 (4)
  A water flow totalizer displays cumulative runoff in a digital fashion
  During runoff events, a mercury switch attached to the totalizer is tripped
  at a rate proportional to flow, thereby activating the water sampler.
  Samples were collected by pumping water from an intake manifold behind the
  flow control structure through tygon tubing into the sampler unit.  The
  intake lines are purged before and after each sample to minimize cross
  contamination of samples.   Due to the large number of samples triggered
  and the logistics involved,  samples were collected,  labeled, and frozen
  within a few hours after an event,  and stored for later analysis.   The
  monitoring stations were operable by late spring,  1976.

       Table 4 lists the type  of equipment and structures  used in the project
  and the associated costs (2).   Close engineering supervision was provided
  during installation as contractors  were not familiar with  these types  of
  structures.   Costs to install  and maintain monitoring stations  vary from
  region to  region depending on  materials and labor  costs.   Temporary struc-
  tures  could  have been built  more  economically, but the more  expensive
  permanent  stations were  chosen to assure acceptable  performance over the
  study  period  and beyond.
                 Water Quality Sampling and Data Analysis

  _    "Water quality" is measured in a variety of ways.  The two most
 significant measures of water quality used in this study were:

      1.  The concentration of major parameters, e.g., suspended solids,
          total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, and nitrates, usually
          measured in mass/unit volume—mg/L or parts per million (ppm).

      2.  The watershed yield or load of these parameters,  measured in
          mass rate of flow/unit time,  e.g., kg/event or kg/yr.

 The chemical concentrations  in drainage water as it  flows  downstream affect
 directly all aquatic life.   On a long-term basis,  the watershed yield or
 load determines  the amount of pollutants  contributed to a  lake or  river

      Water samples  collected  for the Washington County Project were analyzed
 either  by the Wisconsin  State Laboratory  of Hygiene  or the Soil Science
 Department of the University  of  Wisconsin-Madison.   Before analysis,  samples
 were  thawed  and a uniform portion of each sample for each  event was composited,
 Each  discrete sample as well  as  the  composite  sample  was analyzed  for the
 concentration of several water quality parameters  (Table 5).   Gravimetric
 procedures were used for determining total  and  suspended solids.   Samples
were  also analyzed  for various plant-nutrient  fractions.   Standard  laboratory
analysis procedures were used to determine  concentrations  of total  phosphorus
 (P),  soluble P, organic plus exchangeable nitrogen (N), ammonium-N, and
nitrate plus nitrite-N (5).  Dissolved molybdate-reactive  P (DMRP)  is  the

Table 4.  Installation costs of automated water quality monitoring
                                            Cost range*
Control structure**

     90 cm
    120 cm
     60 cm
                                           $2500 - 3000
Approach sections
_j 	 L
90 cm (3') H
120 cm (41) HL
Leupold & Stevens 61R
ISCO 1680 automatic water sampler
Instrument shelters"'"
Recording rain gauge



- 1000

- 2000
- 2500
- 1200
- 1800
- 1500
- 700
  *Cost will vary with geographic location.
 **Includes installation cost.
***Concrete broadcrested weir (5:1)—varies with height.
  +Flumes built locally.
 -H-Cost includes grading, shaping and stabilization.
+-H-Cost of installing concrete.
  tlncludes cost of stilling well wood shelter  (120 x 180 x 150 cm)
   with concrete floor.

 Table 5.   Water quality parameters  evaluated
 Frequency  of
                                                                  By difference
Total solids
Total N

Total P

Total organic carbon
Chemical oxygen demand***
Total pesticides'4"
Total heavy metals"1""*"
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococcus
   Runoff samples*

      Dissolved solids**
      Dissolved molybdate-reactive P

Total N

Total P
Precipitation samples

      Dissolved molybdate-reactive P
                                                                                   Suspended  solids
                                                                                   Organic plus
                                                                                   Particulate P
                                                                                  Organic plus
                                                                                  Particulate P
  *Some routine and seasonal analyses were also made on tile discharges from the Kewaskum South
 **Total solids minus suspended solids.
***From stations monitoring drainage from livestock operations.
  +Specific pesticide analyses were determined by the history of pesticide applications in the watersheds
 ++Pb, Cd,  Cu, Hg, Zn, Cr, B.

 operational definition of the soluble P fraction measured.  The majority of
 aval        n ±S dissolved orthophosphate which is the P form most readily
    _  Laboratory costs vary significantly depending on the type of analyses
 desired.  If laboratory facilities are available for routine analysis
 costs can be greatly reduced over commercial contracting.  For this prelect
 routine analysis costs were roughly $4/parameter or about $40/sample.  Costs
 for chemicals,  analysis, staff time,  equipment,  and overhead are included
 in these figures.

      Loading rates for runoff events  were computed from concentration and
 flow_data.   A parameter's load (yield)  equals  the total volume of flow
 multiplied  by its  flow-weighted mean  concentration during the event.   Flow-
 proportional sampling greatly facilitated data analysis,  since weighting
 each  discrete sample concentration to get an average storm value was  not
 necessary.   While  event runoff volume was determined most accurately  by
 analyzing the recorded hydrograph,  the  more  readily obtained flow measure-
 ment  provided by the totalizer mechanism on  the  flow recorder was often
 adequate.   It was  helpful to  have  both  flow  estimates for comparison.

      In  some instances,  flow  was recorded, but the  water  sampler  either did
 not operate  or did not  collect enough samples  during an event to  provide
 an accurate  estimate of  mean  event  concentrations.   In  these  cases, con-
 centrations  for  the  event were estimated  with a  technique developed by
 PLUARG  (6) and applied by  the  Wisconsin Department  of Natural  Resources (7).
 Flow-weighted concentrations were derived  for various flow ranges  from
 available data for runoff events during the  same season.   These values were
 applied  to the unsampled  flows.

     Data were adjusted  to aid  in comparing  results  from  different water-
 sheds and from different years.  In order  to adjust  for differences in the
 size of  the  contributing area between monitoring sites, yields at each
 station were divided by  the watershed area.  Results were calculated as
 loads/unit area/unit time, e.g., kg/ha/yr.  This is  the standard form used
 for presenting annual pollutant loads from watersheds.  One further manipu-
 lation—dividing by the annual "R" factor—roughly normalized the data by
accounting for rainfall variability.  The "R" factor is the rainfall ero-
sivity factor derived by Wischmeier and Smith for the USLE (8).  This
division gave a  "normalized load",  in units of  mass/unit area/unit R
e.g.,  hg/ha/R.

                            MONITORING RESULTS
                         Precipitation Variability

      Natural variability in precipitation has a considerable impact on
 watershed response and therefore on measurements in a given year at a
 monitoring station.  The impact of this natural variability had to be
 considered before the water quality changes due solely to land management
 alterations could be examined.  Precipitation varied greatly during the
 study period in Washington County (Table 6).  In 1976, total precipitation
 was about 20% below the 30-yr average for Washington County (75 cm).
 After May 16, 1976, there were no significant rainfall events for the rest
 of the year.   Precipitation in 1977 was about 20% above normal, falling
 mainly during a few intense storms in late spring, summer and early fall.
 Precipitation in 1978 was below the 1977 amount but approximately equal
 to the area's 30-yr average;  most of the intense storms occurred in late

      The R-factor shown in Table 6 was determined to estimate variations
 in the erosive potential of rainstorms between stations and years.   Rain-
 fall erosivity during the monitored years was compared to values in the
 past,  as computed from records at the nearby weather station in Hartford,
 Wisconsin (Fig.  6).   While 1976 was one of the lowest rainfall years, 1977
 was one  of the highest years  on record for rainfall erosivity.   Rainfall
 erosivity in  1978 was slightly above average.   Most of the annual rainfall
 erosivity was contributed by  a few intense storms.   Furthermore, rainfall
 variations within the county  in a year and even during the same event  were
 considerable—on June 11,  1977,  the rainfall  at the K5 rain gauge had  only
 5Q/a of the erosion potential  of  the rainfall  recorded  at  K2,  even though
 the rain gauges  were  < 2  miles (3.2  km)  apart.   The difference  during  this
 single event  accounted for  most  of  the difference  between K2  and K5  in total
 R  values for 1977.   These observations  highlight  the importance of con-
 sidering natural fluctuations  in precipitation  when explaining  variations
 in water quality measurements.

     Snowmelt  and early spring rains  on frozen  ground  have a high potential
 for causing excessive  runoff and material yields, particularly  in agricultural
 watersheds.  The success of the  Project in  characterizing  runoff during  this
 period was limited.   In 1976,  runoff  due  to snowmelt and  early  spring
 rains was  substantial.  Unfortunately, the  stations were not operable.
 In  1977, snow  cover, and thus  snowmelt, was minimal, but some early  March
 rainfall events were sampled in Kewaskum and Germantown.   In 1978,, snow
 cover was  significant, but the thaw occurred gradually and much  of the
meltwater was able to percolate into  the ground or evaporate, thereby
reducing snowmelt runoff.  Freeze-up at the monitoring stations was  also
a problem so that when flow did occur it was not adequately measured, although
some grab samples were collected.  An early April rainfall event that was
successfully monitored in Kewaskum in 1978 appeared indicative of frozen

             Table  6.   Precipitation data for Washington  County,   1976-1978
                                Total*   Snowfall**
                        Total  Snowfall  R***   Total  Snowfall  R
                                                                                                30 yr. averages'*"

                                                                                               Total    Snowfall
West Bend
                                 62.6       149
77.2 127

54.9      NA
                *  Total  is  the  sum of  rainfall  and water equivalent of  snowfall.
               **  Snow includes amount of snowfall during winter  (includes Nov. and Dec. snowfalls  from previous year).
              ***  Rainfall  erosivity factor,  calculated from 30-min rainfall  records  from project monitoring  sites.  This yields
                  an  R-factor approximately 15% greater than would be derived from hourly records.
                  Mean R for county =  107 computed from 27 years  of hourly records from Hartford, Wisconsin.
               _j£  Computed  from 1949 to 1978  U.S. weather station data.
                  U.S. weather  stations,  includes total precipitation for year.
                  Washington County Project stations,  includes only rainfall  during monitoring season.
                  1977 includes March  3 to Nov. 1; 1978 includes  April  6 to Oct. 15.










10 •
Z Exceedence
                                                   1965 ^	1977
                           RAINFALL EROSIVITY
                         May   -  October
Fig. 6.   Probability distribution of rainfall erosivity at
          Hartford, Wisconsin, May through October period,
          1949 to 1978.  Rainfall  erosivity derived from hourly
          precipitation records by Wischmeier method  (8).
          Exceedence: % of May to  October period rainfall
          erosivity equal to or greater than the value  shown.

 or highly saturated ground conditions.  The magnitude of the loads during
 the early spring events that were sampled shows the potential importance
 of this period.  However, no attempt was made to estimate the quantity of
 runoff or material loads not sampled during early spring periods.

      More success was realized sampling the major rainfall events that
 occurred from mid spring to late fall.  Due to drought conditions during
 1976, data are available only for 1977 and 1978.
                 Kewaskum Agricultural Watershed Results

      As mentioned earlier,  1977  and 1978 data from Kewaskum roughly represent
  before'-treatment and "after"-treatment conditions.   The limitations of  this
 analysis  are recognized.   Two years of data are insufficient to  provide con-
 clusive evidence that management changes are responsible for the differences
 in measured loadings.   Furthermore, since practices were under construction
 during 1977, some of  that year's data may reflect  the  influence  of  practice
 construction rather than  the  "before" conditions  (e.g.,  K5 in 1977).   Thus,
 only broad  generalizations can be made about  the results and trends indicated.

      The  basic monitoring results for 1977 and  1978 from Kewaskum are
 presented in Table 7;  the results are given in  cm  or kg/ha units.   Dividing
 by the applicable "R"  factor  produces "normalized  loads",  also presented
 in Table  7  in cm/R or  g/ha/R  units.   Parameter  concentration data were
 normalized  by computing flow-weighted average concentrations for different
 time periods (Table 8).   The  major results—summarized below—are based on
 the normalized load and concentration data.

      Water  yield  from  surface runoff  followed no consistent  pattern.   The
 greatest  yield was  measured from K2 during an early spring rainfall,  prob-
 ably due  to  frozen  or  saturated  ground  conditions.  Relative water  yields
 otherwise decreased substantially at  K2  and  K4  between 1977  and  1978,  while
 the yield from Kl  increased.   Normalized water  yield was  generally  higher
 from K-South than  from K-North.

      Sediment yields,  however, were consistently and markedly lower in 1978
 (see "suspended solids" in Table  7).  Normalized yields decreased > 80% at
 Kl  and K2.   The highest sediment  yield measured was at K5  during 1977.  This
 was  probably due  to washouts  of  the grass  waterways that were under con-
 struction.   Unfortunately, problems with the monitoring equipment at  K5
 prevented the collection  of enough  comparative  data from  1978.   However,
 the  sediment yield  at K6  that year was down  substantially—most  of  the
waterways installed in K-South were finally  seeded  effectively by the  end
 of  1978.  In 1978,  the order  of relative watershed  sediment  yield was  K4
 > K6  > K2 > Kl.

