vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
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
Washington
County
Project
Final
.:v*
*<;
-------
DISCLAIMER
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
for
Section 108(a) Program
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
-------
CONTENTS
Contents
Introduction '.'.'.'.
References
viii
*I. Legal and Institutional Unit Final Report . T ,
1~±
Contents
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
11-65
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.
ii
-------
INTRODUCTION
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.
iii
-------
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
efforts.
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.
iv
-------
- 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.
v
-------
™?« 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
»^
5.
»«^
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
vi
-------
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.
vii
-------
REFERENCES
'' J' andR'R> Schneider- A Ascription and
of
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
viii
-------
PART I
LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL UNIT
FINAL REPORT
•fry
JIM ARTS
I-i
-------
CONTENTS - PART I
TITLE PAGE I_i
CONTENTS .... t I_i±
SUMMARY OF GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS I_l
THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING x_3
Local Level Agencies I_3
Sub-State Regional Agencies 1-12
State Level Agencies 1-13
Federal Agencies 1-14
PROGRAMS COMPLETED IN WASHINGTON COUNTY 1-16
Sediment Control Ordinances I_17
Administering a Sediment Control Program 1-24
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAMS 1-33
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
BIBLIOGRAPHY !_38
I-ii
-------
SUMMARY OF GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
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
1-1
-------
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
include:
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.
1-2
-------
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.
1-3
-------
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
1-4
-------
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)].
1-5
-------
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;
1-6
-------
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.
1-7
-------
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
1-8
-------
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.
1-9
-------
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
designed.
1-10
-------
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
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.
1-11
-------
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
planning.
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
offices.
1-12
-------
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
Fund.
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.
1-13
-------
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
goals.
1-14
-------
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.
1-15
-------
PROGRAMS COMPLETED IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
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
practices.
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.
1-16
-------
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
advantages:
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
administer.
5. This approach is supported by local decision-makers and particularly
by SWCD supervisors.
1-17
-------
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
1-18
-------
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
1-19
-------
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.
1-20
-------
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.
1-21
-------
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
authority.
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
1-22
-------
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
injunction.
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
decrease.
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.
1-23
-------
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
1-24
-------
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
delegated.
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).
1-25
-------
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
only.
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.
1-26
-------
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
district.
1-27
-------
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
1-28
-------
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
1-29
-------
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
1-30
-------
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.
1-31
-------
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
priorities.
1-32
-------
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAMS
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
1-33
-------
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.
1-34
-------
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.
1-35
-------
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.
1-36
-------
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,
1977.
1-37
-------
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-
Madison.
*
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.
1-38
-------
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.
33(2):80-84.
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.
1-39
-------
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.
1-40
-------
PART II
TECHNICAL UNIT
FINAL REPORT
by
STEVEN J. BERKOWITZ
BRENDA B. HAGMAN
Il-i
-------
CONTENTS - PART II
TITLE PAGE
CONTENTS
FIGURES
TABLES
........................................ 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
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVES OF THE MONITORING SYSTEM .... 11-33
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
EROSION CONTROL AT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SITES ................. H_56
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
Il-ii
-------
PART II
TECHNICAL UNIT
FINAL REPORT
STEVEN J. BERKOWITZ
BRENDA B. HAGMAN
Il-i
-------
CONTENTS - PART II
TITLE PAGE ..............
........................................ t . . II-i
CONTENTS ..............
[[[ Il-ii
FIGURES .............
[[[
TABLES .................
f • • ...... r r
SUMMARY OF GOALS, METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS .............. ...
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
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVES OF THE MONITORING SYSTEM ____ I 1-3 3
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
EROSION CONTROL AT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SITES ................. II_56
The Problem ........................
project Efforts ............... i " i !.'.'!! 1 !!!!!!!!,"!!!!.'!!!.'!.'"*• 11-55
Control Techniques ....................... .!!!!!!!!.!.! ......... 11-57
MODELS AND PREDICTIVE TOOLS .................................. 11-59
FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS ....................................... 11-64
-------
Figures
Number
Page
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
Il-iv
-------
Tables
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
II-v
-------
SUMMARY OF GOALS, METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
Goals
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.
Methodology
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
ordinance.
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
II-l
-------
management alternatives. These models were tested with monitoring data
from the Kewaskum watersheds.
Findings
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.
II-2
-------
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.
II-3
-------
WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK
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
watersheds.
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.