     The sediment delivery ratio  (SDR) accounts for the fact  that not  all
of  the soil particles  detached and moved—as estimated by  the USLE—actually
reach a waterway and leave the watershed.  The SDR  is recognized as being
important, but the processes controlling its magnitude and variability  are
poorly understood.  Storm characteristics, watershed size, shape, drainage


 Table 7.  Runoff, sediment and chemical yields, and "normalized" yields for Kewaskum agricultural watersheds
Site Rain R* Runoff solids
1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978
(cm) - • 	 (cm) 	 • 	 • 	 — 	
Kl** 70.4 60.5 260 200 1.32 2.02 367 50.2
K2** 70.4 60.5 260 200 2.60 0 74 1 430 58 9
K2*** «.3 211 5^4 ' 195'
K4+ 72.6 261 4.71 5,590
K4 62.7 209 1.27 ' 201
Organic +
Total Soluble Exchangeable
phosphorus phosphorus nitrogen
1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978

0.414 0.125 0.027 0.044 1.18 0.451
1.67 0.259 0.174 0.127 4.40 0.614
1-15 0.521 3.02
1.02 0.399 4.07
Nitrate + Chemical
nitrite Ammonium oxygen
1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978

0.078 0.121 0.023 0.030
0.213 0.073 0.242 0.129
4.07 1.74
0.336 2.65 2640
0.245 2.48 2630
0.026 1.22 118



                                              2-22           93.4

                                                                      "Normalized" Yields
                                                0.018           19.4

                                                       0.167           O.Krw,
0.148          0.027

       0.937          0.396

       0.61          960

0.064        39,500

       0.021         523






— (1

.55 2.26
.9 3.08





                                                                                                0.102         109.2

                                                                                                       0.935           4.51
0.831          0.149

       5.24           2.21
  * Rainfall Erosivity Factor, calculated from 30-minute rainfall records during period monitored.
  * March 8 to November 1, 1977 (excludes 3/4/77 storm); April 10 to October 15, 1978 (excludes 4/6 an.
*** April 6 to October 15, 1978 (includes 4/6 and 4/9/78 storms).
                                                                                                      d 4/9/79 storms).
    March 4 to November 1, 1977 (includes 3/4/77 storm).
    April 9 to October 15, 1978 (includes 4/9/78,  excludes 4/6/78 storm).

                                  Table 8.   Concentration  average* and  rangea of water quality parametcra  for  Kcu.isV.uo agricultural wateishc

-» _ j
alte Mean

U* 26
*2" 40
U**« 340
I6«« 31

Total P Soluble P

Range Kean

0.43- 1.98 1.05
0.93- 3.07 1.39

Organic mid
Mean Rnnye
Early spring, 77
6 3.96 2.0 - 8.5
83 5.46 0.58- 9.12


Ml lal o .illd
eon R;mp,c

1.31 1.03- 2.2
0.94 0.05- 3.85
Amionium-H dciiund
Mean Range Mean


1.65 1.5 - 2.4
1.76 0.22- 4.26 179
Late spring and aummer, 77






* 2,558
** 278

134- 17,340
245- 17,780



5 5.0-224

142- 1,465
270- 773





0.24- 12.4 0.20
2.2 - H.'l 0.67
8.7 - 98.0 5.94
16.7 -304.0 0.16
. 0.07

0.27- 5.0 1.08

0.31- 6.3 1.36

0.62- 4.3 0.80
7,96- 11.1 2,5

74 9.09 1.2 - 34.0
0.21-3.2 16.9 5.6 - 44.0
3.56-9.88 73.9 37.6 -13S.O




26 174.0 47.0 -1,015
Snowmen. 78*
84 5.32 1.02- 16.4

2 6.65 1.1 - 15.5
Early spring, 78
58 4.92 1.6 - 13.3
99 31.6 20.0 - 45.1

0.61 0.03- 1.28
0.82 0.48- 1.8
0.61 0.01- 1.14




30 0.19- 2.4

78 0.44- 6.31

72 0.51- 1.02

16 3.5 -18.8
13 0.0 - 0.3')

0.17 0.03- 0.61
93 0.24- 2.8
6.66 3.52-27.4 6,540



24 0.16- 0.47

86 0.44-11.8

32 0.30-13.0



29 0.47- 8.7
0 7.48-12.9 653


277- 874

Mid aprlng-suimicr, 78

t- 1,635
t Include
tt include
10- 3.860
85- 2,540
281- 558
490- 2,905
115- 3,085
2/23/77, 3/4/77

0.18- 2.5 0.22
2.5 - 7.05 1.72
1.26- 3.75 0.61
0.75- 5.4 0.76


88 2.23 1.2 - 8.2
05 8.32 4.0 - 21.7
7 32.0 15.7 - 47.9
77 7.37 3.3 - 10.4
0 3.64 1.7- 15.2


60 O.OS- 1.55
98 0.04- 1.84
20 0.05- 0.34
44 0.41- 0.49
23 0. 36-35.0


15 0.02- 1.2
75 0.44- 7.6
58 6.93-20.4 928
44 0.09- 0.64
79 0.29-16.0

398- 1,079

                                    IttRjngei  nvC  ftlvcn  if  only  1 value available

  pattern,  soil  type,  land use and conservation practices all influence
  the  SDR.

      Sediment  delivery ratios  were calcualted for the monitored watersheds
  in Kewaskum  (Table 9).  Except for K4 and K5 in 1977, the SDKs were quite
  low, i.e., < 5% from all monitored watersheds.  The highest SDR—86%—was
  measured  at K5 in 1977.  This is misleading, however, since the soil loss
  predicted by the USLE does not include gully erosion, which was substantial
  in the grass waterways under construction in K5.  At all sites, predicted
  soil loss and the SDR were much lower in 1978 than in 1977.   This could
  be due in part to variations in storm characteristics and to the installation
  of conservation practices.  Some interesting comparisions can be made
  between SDR values from different watersheds for the same years:  In 1977
  the SDR at K2 was about twice that at Kl, which was expected since the K2
 watershed is only 33% the size of the Kl watershed.  In 1978, however, the
  SDR values at Kl and K2 were about the same.  Perhaps once upland soil
 conservation practices (e.g.,strip-cropping) were completed, no additional
 sediment  reductions within drainageways occurred.  Furthermore, it was
 found that the SDR at K6 in 1978 was much greater than that  at Kl or K2,
 although the South watershed had flatter slopes than the North watershed.
 This could indicate that grass waterways (the main practices installed in
 the South watershed)  are not substitutes  for upland erosion control
 practices for arresting watershed sediment loss.   Except for K5 in 1977,
 the SDR at K4 was the greatest of all sites for both years.   This watershed
 was the smallest,  steepest and most influenced by a barnyard and feedlot.
 By 1978 animals were  generally confined to the smaller,  paved feedlot that
 was installed and the original exercise area was  seeded  down.   Animals also
 spent a small portion of  time during 1978 in a new exercise  area established
 outside of the monitored  watershed.   The SDR reduction between 1977 and 1978
 at K4 was over 90%, the most  substantial drop of  all the agricultural
 sites monitored.

      Phosphorus  (P) and nitrogen  (N)  are  generally the most  important
 nutrients  in  runoff.  Total P  and N  closely  followed  sediment  patterns
 because most  of  these nutrients were  transported  attached  to  soil particles
 Decreases  from  1977 to  1978 were greatest  at K4, where the reductions  in
 relative yields of total P and N were 94%  and 83%,  respectively.  Reductions
 of P  and N at Kl ranged from 50% to 60%;  reductions at K2 were  greater  than
 80^ between 1977 and  1978.  The soluable nutrient  fractions exhibited more
 variability.  In general, the dissolved portion of  the total load increased
 at each site between  1977 and 1978—soluble  P rose  from 5 to 10% of total P,
 to 35 to 50%.  The portion of dissolved N forms increased from  about 10%  to'
 25/» in  the North watershed, and to over 60%  of the  total N in K-South.  The
 relative soluble P load decreased significantly (by 84%) at K4  while
 increases  occurred at Kl (61%) and K2.  The  increase at K2 in 1978 was due
 almost entirely to high yields during an early April event.  Dissolved
 soluble N  yields (normalized) compared closely with the dissolved P results.
 (Nitrate + nitrite)-N was the dominant form  of dissolved N at Kl and K6,
while soluble ammonium-N was higher at K4.  Nitrate-N was higher at K4
during the early spring events, while ammonium-N was more important at
other times.   Nutrient changes in the South  watershed were not adequately

       Table 9:  Kewaskum monitoring results, sediment delivery  ratios

Predicted Measured
soil loss* watershed yield**
1977 1978 1977 1978
• «i • 1- rr / In 3
Kg / na
15,126 7,353 367 50.2
30,171 11,824 1,426 58.9
17,741 8,289 5,594 201
7,703 6,626
4,656 91
delivery ratio***
1977 1978

2.43 0.68
4.73 0.50
31.53 2.42
* Predicted by USLE, corrected for actual "R" factor that year.
** From monitoring stations, rainfall events only.
*** n«,-n™™ ,-a1-!^ .. (measured)

 determined,  but results in 1978 indicate higher normalized yields of  all
 nutrient fractions from K6 than from either Kl  or K2.   (Nitrate + nitrite)-N
 yields,  in particular,  were much higher at  K6.   By 1978 nearly 50% of the
 South watershed was affected by tile drainage.   Grab   samples  from the
 tile lines were analyzed perodically and showed (nitrate + nitrite)-N
 concentrations quite similar to those measured  at K6.   Although the principal
 tile system discharges  were below the K6 station, surface leaks from  the
 tile system into the waterway above K6 could be responsible for the high
 nitrate/nitrite values  measured at this station.

      The concentration  data parallels loading estimates (Table 8).  Levels
 of suspended solids and related nutrients were  much lower in 1978,  while
 concentrations of soluble substances remained the same or increased.   Soluble
 concentrations were generally highest in samples  of snowmelt and early
 spring rainfall events.   Suspended solids levels  were  lowest during snowmelt
 but were sometimes quite high in early spring runoff  (e.g., Kl on 4/9/78).
 In general,  soluble concentrations appear inversely related to suspended
 solids levels.   For instance, when suspended solids were high  at K5 in
 1977,  dissolved nutrient levels were relatively low.   Concentrations  of
 most parameters were highest in runoff from K4, the barnyard site,  even
 after treatment.   Before treatment (1977),  chemical oxygen demand (COD)
 levels in K4 runoff average over 6000 mg/L,  i.e., considerably more than  is
 found in raw domestic sewage. Soluble (nitrate  +  nitrite)-N concentrations
 were highest at K6 during summer storm runoff.
                  Germantown  Construction  Site Results

     Large  scale  residential  construction  has long been  considered  a major
 contributor of  sediment  to  surface waters  (9), but little quantitative
 data has been collected.  This is especially true of  the home  construction
 phase after the development is laid out.   To help fill this gap,  information
 was obtained from subdivisions under construction in  Germantown.  Details
 of materials and  procedures for monitoring and results for 1977 were given
 by Daniel et al.  (10).

     At the Germantown G2 and G3 sites  (Old Farm), essentially all  the  land
 was under intensive home construction during 1977 and stabilizing by 1978.
 Building at Legend Acres (G5) went on during 1977 and 1978.  Basic  monitoring
 results from 1977 and 1978 are presented in Table 10.  Total loads, in  cm
 and kg/ha are given in Table 10A.  These values were normalized by  the
 R-factor to account for storm variations between watersheds and the year of
 measurement (Table 10B).  Averages and  ranges of parameter concentrations
 are presented in Table 11.

     Normalized water yields were 5 to  10 times greater  than those  from the
 agricultural watersheds.  Water yields  remained constant at G3 and  increased
 at G2 and G5 between 1977 and 1978.   Runoff remained relatively high because
 impervious surfaces—rooftops, driveways and streets—did not  permit rain-
water to infiltrate and provided for rapid transport of  runoff to the storm

                   Table 10.  Runoff, sediment and chemical yields,  and "normalized" yields  for Germantovn  urbanizing watersheds

Organic +
Suspended Total Soluble exchangeable
Rain 'R* Runoff solids phosphorus phosphorus nitrogen
1977 1978 '1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978 1977 1978
67.4 52.9 194 116 17.9 25.1 36,300 2,750 29.0 2.36 0.138 0.290 75.7 5.69
67.4 52.9 194 116 22.4 13.5 19,300 4,650 11.4 2.76 0.143 0.389 16.2 7.24
73.8 61.5 199 134 14.5 16.4 15,900 18,700 10.2 8.43 0.099 0.110 16.2 15.9
"Normalized" Yields
.923 2.16 187,000 23,700 149 20.3 0.71 2.50 390 49.1
1.15 1.16 99,500 40,100 58.6 23.8 0.74 3.35 83.3 62.4
.782 1.22 79,800 139,000 51.5 62.9 0.50 0.82 81.2 119
Nitrate +•
nitrite- Ammoniun
nitrogen nitrogen
1977 1978 1977 1978

2.32 2.43 0.599 0.305
2.78 1.21 0.397 1.76*
1.47 O.S4 0.191 0.416

12.0 21.0 2.88 2.63
14.3 10.4 2.05 15.1*
7.39 6.27 0.96 3.11
                           * Rainfall erosivity factor, calculated from 30-mlnute rainfall intensities for periods monitored
                          ** March 28 to November 1, 1977; May 15 to October 5, 1978
                         *** March 3 to November 1, 1977; April 23 to October 5, 1978
                           + Includes one event with extremely high concentrations

               Table 11.   Concentration averages  and ranges of water quality parameters  for urbanizing watersheds In Germantovn
! Mean Range
Organic -f
Wean Range
Nitrate 4-
Mean Range

Spring, 1977*








292 -
202 -
184 -

2,300 -
1,162 -
2,944 -

4,220 -
1,225 -
1,125 -

520 -
895 -

158 -
115 -








0.15 - 13.6
0.14 - 6.24
0.22 - 3.86

2.25 -103
0.83 - 35.20
2.60 - 34.80

3.45 - 7.85
1.16 - 12.7
0.79 - 3.24

0.43 - 3.06
0.69 - 2.38

0.32 - 4.1
0.74 - 3.85
0.92 - 15.2




0.01 -
0.01 -
0.01 -

0.02 -
0.02 -
0.02 -

0.06 -
0.02 -
0.03 -

0.02 -
0.06 -

0.02 -
0.02 -
0.03 -



5.79 1.2 - 18.9
3.6 0.6 - 9.7
4.17 0.9 - 6.7

49.6 5.6 -310
8.5 2.3 - 44.8
12.6 1.8 - 62.0

18.6 0.8 - 34.0
7.9 2.9 - 60.0
6.5 2.2 - 13.9

2.7 1.7 - 5.5
4.0 1.5 - 6.3
2-4 1.2 - 10.0
7.5 2.0 - 11.0
9.7 1.8 - 30.7




2.2 - 11.5
0.52 - 3.9
2.0 - 5.0

0.14 - 5.2
0.18 - 3.2
0.28 - 1.2

1.47 - 3.8
0.42 - 3.7
0.7 - 1.37

0.71 - 5.2
0.76 - 1.6

0.16 - 3.24
0.37 - 1.6
0.06 - 1.61
0.14 0
0.11 0
0.11 0

0.29 0
0.16 0
0.10 0

0.79 0
0.43 0
0.41 0,

0.12 0.
0.5 0.

0.12 0.
0.33 0.
0.25 0.




- 0.29
- 0.33
- 0.17

- 0.81
- 0.81
- 0.24

- 1.1
- 3.8
- 1.1

- 1.47
- 0.70

- 0.46
- 0.21
- 0.61
               *Snowmelt to May 31
              **June 1 to September 30
             ***After September 30
               Average concentration calculated without one event with large concentrations;  average  including  it was  1  9
             NS No  Sampling

     Sediment yields in 1977 from the urbanizing watersheds ranged from
15,900 to 36,300 kg/ha (see "suspended solids" in Table 10).  Normalized
sediment loads were about 10 times greater than those from the agricultural
watersheds.  During site development all surface vegetation was removed
and the topsoil stripped and stockpiled.  The sediment problem in Germantown
was further magnified during the construction of individual homes by uncon-
trolled access to lots by trucks and heavy equipment, thereby tracking soil
back onto the streets.  Large amounts of excavated soil were also left on
or near the streets, further increasing the chances for sediment to be
transported to the storm sewer system.  Water pumped from flooded foundations
also contributed to sediment loads from the construction sites.

     Substantial decreases in sediment yields were evident at the G2 and
G3 sites in 1978 compared to 1977, while yields at G5 increased slightly
because construction continued.  At G2 and G3 lawns were being established
which caused sediment yields to be lower, although they were still much
greater than yields from the agricultural sites.  Similar sediment yields,
measured from nearby residential areas by the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed
Study, ranged from 800 to 2300 kg/ha/yr (11).  The higher value was obtained
from a watershed undergoing housing construction.

     Total phosphorus (P) and nitrogen  (N) loads closely paralleled sediment
losses.  Sediment-attached fractions accounted for > 90% of total N and
total P loads at all sites in 1977 and at G5 in 1978, and 85% of the P
loads and 70% of the N loads at G2 and G3 in 1978.  In 1977, normalized
P and N loads were exceeded only by the barnyard site losses (K4).  Of the
Germantown sites, the G2 watershed produced the highest loads of total P
and organic plus exchangeable N during 1977.  Dissolved loads were similar
to loads from the agricultural sites.

     Nutrients associated with soil particles, and thus total loads, de-
creased substantially between 1977 and 1978.  Soluble P losses remained
about the same at G5 and approximately doubled at G2 and G3.  Ammonium
(soluble) increased significantly at G3 because of one event on September
11-13, 1978.  Ammonium doubled at G5 and decreased at G2 between 1977
and 1978.  Nitrate plus nitrite increased slightly at G2 and decreased at
G5.  These differences may be due in part to the relative proximity of
lawn fertilizers to the monitoring stations.  Total nutrient yield reductions
were greatest at G2.  During 1978, when the land surfaces were generally
more stablized, less variability in nutrient yields occurred than during

     Variations in the concentrations closely followed the  loading changes
between 1977 and 1978 (Table 11).  In 1977  high concentrations of sediment
and associated parameters occurred at the beginning of events showing a
"first flush" effect  (Fig. 7).  Concentrations of suspended solids ranged
from a few hundred mg/1  to 75,000 mg/L; however, average concentrations
were from 2500 to 7000 mg/L in the spring and fall and from 12,000 to 25,000
mg/L in the summer, when construction activity was most intense.  During
1978, G5 showed concentrations of sediment, P and N similar to those observed
in 1977.  Substantially  lower values were observed at G2 and G3 in 1978—
suspended solids concentrations ranged  from 100 to 13,000 mg/L and averaged

                                       FL8W  *-*-*
                           25      50
                          TIME.  MIN
Fig.  7.  Pollutograph  showing "first  flush" effect on
        suspended solids (SS) concentrations (mg/L)
        at Station G5, June 11,  1977

from 1000 to 3500 mg/L.  Total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations at
G2 and G3 paralleled those of sediment.   In 1977, P ranged from 0.15 to
35 mg/L with an average of 2 to 5 mg/L in the spring and fall and from
6 to 9 mg/L in the summer; N levels ranged from 0.5 to 310 mg/L with an
average between 3.6 and 50 mg/L.   In 1978 the range in P concentrations
narrowed to 0.3 to 4 mg/L and the average dropped to 1 to 2 mg/L.  The
range of N became 1 to 11 mg/L, the average dropping from 2 to 7 mg/L.

     Dissolved P and ammonium concentrations did not vary significantly
during events or between monitoring years.  The DMR-P concentrations ranged
from 0.01 toO.25 mg/L with an average of 0.07 to 0.15 mg/L.  Ammonium
concentrations varied from 0.02 to 1.1 mg/L with an average of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L
most commonly observed.  Nitrate/nitrite concentrations were inversely
proportional to flow during runoff events.  More variation was observed
in 1977, where concentrations ranged from 0.15 to 11 mg/L with an average of
0.5 mg/L in the summer and from 1 to 5 mg/L in the spring and fall.  In
1978 (nitrate + nitrite)-N concentrations were more constant, ranging from
0.1 to 5 mg/L, with an average of from 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L.

     We must stress that the extent to which these monitoring results can
be applied and interpreted is limited.  Two years of data are not enough
to yield documented conclusions.   Where similar results were obtained at
more than one site, these may be given added credence.  It is recognized,
however, that all inferences from this data must be made with caution.


      In this section, improved data collection and analytical techniques
 and methods of costs reduction are described.  Conclusions are as follows:

      1.  Sample intake position in the flow control structure significantly
      influences the measured concentrations of water quality parameters.
      During high flow events samples collected by a floating intake had
      lower concentrations of some parameters than did samples collected
      at the bottom of the control structure.

      2.  When all samples collected during a runoff event are carefully
      composited into one sample,  accurate estimates of parameter loads
      can be obtained from analysis of only the composited sample.  Com-
      positing provides a less costly but reliable means of analysis.

      3.  Special,  time-consuming  procedures were necessary in order to
      successfully sample snowmelt and spring runoff.
          Concentration Variations Due  to  Sampler  Intake  Location

      During  the  first  sampling  season,  sample  intake  strainers were attached
 near  the  floor of  the  flow  control structure approach sections at all moni-
 toring stations  (12).   It was assumed  that mixing action within the self-
 flushing  control structures would insure  sample concentrations that were
 representative of  the  actual amounts transported from the watersheds.
 However,  after analyzing data from the  1977 monitoring season, it appeared
 that  during  some runoff events  there was  insufficient mixing action.

      To determine  the  effect sample intake location had  on parameter con-
 centration and on  calculated loads, two automatic water  samplers were in-
 stalled at the G5  monitoring station.   The water samplers were adjusted to
 be activated simultaneously during runoff events in 1978.  One intake was
 attached  to  the floor  of the flow control structure approach section (Method
 1), while the second intake was attached  to a float-pivot arm assembly
 (Method 2) and adjusted so  that samples were withdrawn at the mid-level of
water within the flow  control structure (Fig. 8).  Discrete samples were
analyzed separately to compare differences in concentrations of solids and
phosphorus and nitrogen parameters for the two sampling methods.  Event
loads of the parameters also were used as a basis of comparison.

     Three runoff events were effectively double-sampled in this manner
during the 1978 monitoring season.   Nine,  two,  and eight pairs of water
samples were obtained from these three events.   A comparison of parameter
concentrations for  each sample pair (Methods 1 and 2)  per runoff event
indicated three trends.  First,  concentrations of suspended solids,  organic



-  Pivot arm

   Method   B

   Method   A

   To  Samplers

               Fig. 8.  Diagram of monitoring site, depicting two alternative positions:
                      Method A, intake on the floor of approach section; Method B,
                      intake on pivot arm and samples taken at midstage (12).

 plus exchangeable nitrogen, and total P were consistently higher throughout
 each runoff event when the sampler was stationary on the floor of the
 approach section (Method 1).  Second, the concentrations of dissolved P
 and ammonium-N for the paired samples were similar for each runoff event.
 Third, the concentrations of (nitrate + nitrite)-N were consistently higher
 throughout each runoff event with the float-controlled sampler intake
 (Method 2).  Consistently higher suspended solids and sediment-associated
 parameter concentrations were obtained using Method 1 indicating that mixing
 action in the approach section and the flow control structure—even at peak
 discharge rates—was not sufficient to cause uniform vertical concentrations
 within the water column.  With midstage sampling, loads of suspended solids,
 total P,  and (organic + exchangeable)-N for the three runoff events tested,
 were 44,  39, and 35% lower, respectively,  than loads determined with the sta-
 tionary sampler.   Concentrations of dissolved P and ammonium-N did not vary
 much with the position of the sampler intake.  However, (nitrate + nitrite)-N
 concentrations were unexplainably higher  with midstage sampling.

      A statistical  analysis of  the data indicated a straight line correlation
 between the particulate fraction total loads derived from Methods 1 and 2.
 Further study,  however, is necessary to better define the relationship between
 parameter concentrations and the vertical position of sampling to determine
 how best  to adjust  load measurements to account for these differences.

      All  sampler  intakes were placed on floating devices  (Method 2)  in 1978.
 Because of this,  some of the changes in sediment and sediment-associated
 parameter loads between 1977 and 1978 at  some of the sites may be attributable
 to this change.
                      Composite  and Discrete  Sampling

      The  technical  feasibility  of using a  flow proportional  composite  sample
 and a three-sample  mean  for determining event loads was evaluated  (13).
 Runoff data  from sites in Kewaskum and Germantown were used  in comparing
 different methods of  calculating event loads.  For the same  event, loads
 were  calculated using the following methods:  1. Discrete event load (DEL),
 2. composite event  load  (GEL),  and 3. three-sample mean event load (SMEL)
 (Fig. 9).  The DEL method is based on standard integration techniques using
 the concentration of  individual discrete samples taken at preselected runoff
 intervals.  The CEL procedure utilizes the concentration of  a flow propor-
 tional composite in combination with total volume of runoff, whereas the
 SMEL method uses the mean concentration of three selected temporal samples.
 The DEL data are assumed to be  true values and serve as the  basis of com-
 parison for the CEL and SMEL procedures.

     Figure 10 illustrates graphically that a highly significant correlation
 existed between the DEL and the CEL and SMEL methods for estimating event
 loads of contaminants.  The CEL and SMEL methods were found  to provide ade-
 quate predictions of the actual (DEL method) event loads.   Both methods
predicted dissolved water quality parameters [DMRP,  ammonium-N and (nitrate +
nitrite)-N]  more accurately than sediment-associated parameters (suspended
solids, organic plus exchangeable nitrogen, total P);  mean predicted loads


               A  A A  A A.   A    A
         Flow  proportional
         Composite  analyzed
         Event load=mg/L  x flow
                                               THREE SAMPLE MEAN
                                                        Temporal  sampling
                                                        3  analyzed
                                                        Event load: x mg/L x  flow
    Fig.  9.  Typical hydrograph depicting different methods of
            sampling and calculating event loads (13).