II-4
-------
Great
Lakes
Drainage
" Basin
Green Bay
Milwaukee
LEGEND
Great Lakes Drainage Divide
Study Watershed Boundary
Watershed Streams
KEWASKUM
WATERSHED
GREAT LAKES DRAINAGE BASIN
1| GERMANTOWN
t WATERSHED
Fig. 1.
Washington County, Wisconsin, showing its
geographical location and selected project sites
II-5
-------
KEWASKUM
WATERSHED
GREAT LAKESX
NDRAINAGE BASJN
K\\x ^\\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ *v\ \\\\
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1 2
kilometers
Fig. 2. Location of Kewaskum Watershed within Washington County
and location of K-North and K-South subwatersheds
II-6
-------
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.
II-7
-------
I
00
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
I
VO
Characteristic
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, %
Corn
Oats
Hay
Pasture
Feedlots
Other
Conservation practices
Strip-cropped and contour-strip-
cropped, %
Affected by grass waterways, %
Conservation tillage, 7,
Tiled, X
Surface drained, %
Feedlot protected
Livestock inventory, au*
19
33
32
9
0.44
6
28
22
25
38
9
0.44
6
45
18
2
11
53
34
0.7
0.56
1
42
20
48
30
0.7
0.56
1
73
18
12
32
0
62
72
No
28
5
62
35
24
31
1.2
9
72
0
21 0
0
Yes
Dairy cows
Dairy heifers
Dairy calves
Beef calves
Beef feeders
Beef heifers
Sows 6. gilts
Boars
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 " )
TOTAL
119
25.6
1.25
1
15.75
8.4
0.7
0.6
172.3
116.2
16 .
20
18
170.2
46
22
23
1.2
9
51
0
2
32
11
45
1
1.5
10
14
0
32
24
18
46
1
1.5
10
54
2
45
7
70
28
10
60
1.8
169.8
*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
Total
75 85
36
5
18
1 11
(18, '.70 ft)
25,230 17,050
1
1
+"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
LEGEND
Monitoring Site
To Be Developed With Treatment
To Be Developed Without Treatment
o
miles
Fig. 4.
1 rt 1 ,—I
kilometers'5
Developing portions of Germantcwn showing monitoring sites
associated with Old Farm and Legend Acres Subdivisions
II-ll
-------
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
1977
3.9
50.0
5.8
28.6
3.4
51.0
27.0
13.5
34.0
2
74.3 m , gai
1978
3.9
9.0
1.1
29.7
3.4
22.0
2.0
4.2
38.2
rages 60.
Total
24.3
14.5
9.8
3.9
118.0
29.7
16.7
3.4
73.0
29.0
38.2
o
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
2
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
11-13
-------
a
b
INSTRUMENT SHELTER
STILLING WELL
GROUND LINE
LATERAL LINES
FLOW CONTROL
STRUCTURE
AUTOMATIC SEQUENTIAL
WATER SAMPLER
ELECTRIC CABLE
PROPORTIONING AND
RECORDING FLOW METER
SAMPLE EVENT MARKER
LIQUID LEVEL FLOAT
AND COUNTERBALANCE
HEATING TAPE
GROUND LINE
STAGE DEPENDENT WATER LINE
LATERAL LINES
SAMPLE BOTTLES
BATTERY, 12 VOLT
WATER SAMPLING
TUBE
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
downstream.
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
11-15
-------
Table 4. Installation costs of automated water quality monitoring
stations
Item
Cost range*
Control structure**
Weir***
Flume
90 cm
120 cm
60 cm
$2500 - 3000
(3')
(41)
(21)
H
HL
Parshall
250
650
650
300
750
750
Approach sections
_j L
Weir
Flume
90 cm (3') H
120 cm (41) HL
Leupold & Stevens 61R
ISCO 1680 automatic water sampler
Instrument shelters"'"
Recording rain gauge
500
1500
2000
1000
1500
1200
500
- 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.
11-16
-------
Table 5. Water quality parameters evaluated
Frequency of
analyses
Unfiltered
Parameters
Filtered
By difference
Routinely
Seasonally
Seasonally
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**
Ammonium-N
Nitrate/Nitrite-N
Dissolved molybdate-reactive P
Alkalinity
Total N
Total P
Precipitation samples
Ammonium-N
Nitrate/Nitrite-N
Dissolved molybdate-reactive P
Suspended solids
Organic plus
exchangeable-N
Particulate P
Organic plus
exchangeable-N
Particulate P
*Some routine and seasonal analyses were also made on tile discharges from the Kewaskum South
Watershed.
**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
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.