          SUSPENDED SQL:os
                9 R=.9S»
                 a «..«..
                 + Ra.91
                      10.   20.
          TOTSL PH6SPH8RUS
                                      NITRITE * MITRflTE-N

                                             0 ft*.8fl««
              2-    3-  «•  I. ». 7.J.SJO.    M.    >.     5.   10.    20.

              A               KG/HA                 B

                        CEL O  flNO SMEL  +
Fig.  10.   Comparison of  CEL and  SMEL event load computations
           with  true values (DEL).   Water  quality parameters
           associated with the sediment and those that are
           dissolved are  represented by A  and B, respectively.
           Note  each is highly significant at the 99% level  (13)

 for each event averaged within 5% of the DEL loads for the dissolved param-
 eters and within 20% for the sediment-associated parameters.  Results with
 the CEL method were more consistent than those with the SMEL method for the
 sediment-associated parameters, although the CEL method generally under-
 estimated suspended solids and associated parameter loads.  The SMEL method
 appeared to overestimate sediment-associated loads during high runoff events.

     All methods result in reduced manual labor and analytical costs.  The
 CEL method involves analyzing only one sample/event, compared to three with
 the SMEL and all discrete samples with DEL.  Using the Washington County
 Project as an example, analytical costs could be reduced by a minimum of
 10 and 3 times for the CEL method when compared to the DEL and SMEL methods,
 respectively.  The SMEL method also results in considerable savings of time
 and money, although sample selection is often difficult when hydrographs
 are shaped abnormally or when events occur in rapid succession.

     In conclusion, while the CEL method appears technically and economically
 more favorable, it is dependent on a rather sophisticated flow-proportional
 monitoring system and still requires careful handling of many sample bottles.
 For these reasons, the SMEL procedure provides a more feasible alternative
 for established monitoring programs that utilize time-signalled samples or
 grab sampling.
                  Monitoring Snowmelt and Spring Runoff
     The potential for producing high loads of most parameters during snow-
melt and early spring rainfall events is great due to the combined effects
of restricted infiltration, saturated soils, and lack of vegetative cover.
At station K2, two small early April rainstorms that were successfully
monitored in 1978 contributed > 7 times the runoff, 3 times the suspended
solids, 4 times the phosphorus, and 10 times the nitrogen, as were contrib-
uted by all storms during the rest of the year (Table 7).  Researchers
studying the agricultural watersheds at White Clay Lake in Shawano County,
Wisconsin, have found that, on average, about 70% of the annual water yields
and 76% of the annual phosphorus loads occurred prior to May 1 (14).

     Many difficulties were experienced in monitoring meltwater and early
spring rainfall events in Washington County.  The monitoring stations
measure runoff rate with a float suspended in a stilling well that fluctu-
ates with changes in water level; water backs up behind the flow control
structure, entering the stilling well through lateral pipes.  During winter,
water allowed to remain in the lateral lines and still wells froze.  When
the frost depth was extensive, the stilling wells and lateral pipes were
insulated and remained blocked while water started flowing in the channels;
thus, accurate measurements of early runoff could not be made.  Further
problems arose when snow and ice blocked the channel when runoff began.
Flow became backed up by the snow-filled channels instead of the control
structure; therefore, flow measurements were inaccurate.

     By the 1979 monitoring season, a procedure had been developed that has
effectively handled these problems to date.  Preparations in late fall and


late winter, before snowmelt, alleviated many of the problems.  In November
1978, all lateral lines were capped to prevent water from entering and
freezing, and stilling wells were pumped free of water to prevent freezing.
Just prior to snowmelt, accumulated snow and ice were removed from the flow
control structures and from the channels 5 to 10 m upstream and downstream,
allowing the sun to melt the remaining ice and clear a path for runoff.
When snowmelt and early spring rains began to cause runoff, the lateral
pipes were uncapped and flow measurements made.   When temperatures at night
fell below freezing, the lateral pipes were again capped and the stilling
wells pumped out until melting resumed.  This process of capping and uncapping
the laterals and periodically pumping out the stilling wells was continued
until the spring weather stabilized.  While this process is time-consuming,
there are few effective alternatives during this important time of year.

     Conservation tillage systems have received much attention in recent
years.  These management techniques for reducing soil loss may also provide
farmers with labor and energy savings.  Recognizing that whole-watershed
studies could not be utilized readily to assess impacts of specific land
use practices, technical research focused on plot studies under controlled
experimental conditions.  Additionally, an ongoing cost-sharing program for
conservation tillage in Dane County, Wisconsin, offered a unique opportunity
to assess farmers' attitudes toward these systems and to evaluate a program
for disseminating new conservation technologies to the farming community.
                          Infiltrometer Studies
     Alternative tillage methods of growing corn were compared in order to
evaluate differences between systems in runoff losses of sediment and nutri-
ents and for grain yield (15, 16).  The systems studied were conventional
tillage  (moldboard plowed and disked prior to planting), chisel plow (soil
chisel plowed only prior to planting), and no-till (no tillage operations
performed prior to planting).  The effects of applying manure prior to
tillage operations on sediment and nutrient losses were also evaluated.
Materials and Methods

     Test plots of 1.3 m  were selected randomly on a farm in the Kewaskum
South Watershed in Washington County.  Four plots—planted to corn—were
established for each tillage method for a total of 12 plots.  All plots
were managed identically except for the different tillage and planting
methods.  A portion of the corn residue from the previous crop had been
removed leaving about 1.7 tonnes/ha (1500 Ib/acre) on the surface prior to
tillage.  Corn variety, fertility, herbicide, insecticide, and planting
dates for all plots were identical.  Dairy manure was applied at a rate of
45  tonnes/ha (20 tons/acre, wet weight) prior to tillage on two of the four
plots for each tillage method.  Runoff from the test plots was generated
by  artificial rainstorms, applied for 1 hr at an average intensity of
14.5 cm/hr  (the energy equivalent of about a 50-year, 1-hr storm for the
study area) in May, July and September, 1978.  Runoff from these storms
was measured and samples analyzed to determine nutrient and sediment losses,

      Water yield was greatest from the no-till  sites  as  a  result  of  lower
 infiltration rates.   Relatively low runoff  volumes  occurred  at  conven-
 tionally tilled sites shortly after planting  in May.   However,  volumes
 increased and approached those of  no-till sites in  July  and  September.
 Runoff volumes from  chisel plowed  areas were  as low or lower than those
 from conventionally  tilled and no-till sites  at all sampling times.   No
 consistent effect of manure was observed.

      Sediment losses were highly variable among sample plots, particularly
 in May (Fig.  11). This  is most likely the  result of  local soil variability
 within the plot areas which would  probably  be greatest shortly  after til-
 lage.   High average  losses of sediment from conventional and no-till sites
 with manure in May were,  in each case, the  result of  a single high observa-
 tion.   Elimination of the high value in each  case lowered  the average to
 the range of  sediment loss observed from the  same treatments in July and
 September.  Lower sediment losses  were observed from  unmanured  sites with
 no-till than  from chisel  plowed or conventionally tilled sites.   Chisel
 plowed and no-till sites  receiving manure had less  sediment  loss  in  July
 and September than equivalent sites without manure.   This  effect  was not
 observed at conventionally tilled  sites.

     Phosphorus losses are reported for July  and September only,  since May
 results were  questionable due to a high concentration of phosphorus  in the
 water  used for  rainfall  simulation.   In July  and September,  municipal
 well water having a  phosphorus concentration  of 20  yg/L  was  used.  Because
 most of the phosphorus was associated  with  sediment,  differences  in  total P
 losses were similar  to those  for sediment losses (Fig. 12).   Conventionally
 tilled sites  generally had the highest total  P  losses due  to high sediment
 losses.   Lower  total  P losses occurred at unmanured no-till  sites than at
 unmanured conventionally  tilled  or  chisel plowed sites.  Lowest total P
 losses occurred  at manured no-till  and chisel  plowed sites.

     Higher soluble phosphorus  (DMRP)  losses  occurred at unmanured no-till
 sites  than at unmanured conventionally tilled or chisel  plowed  sites.
 Highest  losses  of  DMRP occurred  at manured  no-till  sites (Fig.  13).   Losses
 of  DMRP  were  higher at manured  chisel  plowed  sites  than  at equivalent
 unmanured  sites.  Manure  had  no  consistent  effect on  conventionally  tilled

     Although DMRP is  considered to be  readily  available in  aquatic  systems,
 less certainty  exists  regarding  the availability of sediment-bound P  forms.
 To  better  evaluate the impact  of runoff on  biological  productivity in sur-
 face waters, an estimate  of potentially-available P in runoff suspensions
was made,  using a recently developed,  resin-extractive procedure  (17).
Results  show highest losses from manured no-till sites, due, primarily, to
high DMRP  losses at these  sites  (Fig.  14).   Lowest losses  occurred at manured
sites which were chisel plowed because  of the lower sediment losses.  Losses
from manured and unmanured sites which were conventionally tilled were not
significantly different from unmanured  sites which were chisel plowed or in





1 1






efgh ghi

abed fgni
abed cdef
^//o w
" 	 MANURE 	






	 - 	 ••"
   Fig. 11.  Mean sediment losses, conservation tillage
             infiltrometer studies (15).   Values with the
             same letter are not significantly different
             at the 80% level of probability.


0 a
4J '




   IIIIIIMMIIIM	IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMM' ^X A KJ II D C Illllllllllllllllllllllllf Illlllf Illlllll
Fig. 12.  Mean total phosphorus losses, conservation
          tillage  infiltrometer studies.  Values with
          same letter are  not  significantly different
          at the 80% level of  probability (15).

M 1
^ 3
:. . . 1 •
de e de b be
« S m § 1
cde cd de cde c
w/o w w/o w w/o
  '•IIIIIIIIIMtlllllllllllMIIMIIIIMMMI A/I A SJI JPP lllllllllllllllltMIIIIIII""""""'"

      CONV.         CHISEL         NO-TILL
Fig. 13.  Mean dissolved molybdate reactive phosphorus
          (DMRP) losses, conservation  tillage  infiltrometer
          studies.  Values with same letter are  not
          significantly different at the  80% level of
          probability  (15).

bO 2.
". 1

« abc
M 0
C °
a 2
i 1






P September

* ab



w/o w

      CONV.        CHISEL        NO-TILL
Fig.  14.  Mean losses of  resin-exchangeable phosphorus,
         conservation tillage infiltrometer studies.
         Values with the same letter are not
         significantly different at the 80% level of
         probability (15).

Grain yield comparisons

     Significantly lower grain yields occurred at no-till sites than at
chisel plowed or conventionally tilled sites (Table 12);  chisel plowed
sites had somewhat lower yields than conventionally tilled sites.   No
effect of manure was observed.  Plant population differences were  of similar
magnitude to yield differences.  Because differences in tillage and popula-
tion exist, it is not possible to determine from this study whether the
differences in yield are due to an effect of tillage on yield or an effect
of tillage on population.  However, results of other studies using these
tillage methods with constant population show similar yield differences.

     The manured no-till sites had the lowest sediment and total phosphorus
losses of all systems evaluated in this study.  However, the data suggest
that the no-till system was less desirable than the conventional or chisel
plow systems from a grain yield standpoint.  Also, highest available
phosphorus losses were from the no-till sites.

     The results do not show large or consistent differences in runoff,
sediment or phosphorus losses between the conventional and chisel plow
methods.  There are several possible reasons for this.  First, because a
portion of the plant residue was removed in the fall preceding the initia-
tion of the study, less residue was left at the surface after chiseling
than there would have been if all plant residue had been left.  Additional
residue would probably have further reduced runoff and sediment losses from
the chisel plowed plots.  Second, the artificial storms were relatively
intense.  This may have hidden some of the differences between conventionally
tilled and chisel plowed areas that would become increasingly evident at
lower storm intensities.  Last, unusually intense natural storms occurred
prior to sampling in July and September.  The crusting and reduction in
surface storage caused by these storms may have masked some of the differences
that would have been observed if the intense storms had not occurred.
Case Study of Farmers' Attitudes and Experiences with Conservation Tillage

     During 1976 and 1977, The Dane County Soil and Water Conservation
District, with the assistance of SCS and Dane County Extension, offered
to cost-share conservation tillage and no-till practices as a direct in-
centive to encourage use of conservation tillage.  In order to assess
farmers' experiences with and attitudes toward conservation tillage sys-
tems, a survey was conducted during the summer of 1978 (18).