11-18
-------
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
summer.
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
11-19
-------
Table 6. Precipitation data for Washington County, 1976-1978
1976
Site
Total* Snowfall**
1977
1978
Total Snowfall R*** Total Snowfall R
30 yr. averages'*"
Total Snowfall
West Bend
K24
K5"1
62.6 149
93.7
72.6
67.2
cm
98
261
178
75.4
65.3
57.7
196
211
180
77.2 127
I
N5
O
Germantown
G5
54.9 NA
89.0
67.4
73.8
89
194
199
70.3
52.9
61.5
141
72.5
113
116
134
* 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.
-------
100
90
SO
70-
60-
50.
40-
30-
20-
10 •
Z Exceedence
1957
1949
1969
1965 ^ 1977
50
100
150
200
250
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.
11-21
-------
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
11-22
-------
Table 7. Runoff, sediment and chemical yields, and "normalized" yields for Kewaskum agricultural watersheds
I
ro
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
Yields
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
"**
K6**
Kl**
K2**
K2***
K5**
K6**
178
55'4
179
7'030
2-22 93.4
6-38
0.346
"Normalized" Yields
0.018 19.4
0.167 O.Krw,
0.148 0.027
0.937 0.396
(mm/R)
0.268
0.181
0.156
0.61 960
0.064 39,500
0.021 523
,410
,480
,400
,300
252
295
926
1.59
6.40
75.3
72.7
0.628
1.30
5.48
0.105
0.667
9.62
9.31
0.221
0.637
2.48
— (1
4,
16,
116
114
>/ha/R)
.55 2.26
.9 3.08
14.4
0.300
0.817
1.29
0.944
0.608
0.365
19.3
0.087
0.930
10.2
9.55
0.150
0.649
8.25
10.
35.9
4.87
1.93
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
M
I
ro
-» _ j
alte Mean
U* 26
*2" 40
«*•••
U**« 340
I6«« 31
Suspended
aollds
R.ngeftt
6-54
Total P Soluble P
Mean
1.38
4.3
2.1
0.46
S.I
Range Kean
0.43- 1.98 1.05
3.1
0.93- 3.07 1.39
0.08
3.7
Range
0.29-1
0.74-1
Organic mid
Mean Rnnye
mr/L
Early spring, 77
6 3.96 2.0 - 8.5
8.4
83 5.46 0.58- 9.12
2.65
14.4
M
Ml lal o .illd
nUvlff-N
eon R;mp,c
1.31 1.03- 2.2
2.1
0.94 0.05- 3.85
1.13
1.27
Cttcmical
oxyc.cn
Amionium-H dciiund
Mean Range Mean
Range
1.65 1.5 - 2.4
13.0
1.76 0.22- 4.26 179
0.29
2.60
Late spring and aummer, 77
U
n
»
rs
r.6
U
12
M
*S
M
n*
B*
M
U
ttf
3,454
5,823
66,190
4,600
IS
58.
140
(2.
* 2,558
** 278
418
240
134- 17,340
245- 17,780
18,310-348,480
3
24.2-232
5 5.0-224
142- 1,465
270- 773
3.19
6.40
48.4
57.1
6.8
0.1
2.59
2.16
3.11
3.46
1.83
9.82
3.75
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
0.02
1.24
0.27- 5.0 1.08
0.31- 6.3 1.36
0.08
0.62- 4.3 0.80
7,96- 11.1 2,5
2.4
0.03-0
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
0.11-0.
0.12-2.
0.22-3.
0.24-1.
2.01-2.
26 174.0 47.0 -1,015
21.0
Snowmen. 78*
0.75
5.43
84 5.32 1.02- 16.4
2 6.65 1.1 - 15.5
Early spring, 78
13.6
58 4.92 1.6 - 13.3
99 31.6 20.0 - 45.1
7.0
0.61 0.03- 1.28
0.82 0.48- 1.8
0.61 0.01- 1.14
1
0.
0.
4.
2.
0.
0.
8.
0.
0.
30 0.19- 2.4
55
60
67
78 0.44- 6.31
72 0.51- 1.02
98
16 3.5 -18.8
13 0.0 - 0.3')
87
0.17 0.03- 0.61
0
93 0.24- 2.8
6.66 3.52-27.4 6,540
0
0
0
5
3
5
24 0.16- 0.47
19
22
7
86 0.44-11.8
32 0.30-13.0
974-21,660
0.23
3
10.
19.