     Fifty farmers who had participated in the cost-share program during
1976 and/or 1977 were interviewed at their farms.  Questions in the survey
dealt with the types of tillage systems used and the operations and chemical


 Table  12.  Grain yields and plant populations for three tillage systems, with  (A)
           and without  (B) manure (15)
Plant yield
Tillage Systems
Conventional Chisel plow No-till
145ab** 149a 138b 137b 115c 118c

20,300ab 20,600a 18,900bc 19,200bc 15,900d 16,600d
 *Bushel/acre = 62.76 kg/ha;  and plants/acre x 2.47 = plants/ha
**Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 95%
  level of probability.

 applications  involved  in using each system; degree of satisfaction with
 conservation  tillage in terms of economics, yields, and soil and water
 conservation  also were evaluated.

      In addition, comparative short-run budgets were developed for corn
 grown under conventional, chisel plow and no-till systems (Table 13).
 Calculations  were made on a per-acre basis so that cost estimates for
 most  farms could be derived from the budgets.  The chisel plow system
 with  a disking operation gave a net monetary return 3% greater than
 conventional  tillage.  By eliminating the disking operation, the monetary
 advantage of  chisel plowing increased to 6.3%.  Reductions in tillage
 operational costs more than offset the increased herbicide expenses
 associated with minimum tillage.  The no-till system had a 15% lower net
 return than conventional tillage, although total costs for no-till were
 the lowest of the systems analyzed.  The lower net return was due to an
 assumed 10% reduction in crop yield with no-till, a reduction based upon
 experimental  data and opinions of farmers.  A greater risk of yield reduc-
 tion  is involved with no-till due to a reliance on chemical pesticides
 and favorable environmental conditions.

      Results  from the survey suggest that farmers are generally pleased
 with—or at least intrigued by—conservation tillage.  On the other hand,
 farmers showed less satisfaction with no-till (Fig. 15).  Most farmers
 did not experience significant reductions in yields from conservation
 tillage as compared to conventional tillage (Fig. 16).  In fact, 18% of
 those surveyed reported higher yields with conservation tillage.  Of the
 farmers interviewed, 40% experienced a significant yield reduction with
 no-till.  However, a large number of interviewees had tried no-till only
 during 1976 when Wisconsin experienced severe drought conditions which
 had an especially adverse impact on no-till corn planted in stands of hay,
 because the chemicals used to kill the hay often were not very effective.
 This may account for the poor yields.

      Farmers' reasons for initially trying conservation tillage were pri-
 marily to save soil, time and money (Fig. 17).  Most farmers believed that
 conservation  tillage saved time and soil; 40% felt there was no financial
 saving over conventional systems.  It should be noted that an average
 reduction of  only one tillage operation compared to conventional tillage
 was achieved with the conservation tillage methods employed by the inter-
 viewees.  Further reduction is possible and would result in greater time,
 money and soil savings.

     The major problems reported by farmers using minimum tillage were
weeds and insects (Fig. 18).  With no-till, additional problems involving
 planting and germination were reported.  Weed and insect problems may
 reflect improper chemical application or poor effectiveness of the
 chemicals themselves.  More education for farmers with reference to appli-
 cation, timing, and mode of operation of herbicides and pesticides could
 reduce these problems.

     Responses to questions concerning the flow of information about con-
 servation tillage are depicted in Figure 19.  Conversations with neighbors,
 articles in newspapers, magazines and pamphlets, and the extension efforts
of government agencies  provided most farmers with their initial informa-
 tion concerning conservation tillage.


      Table  13.     Corn budgets  under  three  alternative  cultivation  systems
                                     O^iantlty   Unit price    Per acre
                                                                                    Chls.-l rlov
                                                                           Quantity   Unit price
                                                                                                                 Quantity   Cult price    I'cr ncrc


    Croaa returna/acre
                                    100 bushel*"
                                                     $2. JO


TOTAL fertilizer costs




TOTAL herbicide cost*

                                     100 lb"
                                      45 lb
                                      45 lb
                                      * lb
                                      2 lb
                                      2 ejt*«*
$ 25.00

$ 42.55

$  6.88

$  4.88

$ 12.88

$ 10.06
100 lb
 45 lb
 45 lb
                                                                             8 lb
  2 lb
  2.5 qt
                                        25,300   $35.00/80,000
                                                                 $ 42.55

                                                                 $  6.88
$  4.88
$ 14.68

$ 11.07
              100 lb
               «5 lb
               45 lb
2 lb
2.5 qt
                                                    25,300   $35.00/80,000
            $ 25.00

            $ 42.55

            $  6.88
$  4.88
                                                              $ 14.88

                                                              $ 11.07
      •achinery operation


      fertiliser epreadlng (cuatom)
      atalk chopper

   TOTAL auchlnery coata
3.6 hr/acre
1.8 hr/acre
                          t  1.12

                          $ 80.59
            2.7 hr/acre
            1.4 hr/acre
                            chisel plow

                       $ 75.02
                                     1.7  hr/ocrc
                                     0.9  hr/ocrc
                                                  $  1.12
                                    no-till planter   1.44




                                                  $ 6'i.98
                                                           $ 87.04
                                                                                  KET RKTURNS
                                                                                                  $ 89.CO
                                                                                                                                        $ 75.64
  • Tl»e comlttcd to labor 1>  given without coata due to wide varlatlona In  Individual f.rmora1 «n«
                                          Minimum till

        20 i
        15 -
  of    10
f armers
         5 ~
  Fig.  15.  Degree of satisfaction with conservation tillage (18)

                                                  Minimum tillage
                     Lower     Same      Higher
                    yields    yields     yields
Figure 16.  Corn yields with Conservation tillage as compared to

           conventional tillage (18).

                                           Minimum tillage
                                      |	1  No-till
          Save time
         Save money
          Save soil
      Better yields
Solely to obtain
cost-sharing money
      Other reasons






                                      Number of  farmers
           Fig.  17.  Reasons for trying conservation tillage (18).


New equip-
ment  costs










                 o  •
                 o ^.
                 C oo
                 CD rH
                 3 cu
                 cu oo
                           6 o C
                           a   ca




         Local government

               Mass media

           U.W. field day
                                               10          15

                                            Number of Farmers
                          A.  How farmers initially  found out about conservation tillage
       No assistance  or
       information received

       Government or
       University Extension

             Other farmers


                                     5           10         15
                                             Number of Farmers

                          B.   Sources of  information/assistance when conservation tillage was first tried
  Nothing additional needed

 Information on help needed,
     but type not specified

  Personal assistance needed
          Literature needed

      Demonstrations needed

Interaction with experienced
             farmers needed

Pesticide information needed
                                                          s' ^^
                                                    Number of Farmers

                          C.  Additional information needed about conservation tillage
     Fig.  19.   Flow of information concerning  conservation tillage
                   to farmers  (18).

     When actually using conservation tillage for the first time, 50% of
the farmers stated that they received no additional information or assis-
tance; those who did receive assistance stated that most help came from
local agencies, with neighbors playing a less significant role.

     When asked what type of additional assistance and/or information they
would have desired when adopting conservation tillage initially, most
farmers said they needed nothing additional.  Those respondents that did
express a desire for more help were often non-specific about the type of
help.  However, based on the farmers' primary sources of information avail-
able to farmers, assistance would probably reach farmers most effectively
through local government agencies and farmer-oriented publications.

     In summary, farmers appear to find some conservation methods appealing
enough  to adopt them gradually whether or not direct monetary incentives are
available.  Research findings and management recommendations provided
through local government agencies and farm oriented literature could help
to encourage adoption and effective application of these systems.  Farmers
do not, however, change their habits quickly nor without evidence that
the change will be beneficial.  In this respect, it is not likely or even
preferable that farmers rapidly and totally adopt conservation tillage
systems; putting too much pressure on farmers to adopt them may have a
detrimental effect.

                               The Problem
     Residential construction activities can have a significant impact
on water quality (19).  The potential for problems to develop depends to a
large extent on the physical characteristics of the site.  For example,
floodplains, steep slopes and areas with high water tables present special
problems.  During plat development topsoil and vegetation are often removed
completely and topsoil is stockpiled while streets and utilities are laid
out.  A site may remain in this erosion-prone state for several years
before construction is completed, especially if housing market conditions
are unfavorable.  Severe  impacts—particularly when several units are
built at once—have been documented in Germantown.

     The most significant water quality problems associated with home
construction activities arise from:

     1.  Exposed and unprotected soil throughout subdivision development
         which is highly vulnerable to erosive forces.

     2.  Excavated soil placed in large mounds near or in the streets,
         directly connecting sediment sources to storm sewers.

     3.  Unlimited access to lots by vehicles and heavy equipment, causing
         gully formation and tracking of soil into streets.

     4.  Rooftop drainage and water pumped from flooded basement foundations
         (dewatering) falling onto exposed areas, thereby increasing erosion
         and transport of sediment to storm sewers.
                             Project Efforts

     Past research and most subdivision ordinances (including those being
adopted in Washington County as a result of this project) generally have
addressed sedimentation problems solely during the initial site development
phase.  The actual home construction process has been largely ignored, both
from a technical and institutional standpoint.  During the course of the
project, the magnitude of the erosion problem during home construction became
evident.  Onsite control measures and practices that could be implemented
without imposing significant financial burdens were identified.  During
the summer of 1978, an attempt was made to convince individual builders

 to adopt some of these practices in Germantown's Old Farm Annex,  adjacent
 to the G3 monitoring site.   Unfortunately, these efforts were not received
 favorably and few have responded to the suggestions presented.   The Village
 of Germantown, however, is  currently working on methods of incorporating
 erosion control provisions  into their Building Permit requirements.
                            Control Techniques

      Many of the control techniques identified  do  not  involve  additional
 cost.   Often minor adjustments  in construction  methods and  careful  timing
 and execution of land-disturbing  activities  are all  that  is needed.   Since
 most construction activities  occur during work  performed  by subcontractors
 who are onsite for a very short time,  cooperation  and  communication between
 builders and subcontractors are essential if mitigating measures  are  to be

      Practices which may help to  reduce  soil loss  during  construction

      1.   Scheduling construction  activities  to  minimize land disturbance
          during peak runoff periods.

      2.   Depositing excavated soil from  basements  away from the street
          curb—in  the backyard  or sideyard area—which will increase  the
          distance  eroded soil must  travel to reach the storm sewer  system.

      3.   Using  one route (preferably the future driveway) to approach
          the house with  trucks  and  heavy equipment.

     4.   Backfilling basement walls as soon as possible and rough grading
          the lot thereby eliminating large erodable soil mounds and
          preparing the lot for  temporary cover.

     5.   Installing a trench or berm if the lot has a  soil bank higher
          than the curb and moving the bank several feet behind the curb.

     6.  Removing excess soil from the sites as soon as possible after
         backfilling to  eliminate any sediment loss from surplus fill.

     Additional practices for reducing erosion,  often requiring greater
financial expenditures,  include;

     1.  Covering a minimum area of 20 to 30 feet (6.5  to 9 m)  behind the
         curb—if it is  not feasible to stabilize the entire lot—with a
         protective material such  as filter  fabric, mulch or netting.   This
         covering can be installed before backfilling,  provided the  excavated
         soil is placed  in the backyard area and the lot has been rough
         graded.  Utility lines  can be installed by removing the protective
         cover and replacing the cover after backfilling.

     2.  Applying gravel to the driveway area and restricting truck traffic
         to this one route.  Driveway paving can be installed directly
         over the gravel.

     3.  Installing roof downspout extenders that aid in dispersing rainwater
         or diverting it to protected areas.

     4.  Covering sides and backyards with mulch, netting or other soil
         stabilizers after the foundation is backfilled to reduce erosion
         from these areas.

     5.  Stabilizing backfilled lots by seeding and mulching or sodding as
         soon as practical, to minimize erosion as well as to make the area
         more pleasant visually.

     Several issues became apparent during this study.  Firstly, a need
exists for information directed to developers, builders, and subcontractors
describing how their working practices can cause serious soil loss and
water quality degradation.  Secondly, practical and economical methods
minimizing sediment loss must be further tested and publicized.  Finally,
stronger incentives must be developed to insure that builders and sub-
contractors minimize the effects of their actions on sediment loss.

                         MODELS AND PREDICTIVE TOOLS
      In the initial phase of the  project  it was  realized  that  many  of  the
 technical questions being asked by those  formulating  sediment  control
 programs could  not be answered solely by  the monitoring data.  Models  were
 examined as a means of organizing available data;  of  projecting  implications
 of alternative  sediment control strategies; and  of helping  to  determine
 which factors have the greatest impact on sediment and other water  pollutant
 yields.   While  all models must be applied cautiously  and  only  within the
 limitations  under which they were developed,  they provide  an  important and
 often the sole  means of evaluating the effects of  many key  policy decisions.

      Skopp and  Daniel (20) made a systematic review of the  variety  of
 approaches to modeling presently  available, within the context of water
 quality  management.   Each group of models was  evaluated on  the basis of
 five  criteria,  namely,  accuracy;  simplicity; adaptability;  flexibility;
 and viability.  While some fairly sophisticated, deterministic and  stochastic
 models are available,  they do not appear  to provide much  better  predictions
 than  statistical models that are  less expensive  and easier  to  use for
 management purposes.   In general,  the modeler  should  choose the  simplest
 alternative that still meets the  modeling objectives.

      Miller et  al.  (21)  developed a series of  computer programs  to  predict
 gross annual  soil  loss  on a  watershed basis by application  of  the Universal
 Soil  Loss  Equation (USLE).   The programs  provide an easy  to use, flexible
 and standardized means  of organizing  base data and  applying the  USLE to
 small or  large  land  areas.   They  can  be used to predict the effects of
 changing  land use  patterns and conservation practices on  soil  losses, e.g.,
 these models were  used  to estimate  cropland soil loss in  Washington County
 and other  southeastern  Wisconsin  counties, based on a 2%  land  use and
 management  inventory  (22).   This  evaluation was used  to estimate the effect
 of  the ordinance proposed by  the Washington County  Project  institutional
 group on  soil loss on a  county-wide basis  (23).

      Berkowitz  (24) has  adapted a watershed model,  initially developed under
 the direction of Novotny  (25), to predict runoff and sediment  yields from
 agricultural watersheds.  This model was  linked with a farm management model
 in  order  to evaluate on-the-farm impacts  of regulations establishing soil
 loss  constraints, as well as  the expected changes in watershed sediment
 yields (26).  This analysis was applied in one of the monitored watersheds
 in Kewaskum, where dairy  farming is the dominant land use.  The  superiority
 of a conservation tillage system from economic and  sediment loading per-
 spectives was demonstrated.   Sediment yield predictions were most sensitive
 to values used for soil permeability and surface depression storage; there-
 fore,  to improve evaluations of the effectiveness of management practices,
additional information is needed on how these two factors vary under
different management conditions.

     Phosphorus, which is often transported to waterways attached to
sediment particles, is a major nonpoint source pollutant in its own right.
While phosphorus yield from a watershed is relatively easy to measure, it
is much more difficult to determine how much P is contributed by each
upslope source.  Attention was focused on three sources of phosphorus
contamination, namely, cropped fields, barnyard manure, and manure spread
on fields.  Additional loads of phosphorus from pasturelands, septic tanks
and urban areas have not been considered in detail.

     Miller (27) developed a model for predicting P loads from agricultural
lands; different forms of phosphorus are described.  Soluble P loads were
predicted with an empirical equation developed by regression analysis of
data obtained from nutrient loading studies conducted in the Midwest.
Significant factors affecting predicted dissolved phosphorus loads include
average annual precipitation, area, slope, soil type, land use, conservation
practices, and residue management.  The model derived is shown in Table 14.
All parameters were significant at least at the 90% confidence level, and
the regression equation as a whole explained more than 50% of the variation
in loading.  The sediment-associated phosphorus loads were estimated as a
function of USLE-predicted soil loss, the phosphorus content of soil, an
enrichment ratio (which accounts for the tendency of eroded sediment
particles to be smaller and have a high phosphorus content than the parent
soil), and a sediment delivery ratio.  By combining these two techniques,
predictions of total phosphorus loads from agricultural watersheds were
obtained.  Land use exerted the greatest influence on the magnitude of
predicted loading rates.  While hay lands contributed relatively small
sediment-bound phosphorus loads, they were the largest contributors of
soluble phosphorus.  This model is capable of evaluating the impact of
changing land use and erosion control practices on phosphorus loading rates.
Predicted loads, however, are long-term average estimates and do not account
for the effects of extreme variations in the magnitude and timing of annual
weather phenomena.

     Moore et al. (28) refined a method for predicting total phosphorus
loadings from livestock wastes in barnyards and on manure-spread fields.
This method was applied to determine contributions of phosphorus from
livestock to the lakes from the Wisconsin portion of the Great Lakes Basin.
Factors considered in predictions include variations in manure phosphorus
content among animal types, regional topography, animal density, location
of barnyards with respect to channels, and manure handling techniques.
Predicted annual phosphorus loads for the study area as a whole ranged from
110 to 350 g/animal unit/yr (1 animal unit represents 1,000 Ibs of live
weight animal equivalent).  Winter-spread manure was predicted to account
for about 35% of the annual phosphorus load from manure sources, while
barnyard concentrations of dairy cattle, beef cattle and hogs contribute
roughly 47, 17, and 1%, respectively.

     The total phosphorus loads from the Kewaskum watersheds as predicted
by the cropland and livestock models were compared with the monitoring
data for 1977 and 1978 (Table 15).  It should be noted that these models
incorporate many assumptions which cannot be satisfactorily verified.  They
are generally capable of yielding only long-term predictions and do not
characterize many sources of variability.  The predictions shown in Table

 Table 14.   Soluble reactive phosphorus loading (SRPL) model
 SRPL = Const + BiXi  + B2X2 + 83X3 + B^Xj, + B5X5 + B6X6 + 8.7X7

 SRPL = Soluble reactive phosphorus loading (kg/ha/yr)

 Const =  0.2164

    B!  = -0.0025      Xi  =  average annual precipitation (cm)

    B2  = -0.0015      X2  =  area (ha)

    B3  =  0.0093      X3  =  slope (%)

    6^  = -0.1616      Xi+  =  1 if clay  loam soil,  else 0

    B5  =  0.1518      X5  =  1 if corn,

       =  0.0932         =  1 if oats,

       =  0.2675         =  1 if hay,

       =   0.1837         =  1 if pasture,  else  0

    Bg  = -0.1700      Xg  =  1 if up  and down plowing,  else  0

    B7  = -0.0949       X7  =  1 if residue left or  incorporated,  else 0
   Model derived by Miller (27) from analysis of midwestern watersheds  <100 ha.
•"*«  „
   R2 = 0.57
   Standard error of estimate =0.06
   All parameters significant above the 90% level.

  Table 15.  Predicted total phosphorus loads from the Kewaskum Watersheds
                                                  Total predicted
                    Livestock        Cropland     load (livestock   Monitoring
  Site    Year    contribution*   contribution**  plus cropland)     data***
  Kl      1977        0.34            0.41             0.75            0.41
          1978                                                         0.13

  K2      1978        0.65            0.36             1.01            0.35

  K3      1977       12.73            1.10            13.83           19.65
          1978                                                         LQ2
  *Based on Moore's model (28).  Major assumptions are:
   a.  Only barnyards and manure spread within 100 ft (30 m) of a defined
       channel or ditch contribute phosphorus to surface runoff.
   b.  5% of the phosphorus excreted will enter surface runoff from barn-
       yards on an annual basis.
   c.  10% of the phosphorus in manure spread on frozen ground is carried
       away in runoff.
   d.  Within the 100 ft (30 m) critical distance, the phosphorus in surface
       runoff is linearly attenuated, e.g., 0% removal right next to the
       channel, 50% removal at 50 ft (15 m),  100% removal at 100 ft (30 m)
       and beyond.
   e.  All "delivered" phosphorus, as derived above,  is presumed to flow
       from the watershed (i.e., in-channel delivery ratio is presumed to
       be 1).
 **Based on Miller's model (27).
***Monitoring results generally do not include any snowmelt or early spring
   rainfall events.
   In all cases, total watershed area was used to compute loadings.

15 were based on the crop and barnyard management conditions of 1977 and
do not account for management changes in 1978.

     Keeping these limitations in mind, the correspondence between monitored
and predicted data appears reasonable.  Looking at data from sites Kl and
K6, predicted total phosphorus loads are 2 to 6 times higher than the measured
loads.  The predictions are probably too high because neither model accounts
for P attenuation during instream transport.  However, it also is likely
that the monitored data are artificially low as they generally do not
include early spring runoff phosphorus contributions which could have been

     For K4, predicted loadings are slightly lower than monitored loadings
in 1977, and 14 times higher in 1978.  It is reasonable that the unusual
climatic event which resulted in extremely high phosphorus losses from
this watershed in 1977 would not be reflected in the long-term average model
predictions.  In 1978, the difference between monitored and predicted
phosphorus loadings can be explained partly by the factors mentioned above,
and partly by the fact that barnyard runoff controls were installed and
effective by 1978.   When the phosphorus contribution from the K4 barnyard
(11 kg/ha) is subtracted from the predictions, predicted losses are only
three times the measured losses in 1978.

     Comparision of the predicted values of cropland versus livestock phosphorus
sources indicates that in the absence of control measures, livestock contribute
45% and 65% of the total phosphorus load at Kl and K6, respectively, and 92%
of the load at K4.   Barnyards were estimated to contribute about 88% and
manure spread on fields 12% of the annual phosphorus load generated by
livestock  in Kewaskum.

                          FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

     From the research efforts of the Washington County Project,insight has
been provided into some of the eomplex relationships between land management,
erosion and water quality; however, many questions remain unanswered.
Several areas needing additional study have been identified as follows:

     1.  The effectiveness of agricultural and housing construction management
         practices in improving water quality should be further documented.
         More data need to be collected especially during the late winter-
         early spring period.  To determine which practices are preferable,
         their influence on such basic hydrologic features as depression
         storage and infiltration should be better quantified.

     2.  The processes controlling the sediment delivery ratio (SDR)  in
         a watershed and the impact of alternative management practices on
         the SDR should be investigated.

     3.  Methods used for nonpoint source pollution monitoring should
         continue to be evaluated and improved.

     4.  Predictive models that relate agricultural land management and
         urbanization practices to the generation and transportation of
         pollutants to waterways should be further developed and  tested.

     5.  The attitudes of landowners  towards alternative methods  of controlling
         sediment and other nonpoint  source pollutants should be  examined

                                REFERENCES - II

  1.   Daniel, T. C., and R.  H.  Klassy.   Washington County Project Work Plan.
      EPA-905/9-77-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Chicapo. IL
      1977. 73 pp.

  2.   Daniel, T. C., P. E. McGuire,  G.  D.  Bubenzer, F. W.  Madison, and J.  G.
      Konrad.  Assessing the Pollutional Load from Nonpoint Sources:   Planning
      Considerations and a Description  of  an Automated Water Quality  Monitoring
      Program.   Environmental Management 2(l):55-65, 1978.

  3.   U.S.  Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.   Soil Survey,
      Washington County Wisconsin.   U.S. Government Printing Office,  Washington
      D.C., 1977.

  4.   Washington County Project  Annual  Report.  Water Resources Center,
      University of  Wisconsin-Madison,  1975.

  5.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.   Methods for Chemical Analysis of
      Water and Wastes.   EPA Report  No.  625/6-74-003,  National Environmental
      Research  Center,  Cincinnati, Ohio, 1974.

  6.   International  Reference Group  on  Great  Lakes  Pollution from Land Use
      Activities (PLUARG).   Quality  Control Handbook for Pilot Watershed
      Studies.   International Joint  Commission, Windsor, Ontario   1975
      (Rev.  1977).

  7.   Konrad, J. G.,  G.  Chesters, K. W. Bauer.  Menomonee River Pilot  Watershed
      Study,  Summary  Pilot Watershed Report.  International  Joint  Commission,
      Windsor,  Ontario,  1978.

  8.   Wischmeier, W.   H.,  and  D.  D. Smith.  Rainfall  Energy and Its Relationship
      to Soil Loss.   Amer. Geophys. Union Trans.  39:285-291, 1958.

  9.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Processes, Procedures, and
      Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from All Construction Activity.
      EPA 430/9-73-007, U.S.  Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,

10.  Daniel, T. C.,  P. E. McGuire, D.  Stoffel, and B. Miller.   Sediment and
     Nutrient Yield   from Residential Construction Sites. J. of Environ
     Quality 8(3):304-308, 1979.

11.  International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use
     Activities (PLUARG). Environmental Management Strategy for the Great
     Lakes System, Final Report.   International Joint Commission, Windsor
     Ontario, 1978.  p.  52.

 12.   McGuire,  P.  E.,  T.  C. Daniel,  D.  Stoffel,  and  B. Andraski.   The
      Effect  of Sample Intake Position  on  the Loading Rates  from Nonpoint
      Source  Pollution.   Accepted  for publication, Environmental Management,

 13.   Daniel, T. C., R.  C. Wendt,  P. E. McGuire,  and D. Stoffel.   A  Composite
      Sampling  Technique  for Monitoring Nonpoint  Source Runoff.  Accepted  for
      publication, Amer.  Soc. Agric. Eng.,  1979.

 14.   Madison,  F.  W.,  and J. 0. Peterson.   White  Clay Lake Demonstration
      Project Final Report.  Department of  Soil  Science, University  of
      Wisconsin-Madison,  1976.

 15.   Mueller,  D.  H.   Effect of Selected Conservation Tillage Practices on
      the Quality  of Runoff Water.   M.  S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-
      Madison,  1979.

 16.   Mueller,  D.  H.,  R.  C. Wendt, T. C. Daniel,  and F. W. Madison.  Effect
      of Selected  Conservation Tillage  Practices  on  the Quality of Runoff
      Water - 1978.  Paper presented at Third Annual Meeting (Wisconsin
      Section)  American Water Resources Association., Oshkosh, WI,  1979.