29 0.47- 8.7
0 7.48-12.9 653
0
277- 874
Mid aprlng-suimicr, 78
U
12
M
IS*
r.6
248
798
398
t- 1,635
424
•Include
••include
•••Include
•Hnclude
++Jnclude
•H-Hncludc
t Include
tt include
10- 3.860
85- 2,540
281- 558
490- 2,905
115- 3,085
2/23/77, 3/4/77
2/23/77
3/4/77
3/23-3f/7S
4/9/78
4/6-9/78
4/6/78
8/18/78
0.62
3.47
7.98
2.84
1.57
0.18- 2.5 0.22
2.5 - 7.05 1.72
3.13
1.26- 3.75 0.61
0.75- 5.4 0.76
0.03-0.
0.96-2.
2.01-4.
0.52-0.
0.34-3.
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
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.
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
0.
1.
9.
0.
1.
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
11-25
-------
Table 9: Kewaskum monitoring results, sediment delivery ratios
I
N3
Site
Kl
K2
K4
K5
K6
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
Sediment
delivery ratio***
1977 1978
1
2.43 0.68
4.73 0.50
31.53 2.42
86.02
1.95
* Predicted by USLE, corrected for actual "R" factor that year.
** From monitoring stations, rainfall events only.
*** n«,-n™™ ,-a1-!^ .. (measured)
(predicted)
-------
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
sewers.
11-27
-------
Table 10. Runoff, sediment and chemical yields, and "normalized" yields for Germantovn urbanizing watersheds
M
I—I
I
N3
oo
Site
C2**
C3***
G5**
G2*
03***
C5«
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
Yields
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
Notes:
* 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
I
NJ
VO
Sit<
Suspended
solids
! Mean Range
Total
phosphorus
Mean
Range
Soluble
phosphorus
Mean
Range
Organic -f
exchangeable
nitrogen
Wean Range
Nitrate 4-
nitrite-N
Mean
Range
Ammonium
Mean Range
Spring, 1977*
G2
G3
G5
G2
G3
G5
G2
G3
G5
G2
G3
G5
G2
G3
G5
5,471
2,378
3,435
23,563
11,787
12,729
6,908
5,542
4,713
1,631
2,429
1,097
,3,446
292 -
202 -
184 -
2,300 -
1,162 -
2,944 -
4,220 -
1,225 -
1,125 -
520 -
895 -
NS
158 -
115 -
930
20,750
11,680
5,188
76,540
38,250
36,800
22,495
22,960
8,380
8,530
4,550
6,445
13,080
30,900
3.61
1.86
2.54
18.99
6.73
8.29
4.8
3.3
2.1
0.97
1.76
NS
0.94
2.05
5.14
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
0.12
0.03
0.15
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.21
0.10
0.15
0.11
NS
0.12
0.15
0.07
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 -
0.2
0.2
0.2
Summer,
0.22
0.27
0.10
Fall,
0.18
0.20
0.19
Spring,
0.95
0.22
Summer,
0.18
0.22
0.13
5.79 1.2 - 18.9
3.6 0.6 - 9.7
4.17 0.9 - 6.7
1977
49.6 5.6 -310
8.5 2.3 - 44.8
12.6 1.8 - 62.0
1977
18.6 0.8 - 34.0
7.9 2.9 - 60.0
6.5 2.2 - 13.9
1978
2.7 1.7 - 5.5
4.0 1.5 - 6.3
NS
1978**
2-4 1.2 - 10.0
7.5 2.0 - 11.0
9.7 1.8 - 30.7
4.89
2.19
4.16
0.68
0.77
0.58
2.3
1.42
1.05
1.5
0.9
NS
0.98
0.89
0.51
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.
NS
0.12 0.
0.33 0.
0.25 0.
.04
.02
.03
.03
.02
.02
.21
.14
.09
04
27
02
20
07
- 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
1977.
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
11-30
-------
FL8W *-*-*
MG/L
L8flD
25 50
TIME. MIN
Fig. 7. Pollutograph showing "first flush" effect on
suspended solids (SS) concentrations (mg/L)
at Station G5, June 11, 1977
11-31
-------
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.
11-32
-------
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS AND ALTERNATIVES OF THE MONITORING SYSTEM
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
11-33
-------
i
OJ
"Flume
Float
- Pivot arm
Method B
Method A
To Samplers
Directioa-H2O
flow
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
11-35
-------
03
o
DISCRETE
SAMPLE
A A A A A. A A
SELECTED SAMPLES
FLOW PROPORTIONAL
COMPOSITE
Flow proportional
sampling
Composite analyzed
Event load=mg/L x flow
THREE SAMPLE MEAN
Temporal sampling
3 analyzed
Event load: x mg/L x flow
TIME
Fig. 9. Typical hydrograph depicting different methods of
sampling and calculating event loads (13).
-------
SUSPENDED SQL:os
9 R=.9S»
ORGANIC » EXCHHNGERBLE N
a «..«..
a
+ Ra.91
I!
§
i
!'
s
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)
11-37
-------
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
11-38
-------
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.
11-39
-------
CONSERVATION TILLAGE SYSTEMS
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
2
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,
11-40
-------
Results
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
sites.
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
no-till.
11-41
-------
c
o
H
«.
U
ti
0)
7
5
3
1
-
-
i
5
3
1
-
1 1
at
5
3
1
^
NNS
NXS
SXS
at
V//0
^
\
a
1
abc
1
a
w
CONV.
May
^
efgh ghi
July
i.
abed fgni
September
ll
abed cdef
^//o w
" MANURE
CHISEL
1
detg
1
atcd
1
bcae
w/o
§
§
§
K
bcdef
hi
hi
w
- ••"
NO-TILL
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.
11-42
-------
CB
"2
6)
.'1
O
I
0 a
^
CO
o
D
rH
"1
4J '
O
H
'i
a
w/o
1
ab
SB
1
a
w
JU
1
ab
iy
1
d
i
abc
1
d
September
I
a
w/o
I
cd
w
1
abed
w/o
I
cd
w
IIIIIIMMIIIM IIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMM' ^X A KJ II D C Illllllllllllllllllllllllf Illlllf Illlllll
CONV.
CHISEL
NO-TILL
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).
11-43
-------
3
2
o
M 1
tO
M
^ 3
PM
03
9
Q
1
July
:. . . 1 •
de e de b be
September
« S m § 1
cde cd de cde c
w/o w w/o w w/o
1
a
§
§
a
w
'•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).
11-44
-------
J
cfl
bO 2.
X
". 1
.H
,0
n)
li
« abc
M 0
C °
n)
.C
a 2
w
i 1
•H
CO
OJ
I
abc
A
1
be
.ly
S
be
i
ab
i
a
P September
sSS
* ab
w/o
1
ab
w
i
ab
I
C
w/o w
1
be
w/to
S
1
a
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).
11-45
-------
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.
Summary
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
11-46
-------
Table 12. Grain yields and plant populations for three tillage systems, with (A)
and without (B) manure (15)
Plant yield
and
population*
Yield,
bushels/acre
Plant
population,
plants/acre
Tillage Systems
Conventional Chisel plow No-till
A B A B A B
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.
11-48
-------
Table 13. Corn budgets under three alternative cultivation systems
Conventional
O^iantlty Unit price Per acre
Chls.-l rlov
Quantity Unit price
Quantity Cult price I'cr ncrc
Held/acre'**
Price/acre
Croaa returna/acre
100 bushel*"
$2.40
$240.00
$2. JO
$240.00
S2.40
$216.00
fertiliser:
nitrogen
phosphorus
potassium
cortectlve
TOTAL fertilizer costs
Insecticide
Herbicide:
Atrezlne
Lasso
TOTAL herbicide cost*
ftc*d
100 lb"
45 lb
45 lb
* lb
2 lb
2 ejt*«*
$0.25
0.21
0.08
4.50
$0.86
$2.44
4.00
23,000
kernel*
$35.00/80,000
$ 25.00
9.45
3.60
4.50
$ 42.55
$ 6.88
$ 4.88
8.00
$ 12.88
$ 10.06
100 lb
45 lb
45 lb
8 lb
2 lb
2.5 qt
$0.25
0.21
0.03
4.50
$0.86
$4.88
4.00
25,300 $35.00/80,000
kernela
$ 42.55
$ 6.88
$ 4.88
10.00
$ 14.68
$ 11.07
100 lb
«5 lb
45 lb
2 lb
2.5 qt
$0.25
0.21
o.oa
4.50
$0.86
$2.44
4.00
25,300 $35.00/80,000
kernels
$ 25.00
9.45
3.60
4.50
$ 42.55
$ 6.88
$ 4.88
10.00
$ 14.88
$ 11.07
•achinery operation
other
Machinery:"
tractor
plow
fertiliser epreadlng (cuatom)
dlak
atalk chopper
planter
coablne
cultivator
•prayer
dryer
TOTAL auchlnery coata
3.6 hr/acre
1.8 hr/acre
t 1.12
S.60
3.24
6.51
1.67
3.61
36.05
1.33
4.46
15.00
$ 80.59
2.7 hr/acre
1.4 hr/acre
chisel plow
1.49
2.91
3.24
3.26
3.67
3.61
36.05
1.33
4.46
15.00
$ 75.02
1.7 hr/ocrc
0.9 hr/ocrc
$ 1.12
no-till planter 1.44
3.24
3.67
36.05
4.46
15.00
$ 6'i.98
TOTAL COSTS
$152.96
$150.40
$140.36
$ 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
Mo-till
20 i
15 -
Number
of 10
f armers
5 ~
Fig. 15. Degree of satisfaction with conservation tillage (18)
11-50
-------
35
30
Number
of
farmers
Minimum tillage
No-till
Lower Same Higher
yields yields yields
Figure 16. Corn yields with Conservation tillage as compared to
conventional tillage (18).