 17.   Huettl, P. J., R. C. Wendt,  and R. B. Corey.   Prediction of  Algal-
      Available Phosphorus in Runoff Suspensions.  J. Environ. Qual. 8(1):
      130-133,  1979.

 18.   Pollard,  R. W.,  and B. M. H. Sharp.   Farmers'  Experiences in Southern
      Wisconsin with Conservation  Tillage:  Some  Survey Results and  Policy
      Implications.  Submitted for publication, J. Soil and Water  Cons.,

 19.   Hagman, B. B., and J. G.  Konrad.  Methods for  Controlling Erosion and
      Sedimentation from Residential Construction Activities.  Paper pre-
      sented at Third Annual Meeting (Wisconsin Section) American  Water
      Resources Association, Oshkosh, WI, 1979.

 20.   Skopp, J., and T. C. Daniel.  A Review of Sediment Predictive  Techniques
      as Viewed from the Perspective of Nonpoint Pollution Management.
      Environmental Management 2(l):39-53,   1978.

 21.  Miller, B. A., T. C. Daniel, and  S. J. Berkowitz.  Computer  Programs
      for Calculating Soil Loss on a Watershed Basis.  Environmental Manage-
     ment 3(3):237-270, 1979.

22.   Berkowitz, S. J., and R.  Schneider.  A Description and Critique of Soil
     and Water Conservation Programs in Washington  County, Wisconsin.
     Washington County Project Report, Water Resources Center, University of
     Wisconsin-Madison, 1979.   65 pp.

23.  Arts, J.  Legal and Institutional Unit Final Report.  The Washington
     County Project:   A Final  Report,  Water Resources Center, University
     of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979.


24.  Berkowitz, S. J.  Modification and Evaluation of the Computer Program
     "LANDRUN" for Modeling Runoff and Sediment Yield from Small Agricultural
     Watersheds.  Independent Study Project, Department of Civil and
     Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979.

25.  Novotny, V., M. A. Chin, and H. Iran.  Description and Calibration
     of a Pollutant Loading Model—LANDRUN.  Draft Final Report to the
     International Joint Commission, Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study,
     Volume 4.  Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison,

26.  Sharp, B. M. H., and S. J. Berkowitz.  Economic, Institutional and
     Water Quality Considerations in the Analysis of Sediment Control
     Alternatives:  A Case Study.  In:  Proceedings of the 1978 Cornell
     Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Ann Arbor Science, Ann
     Arbor, Michigan, 1979.

27.  Miller, B. A.  Preicting Phosphorus Loads from Agricultural Water-
     sheds.  M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1979.

28.  Moore, I. C., P.  W.  Madison, and R.  R. Schneider.  Estimating Phosphorus
     Loading from Livestock Wastes:  Some Wisconsin Results.   In:  Proceedings
     of the 1978 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Ann
     Arbor Science,  Ann Arbor, Michigan,  1979.

            PART III
          FINAL REPORT
        F. W. MADISON
        E. E. SALMON

                           CONTENTS - PART III


CONTENTS	t ^   Ill-ii




SUMMARY 	..4	t   t?	,....   III-8


       The education and information aspect of the Washington County Project
       r • ?" am°n8KP/L- 92-5°° Public Participation efforts in that it focused
       nly on problems relating to urban and rural sediment pollution.
  Thus  although the structure of the education and information program was
  simziar  to those developed in conjunction with Section 208 planning in
  Wisconsin,  the scope  of the project effort was limited to selected non-
  point sources of pollution.
,nf  Ea!ly lnjhe course of the P^Ject, a staff for the education and
information effort was assembled.  A director was identified and a print
media specialist and a photographer were hired on a part-time basis to
to°work with°^'  A 10Cal C°°rdinator was also hired in Washington County
       i    ,  u T  7 resource a§ent to carry out public participation
  actvi     ,  u                                                      on
  Madilon   th  W  e 10?aVeVel-  SP-ialistS from  the University of Wisconsin
  Madison,  the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the University of

  DisStricStrwPrtenSH0n;-and/he W1SC°nsin Board of S°^ ^nd Water Conservation
  Districts were identified to provide support for  the local activities, but
  the major responsibility for carrying out those activities was placed on
  the local project representatives.

 were add^t-f* T™* °f 7 the Pr°Ject>  staff-primarily graduate students-
 were added to meet specialized education and information needs, e.g., with
 the school program (discussed later) .   Direction for the education and
 Tta0fT»nTn 8r°T ^ /etemlned  ^ a  committee composed of the project
 staff and specialists from  University  Extension, the State Board of Soil and
             ^1011 D1StrlCtS> and  the  Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning
              ad^lsors>  Deluding representatives of the Village of Germantown
                r°Unty ^"^  ^ TOWn °f  Kewaskum>  and the Stfte Board of   *
 was  th   r       Co-servation Districts,  were  identified.   Among  their tasks
 the  educatloT/H  -a?Pr°Va' °'  ^  actlvlties'  strategies,  and  materials  of
 tne  education and  information program.
          ;oal of the education and information phase of  the Washington County
          is to have a diverse group of target audiences made aware of the
          of and alternative solutions to the sediment problem in rural and
urbanizing areas.  The objectives may be divided into two categories  Informa-
tional and interactional program development.  Informational activities are
fudiences3 "^ infomatl°n fl°WS either **°* the project to the identified
M   f1       V^ce versa» whereas interactional activities are two-way informa-
the proj°ect?S  lal°8Ue °r lnteraction between the identified audiences and

     Information program objectives were:

     1.  To increase awareness of the sediment problem.

     2.  To increase understanding of the solutions available.

     3.  To provide educational materials.

     4.  To make the public aware of the goals and objectives of the
         Washington County Project.

     Interactional program objectives were:

     1.  To provide forums for public participation in all aspects of the

     2.  To provide opportunities for various segments of the public to
         observe the results of the project.

     The first step in the process of information and involvement was the
identification of potential audiences.   These were defined as:

     1.  The general public.

     2.  Interested and affected publics including:
         a.  Economic interests such as farmers,  contractors, subdividers,
         b.  Environmental interests like lake property owners, Audubon
             Society, etc.
         c.  Civic groups such as Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary Clubs, etc.

     3.  Decision-makers:
         a.  Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District.
         b.  Other county officials (elected and  appointed).
         c.  Town officials (elected and appointed).
         d.  Municipal officials (elected and appointed).

     4.  Regional audiences:
         a.  Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.

     5.  State audiences:
         a.  State Board of Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
         b.  Wisconsin Association of Conservation Districts.
         c.  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

     6.  National and international audiences:
         a.  International  Joint Commission.
         b.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.

                          INFORMATIONAL ACTIVITIES
       Informational  strategies  were designed  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  identi-
  fied publics.   Brochures  describing the  Washington County Project  and non-
  point source pollution  problems were prepared for  general use.  These were
  distributed in  Washington County  through the county  resource agent and  the
  county Soil and Water Conservation District.  A major publication on  all
  aspects of the  nonpoint source problem was also developed by project  staff
  A display featuring  these brochures  was  developed  for the Washington  County
  and  Wisconsin State  Fairs as well  as the Wisconsin Association of County
  Boards and Wisconsin Association of  Conservation Districts annual meetings.

  _     Other informational  materials for general use and for specific publics
  included a siide tape set  of 57 slides describing  nonpoint source pollution
  and  the efforts of the Washington County Project in dealing with this problem.
  The  program,  Clean  Clear Water," was shown to numerous groups in Washington
  County and used in classrooms and at meetings across the state.  A twenty-one
 minute color film, "Runoff:  Land Use and Water Quality," was also produced
  by the project and is receiving nationwide attention.

      Press releases generated by project staff were received favorably by area
 newspapers.   A series of background articles  on the project  was  carried in
 tull by^local  weekly newspapers.   In-depth interviews with participants  in
 the project  in the Germantown and  Kewaskum areas were featured.  Specialized
 articles designed  for use  in agricultural publications were  also  developed
 feature stories  on project activities and accomplishments were  distributed
 statewide through  county extension resource agents.  A press  tour  for  local
 and  regional media  representatives  was organized in conjunction with the
 international Joint  Commission  project on the Menomonee River.  Monitoring
 strategies as well as legal,  institutional, and  economic  complexities  of
 nonpoint source  pollution  control were discussed in detail in an attempt to
 provide essential background  information  for the working  press.  Eighteen
 radio programs—nearly 4 hr of radio  time—and four television  programs  were
 devoted to project activities.

      Professional papers were developed for identified expert audiences
Many  were submitted to technical journals for publication.  References to
 these papers may be found  in other  sections of this report.  Additionally
papers were presented by project staff at a number  of important conferences,
including the 10th Annual  Cornell University Conference,  the Second and
Third Annual Conferences of the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Water
Resources Association, the Second International Conference on Transfer of
Water Resources Information, three U.S. EPA sponsored workshops on nonpoint
source pollution, and numerous conferences on environmental education.

                         INTERACTIONAL ACTIVITIES

      Interactional  strategies also were developed for the identified
 audiences.  The  extension resource agent from Washington County contacted
 many  local community groups like the Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary, League of
 Women Voters, etc.  throughout the county.  Over the course of the project
 more  than 80 presentations on sediment, nonpoint source pollution and the
 like  were made to these  groups to a total audience in excess of 4000 people.
 This  community involvement mechanism was augmented by presentations to the
 local decision-makers by project staff and the resource agent.  A community
 meeting was held in cooperation with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
 Planning Commission water quality planning program in order to examine water
 quality problems and potential solutions and determine public perceptions
 and expectations on these matters.  This meeting was attended by a broad
 segment of the local population.  Over 600 people visited project monitoring
 stations as part of 19 organized tours.

     The project in cooperation with the Washington County Land Use and
 Parks Department and the County Extension Office developed a program in
 which local farmers designated areas to be zoned exclusively  for  agriculture.
 Over 400 people in 9 towns in the county participated in this program.
 Following the meeting,  3 regional meetings were held with the same group of
 people to determine conservation concerns and to establish priorities among
 the county's water resources.

      These series of meetings which were held in the latter stages of the
 project were excellent public participation efforts.  Citizens identified
 urban sprawl in rural areas, high taxes on farmland, and loss of farmland
 to development as their key concerns.  Rural residents expressed concern
 that  the urban governments were making insufficient effort to control
 nonpoint source pollution.  Participants felt that progress in nonpoint
 control was being made in rural areas and that city residents were receiving
 the most benefits.  Overcrowding and overuse of the somewhat limited water
 resources of the county also was a concern.  These feelings, conveyed to
 decision-makers, should form the backdrop for locally initiated land use
 and water quality decisions.

     Four regional workshops were held in the fall of 1977 for Soil and
 Water Conservation District Supervisors and federal, state and local agency
 personnel with an interest in nonpoint problems.  These workshops included
 presentations and discussions on technical, legal and institutional problems
 and priorities.   They were held in Greeen Bay, Mount Horeb, Eau Claire and
Waukesha.  These workshops attracted over 400 people who were involved in
water quality improvement programs as technicians or decision-makers.  In-
 formation on the Washington County Project was disseminated to other counties
 during the session.

       Additional information and educational  needs  were  identified and met
  during the course  of the planned activities.   One  of  these was  to provide

  oofTST  ?r ^aCherS f d SCh°°1S  °n  nonP°±nt s°urce Pollution and pro-
  posed remedial  actions  and  agencies.
  Qt.  f        n  ^e  °OUrse of the ProJect,  the education and information
  staff began working with county schools to inform teachers about local soil
  and water problems.  Presentations were made during teacher inservice days
  This brief exposure increased teacher awareness of local issues but did
  not give teachers  an adequate background  to prepare curricula materials
  was heldrdurl   ll'    ™ "^ ^^ "Understanding Nonpoint Pollution"
  to phvJicfl  h? 1  e.SpflnS Semester of 1977'   Participants were introduced
  Par? of T h bl0l°81Cal and institutional aspects of soil and water problems.
  Part of each session was devoted  to a review of available curricula materials
                       H              °f Var±OUS dlscW" and grade levels
                     and agency employees.
      Development of curricula related specifically to the soil and water
 resources of the Kettle Moraine geography and its eventual adoption by"
 public and private schools in Washington County required a still more

                                          Cl°Sely With sch001 administrators
 enablng 11%?+ ^ ^^ ^ lnitlal year WaS tO Plan sch°o1 curricula
 enabling students to acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes relevant to
 land uses that affect water quality.  Activities began early in SIJ when
       S Te reC^ited from a Consortium of six private schools and six

        *  '             SCh°O1 diStrlCtS tO a"en
      as anin es                                           — w°so
inis was an intensive training program with instruction provided by proiect

Jerfonne"  "es^ir60"11!'^ ^ WiSC°nSln DeP-tme^ °f Natural Resources

different schools participated; all grade levels were represented



     The units developed for elementary school students  involved a variety
of lessons covering many concept areas.  Some lessons included the following
activities.  First graders discussed the importance of water after a paper
bag was placed, over their bubbler during a warm September day.  Other
students studied soil erosion and found examples near the school.   Water
purification was demonstrated as students poured dirty water through a
container of soil.  In another activity, students learned what a watershed
is, which watershed their community is in and what types of land use are
common upstream.