11-51
-------
Minimum tillage
| 1 No-till
Save time
Save money
Save soil
Better yields
Solely to obtain
cost-sharing money
Other reasons
5
1
1
10
i
15
1
20
25
30
Number of farmers
Fig. 17. Reasons for trying conservation tillage (18).
11-52
-------
(U
60
(I)
Other
New equip-
ment costs
Poor
germination
Planting
Pesticide
application
Fertilizer
application
Plant
diseases
Insects
Weeds
f!
O
•H
cu
co
§
o
60
c
•H
CO
3
CO
t-l
CO
14-1
T3
0)
§
o •
o ^.
C oo
CD rH
*~s
CO
3 cu
cu oo
00
60
•H
co
m
cu
co
u
a)
r
6 o C
a ca
-------
Neighbors
Industry
Literature
Local government
Mass media
U.W. field day
10 15
Number of Farmers
20
25
A. How farmers initially found out about conservation tillage
No assistance or
information received
Government or
University Extension
Other farmers
University
Other
20
25
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
ZZI
s' ^^
10
15
20
25
30
Number of Farmers
C. Additional information needed about conservation tillage
Fig. 19. Flow of information concerning conservation tillage
to farmers (18).
11-54
-------
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.
11-55
-------
EROSION CONTROL AT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SITES
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
11-56
-------
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
effective.
Practices which may help to reduce soil loss during construction
include:
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.
II-57
-------
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.
11-58
-------
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.
11-59
-------
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
11-60
-------
Table 14. Soluble reactive phosphorus loading (SRPL) model
JLJL
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
A
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.
11-61
-------
Table 15. Predicted total phosphorus loads from the Kewaskum Watersheds
Total predicted
Livestock Cropland load (livestock Monitoring
Site Year contribution* contribution** plus cropland) data***
kg/ha+
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.
11-62
-------
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
substantial.
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.
11-63
-------
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
further.
11-64
-------
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.
11-65
-------
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,
1979.
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.,
1979.
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.
11-66
-------
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,
1978.
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.
11-67
-------
PART III
EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
by
F. W. MADISON
E. E. SALMON
Ill-i
-------
CONTENTS - PART III
TITLE PAGE HI-i
CONTENTS t ^ Ill-ii
INTRODUCTION f IIJ-1
INFORMATIONAL ACTIVITIES III-3
INTERACTIONAL ACTIVITIES III-4
SUMMARY ..4 t t? ,.... III-8
BIBLIOGRAPHY ., , , , ., III-IO
Ill-ii
-------
INTRODUCTION
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
III-l
-------
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
project.
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,
etc.
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.
III-2
-------
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.
III-3
-------
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.
III-4
-------
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
1
III-5
-------
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
III-6
-------
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
problems.
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.
III-7
-------
SUMMARY
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
process.
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.
III-8
-------
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.
III-9
-------
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,
CO.
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.
111-10
-------
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,
CO.
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
film.
Salmon, Elizabeth E. 1979. An Evaluation Model for Public Involvement
Programs in Water Quality Planning. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
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.
III-ll
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(f'lease read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-80-003
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
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
rtr
>1 MethodoL
il Landt
F. W. Madison
J. L. Arts
S. J. Berkowitz B. B. Ragman
E. E. Salmon
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Wisconsin Bd. of Soil & Water Conservation Districts
1815 University Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2BA645
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
G-005139
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
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
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
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.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Sediment
Erosion
Water Quality
Institutional
Socio-Economic
Nutrients
Land Treatment
IBUTION STATEMENT
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
------- |