     Middle school and high school students also studied soil and water
resources in many different ways.  A seventh grade class discovered that
the cause of bank erosion on a stream adjacent to their  school was students
walking along the water's edge.  Another middle school class studied a nearby
millpond and learned about the community's restoration program.   A high
school communications class studied interviewing and critical listening
techniques before talking with contractors about construction site erosion.
In a different approach to residential development, a social studies class
learned why some community members wanted to change the  zoning of a residential
area to prohibit apartment buildings.  A role playing activity concluded
the unit with a public hearing which brought out the effect of development
on a small community.  An upper level physics class calculated the amount
of runoff from the small watershed around their school and estimated the
nutrient loading rates to an adjacent stream.

     As teachers prepared and taught units, valuable assistance was provided.
A tour was held for teachers to become more familiar with Washington County
resource problems.  Teachers made contact through project staff with govern-
ment agencies such as the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission to obtain technical information and maps of specific
resource problems.  Pre- and post-tests were developed for the teachers.
These tests measured student gains in knowledge, skills  and attitudes.

     In the second year, the program was extended to include neighboring
Waukesha County.  Building on the work of their associates in Washington
County, teachers modified existing units and developed new ones to reflect
the more urban character of their county.  Also during this period, parti-
cipating teachers in Washington County banded together as dissemination teams
to expand the involvement of schools in the county.

     Units developed by teachers for elementary grades were edited and pulled
together in a book called "Local Watershed Problem Studies:   Elementary
School Activities."  This publication has been well received  and distributed
widely.  Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  is printing
additional copies.  A collection of units developed for middle and high
school students has recently been made available for distribution.

     A second need identified and met was an educational program which
demonstrated prioritizing techniques for water quality improvement practices.
A presentation for use with local citizens and decision-makers was developed

 using  existing water  quality data  and overlay mapping procedures to demonstrate
 land use  and water quality relationships.  The Resource Information Program
 (RIP)  allows targeting of technical assistance and financial incentives to
 landowners whose  land presents the most critical problems to water quality.
 The program was presented in Washington County and tested further in four
 other  counties with different topographies, soils, land uses, and water quality

     The  program  currently is being used in conjunction with the Wisconsin
 Fund program (State of Wisconsin)  for nonpoint source pollution control.
 This innovative effort may well serve as a model for future federal programs
 designed  to control nonpoint source pollutants.

     A third need identified and met by the project is that of evaluation
 research  for public participation programs.  Case study analysis of P.L.
 92-500 programs was undertaken to devise and test an evaluative model for
 and to determine effectiveness of public involvement programs.   Case studies
 selected  include the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Dane
 County Regional Planning Commission, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
 Commission, and the Washington County Project.   Uses of advisory committees,
public meetings and a variety of techniques  for participation were included
 in the research.   Project staff used survey and interview methods to ascertain
perceptions and expectations of participating citizens and staff involved
 in citizen participation programs.   Analysis of each program included
investigation of a wide array of variables which could change the effectiveness
of public involvement in planning.   The model developed from the research
can serve as a framework for the development of future public involvement
programs and as a means of monitoring the progress of ongoing efforts.


     The criteria of effectiveness selected for reviewing the education and
information program include meeting the originally stated goals and objectives
and initiating innovative programs to meet subsequently identified needs.
Using these criteria, the following assessment can be made:

     1.  Public awareness and understanding of the problems caused by
sediment in streams, and the full range of possible preventive and cor-
rective measures for solving these problems has been increased.  Public
awareness among a wide variety oi individuals and groups regarding the
purposes, progress and significant findings of the Washington County Project
has been accomplished.

     Many individuals and groups in Washington County have been contacted
by the extension resource agent and the project staff.  Educational and
informational materials have been presented.  In a survey of one of these
groups, 90% of the responding persons present at the meeting indicated that
their understanding of water quality problems had increased, 79% indicated
their understanding of nonpoint source water quality problems had increased,
and 29.6% indicated their understanding of the water quality planning
process had increased.  The meeting surveyed was held jointly with SEWRPC and
included a full discussion of nonpoint source problems, the P.L. 92-500,
Section 208 planning process and the Washington County Project programs.
Attendees were self-selected individuals from the community with diverse
backgrounds and interests.

     2.  Opportunities were provided for public interaction with the
Washington County Extension Resource Agent and project staff to observe
the progress and results of the project and to add public comment to the

     Presentations by the staff to the general, interested and affected,
decision-maker and expert publics were carried out during the course of
the project.  Staff meetings with the district supervisors and representative
elected and appointed officials were scheduled regularly.  Groups were
contacted as previously described.   An innovative educational strategy
was added to the original workplan with the inclusion of local teachers
into the program publics.  Workshops and presentations at state soil and
water conservation meetings widened the potential for interaction with
decision-making and expert publics.

     3.   Effective informational and educational materials were developed
and disseminated.  Brochures, pamphlets and ether publications were very
readable and widely distributed.  Likewise, audio-visual materials generated
by the project were exposed to broad use.

      Further  research needs  in the  area of public information and involvement
 lie  in  four major  areas.  The educational programs dealing %ith public
 educational institutions  should be  expanded and extended.  The problems
 and  terminology  of nonpoint  source  pollution and abatement are still not
 widely  understood  in many areas of  the state and nation.  Including this
 kind of information in  the school curriculum would serve to educate not
 only the teachers  and the children, but also the community touched by the
 school  system.   Developing the material which will be needed by teachers is
 an important  contribution to encouraging better opportunities for learning.
 A diffusion team of teachers is already in the process of widening the
 educational audiences.  This effort should be expanded.

      A  second area of need is further dissemination of the Resource Inform-
 ation Program.   As more attention is paid to nonpoint source pollution
 abatement and the  relationship of land management practices to water quality,
 better  ways of identifying priority areas will be needed.  Given limited
 conservation funds and  technical assistance, the wisest use must be made of
 existing expertise and programs.  This technique offers an effective tool
 for  sharpening local-decision making.

      A  third area  for additional effort lies in the development of additional
 informational materials.  Localized and readily available printed materials
will  be needed for the diverse areas of Wisconsin and other states to
identify and localize problems in that area and relate them to appropriate
local solutions.   Translation of technical detail into readily understandable
and usable materials for the various publics  and channels for dissemination
to those publics are important additional tasks.

     The final area for further work is that of developing and testing
evaluative critera and models for public involvement  programs.   As more
public involvement is mandated in environmental and other programs,  it
becomes increasingly important to be able to predict  and measure effectiveness,
Criteria for evaluation should identify a wide array  of program components
for examination.   These criteria can be used in program design and in
evaluation during and at the completion of the planning process.

                            BIBLIOGRAPHY - III
 Brasch, R., and G. Schellentrager.  1978.  Analysis of the Land Use -
     Water  Quality Relationship in the Mt. Vernon Creek Watershed.
     Washington County Project Report.  Water Resources Center, University
     of Wisconsin-Madison.  22 pp.

 Brasch, R., M. Cashell, and G. Schellentrager.  1978.  Analysis of the
     Land Use - Water Quality Relationship in Waupaca County.  Washington
     County Project Report.  Water Resources Center, University of
     Wisconsin-Madison.  59 pp.

 Carpenter, A., and G. Schellentrager.   1978.   Analysis of the Land Use -
     Water Quality Relationship in Lafayette County.  Washington County
     Project Report.   Water Resources Center,  University of Wisconsin-
     Madison.  68 pp.

 Carpenter, A., and G. Schellentrager.   1978.   Analysis of the Land Use -
     Water Quality Relationship in Sauk County.  Washington County Project
     Report.  Water Resources  Center,  University of Wisconsin-Madison.
     37 pp.

 Carpenter, A., and G. Schellentrager, 1978. Land Use-Water  Quality  Relation-
     ship Analysis  of  Washington County.  Washington County Project Report
     Water  Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.   61 pp.

 Carpenter,  A.,  and D. Wilson.   1978.   Development  of  Resource Information
     for Local  Decision-Makers.  In:  Proc. U.S.  EPA Conf., Voluntary  and
     Regulatory Approaches  for  Nonpoint  Source  Pollution Control.
     EPA 905/9-78-001, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Chicago   IL
     pp. 65-76.

 Halverson,  W.  F.   1979.  Local Watershed Problem Studies:  A Curriculum
     Development Program.   Current  Issues V:  Yearbook   of  Environmental
     Education  and  Environmental Studies  (NAEE).  ERIC  Center  for  Science,
     Mathematics, and  Environmental Education,  Ohio  State University,
     Columbus,  Ohio.   In Press.

 Halverson,  W.  F.,  F.  W. Madison, E. E. Salmon, and  T.  C. Daniel.   1978.
     Strategies  for Developing Nonpoint Pollution Curricula in K-12
     Schools.   Proc. of the  Second International Conference on Transfer
     of Water Resources Knowledge,  Neil S. Grigg, Editor.   Ft.  Collins,

Madison, F. W.  1976.  Public Participation in Land Use Planning and
    Management.  In:  Proc. U.S. EPA Conf., Best Management Practices
     for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Seminar.   EPA 905/9-76-005,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago,   IL.  pp. 56-58.

Madison, F. W., and T. C. Daniel.  1976.  A New Look at Soil Conservation.
    National Future Farmer 24(3):35,60.

Madison, F. W., E. E. Salmon, W. F. Halverson, and T. C. Daniel.  1978.
    The Washington County Project:  Strategies for Information Dissemina-
    tion.  Proc. of the Second International Conference on Transfer of
    Water Resources Knowledge, Neil S. Grigg, Editor.  Ft. Collins,

Perham, Chris.  1978.  Learning about Water.  EPA Journal 4(5):22-23.

Runoff - Land Use and Water Quality.  1978.  Department of Agricultural
    Journalism, University of Wisconsin-Madison.  21 min., 16 mm, color

Salmon, Elizabeth E.  1979.  An Evaluation Model for Public Involvement
    Programs in Water Quality Planning.  Ph.D. Thesis.  University of

Salmon, E. E., F. W. Madison, W. F. Halverson, and T. C. Daniel.  1978.
    Involving Wisconsin's Citizens in Water Quality Programs.  Proc. of
    the Second International Conference on Transfer of Water Resources
    Knowledge, Neil S. Grigg, Editor.  Ft. Collins, CO.

Schellentrager, G. W.  1979.  The Resource Information Program:  Land Use
    and Water Quality Information for Local Decision-Makers.  M.S. Thesis.
    University of Wisconsin-Madison.  80 pp.

Schellentrager, G. W., and R. Brasch.  1979.  Analysis of the Land Use -
    Water Quality Relationship in Green Lake County.  Washington County
    Project Report.  Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-
    Madison.  52 pp.

Vine, V. K., and W. F. Halverson.  1978.  Education and NPS Pollution:
    The Washington County School Program.  In:  Proc. U.S. EPA Conf.,
    Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches for Nonpoint Source Pollution
    Control.  EPA 905/9-78-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Chicago, IL.  pp. 57-64.

Washington County Project.  1978.  Local Watershed Problems Studies:
    Elementary School Activities.  W. F. Halverson and V. K. Vine,
    Editors.  Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    77 pp.   Draft.

Washington County Project.  1979.  Local Watershed Problem Studies:
    Materials for Middle and High School.  W.  F.  Halverson and V. K.
    Vine,  Editors.   Water Resources Center,  University of Wisconsin-
    Madison.  Draft.

                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                             (f'lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
                   Washington County Project:   A Final
   Report.  Development and  Implementation of a  Sediment
   Control  Ordinance or Other Regulatory Mechanism:  Insti-
   tutional Arrangements Necessary for Implementation of
                                                           S. REPORT DATE
                                                             November  1979
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                >1 MethodoL
il  Landt
   F.  W.  Madison
   J.  L.  Arts
                   S. J. Berkowitz    B.  B. Ragman
                   E. E. Salmon
                                                             8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO

  Wisconsin Bd. of Soil  &  Water Conservation  Districts
  1815 University Avenue
  Madison,  Wisconsin  53706
                                                           10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                           11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Great Lakes National  Program Office,  Region V
 230 South Dearborn Street
 Chicago, Illinois   60604
                                                             13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                              Final  Report - 5/74  to  5/79
                                                             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
  Section 108(a) Program -  Ralph G. Christensen
  U.S.  EPA Project Officer  -  Ralph V. Nordstrom
  The primary objective of  this project was to demonstrate the effectiveness of land
  control  measures in improving water quality and  to devise the necessary institutional
  arrangements for the preparation,  acceptance,  adoption, and implementation of a
  sediment control ordinance  applicable to incorporated and unincorporated areas on a
  county-wide basis.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                                               b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                         c. COSATI Field/Group
  Water Quality
  Land Treatment
  Available to  Public through National
   Technical  Information Service  (NTIS)
   Springfield,  VA 22161
                                             19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                               Unclassi f ied
                                             20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                               UncIassi f ied
                        21. NO. OF PAGES
                            I 37
                        22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
                                                   • U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980  654-219