vvEPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
             Region 5
            Great Lakes National
            Program Office
            536 South Clark Street
            Chicago, IL 60605
EPA-905/9-82-002
February 1982
A Description and
Critique of Soil and
Water Conservation
Programs in
Washington County,
Wisconsin

-------
                                          EPA-905/9-82-002
                                          February 1982
      A  Description and Critique of
Soil and Water Conservation Programs
    in Washington County, Wisconsin
                        by
                Steven J. Berkowitz
                Robert R. Schneider
               Water Resources Center
           University of Wisconsin-Madison
                Grant Number G005139

 Ralph G. Christensen                  Carl D. Wilson
 Section 108(a) Program                 Project Officer
           This study was prepared in 1979
           by the Washington County Project
               with funds provided by

         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Great Lakes National Program  Office
           536 South Clark Street,  Room 932
              Chicago, Illinois 60605


                 U.3 «: ^ronmcnta, Wot***

                 ^ '• °  V;'",r,-n Street

-------
                                 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.
                                      ±±

-------
     A DESCRIPTION AND CRITIQUE OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
              PROGRAMS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, WISCONSIN
                             Abstract

     A detailed study of the structure and recent accomplishments

of the Soil and Water Conservation District, Soil Conservation

Service and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

programs in Washington County, Wisconsin, is presented.  These soil

and water conservation programs, underway since the 1930's, have

gained an added mandate in the 1970's—control of nonpoint source

pollution.  This paper focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of

these programs in meeting their mandate to control erosion on

agricultural lands.  The evaluation framework is established by

describing the legislative mandates and operational procedures

followed by each program.  Consideration is given to both the hori-

zontal linkages between the programs of different agencies and to

the intra-agency linkages between the establishment of program

objectives, planning and implementation strategies.  Ten years of

data are analyzed on the allocation of technical assistance, manpower,

cost sharing expenditures and program accomplishments.  From this

information, specific limitations of the past soil and water conser-

vation programs are highlighted and ways identified in which programs

might be improved in order to ensure their increased effectiveness

under an expanded set of responsibilities.
                                iii

-------
                           Acknowledgement s


     This study was accomplished thanks to the aid of many individ-

uals.  Most of the information presented was gained from conversations

with and materials provided by agency personnel in county, area and

state offices.  The assistance of the following individuals is

acknowledged with appreciation:


     Don Kurer, District Conservationist> Washington County

     Doug Knox, Former District Conservationist,, Washington County

     Don Sampson, ASCS County Executive Director, Washington County

     Myra Brummond, ASCS Office, Washington County

     Ingman Bolstad, State ASCS Office, Madison

     Keith Kruel, Former ASCS State Executive Director, Madison

     Dan Wilson, Extension Resource Agent, Dane County

     Leonard Johnson, State Board of Soil and Water Conservation
                      Districts, Madison

     Leo Mulcahy, State Board of Soil and Water Conservation
                  Districts, Madison

     James Schwoegler, SCS Area Conservationist, Dane County
                                  iv

-------
                           CONTENTS
Title Page	      i
Disclaimer	     ii
Abstract	    iii
Acknowledgment	     iv
Contents 	      v
Figures	..     vi
Tables	    vii
Appendices	   viii

     1.  Introduction  ...... 	      1
     2.  Conclusion and Implications 	      2
     3.  Agency Mandates	      6
           Soil and Water Conservation Districts       . .
           Soil Conservation Service
           Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
                Service
     4.  Program Administrative Structure  	      8
           SWCD and SCS Administration
           ACP Administration
     5.  Operational Procedures  	      9
           SWCD and SCS Programs
              The District Resources Conservation Program
              Conservation Planning and Technical Assistance
           The Agricultural Conservation Program 	     11
           The Lang-Term Agreement Program 	     12
     6.  Evaluation of Program Implementation Procedures       13
           Assessing Treatment Nedds
           Setting Priorities  	     17
              SWCD/SCS Programs
              The Agricultural Conservation Program
           Program Implementation  .....  	     21
              SWCD/SCS Programs  	     23
              The Agricultural Conservation Program  ...     31
              The Long-Term Agreement Program  ......     38

     References	• •	     39
     Appendices	41-65
                             v

-------
                                  FIGURES
Number
         Cumulative distribution of cropland soil loss in
         southeastern Wisconsin counties 	  18

         SWCD/SCS major planning accomplishments in Washington
         County as reported in SCS "F-Reports" from 1970-1976  ...  25

         Distribution of program accomplishments and technical
         assistance effort in Washington County  	  29

         Distribution of installed agriculture erosion control
         practices by slope class in Washington County,  1965-1975,
         based on SEWRPC data and analysis of a 2% survey  	  32

         Distribution of ACP cost-sharing accomplishments and
         expenditures in Washington County,  1968-1977, derived
         from ASCS annual reports	34

         Trends in distribution of ACP cost-sharing funds in
         Washington County,  1968-1977  	  37
                                      vi

-------
                                 TABLES
Number                                                            Page

  1    Conservation Needs Inventory results for Washington
       County in 1967	15

  2    Distribution of SCS technical assistance goals for FY
       1977, compared to 1967 assessed conservation needs  .... 20

  3    Distribution of AGP annual program priorities for 1976
       and 1977, compared to 1967 assessed conservation needs  .  . 22

  4    Allocation of SWCD/SCS staff time in Washington County  .  . 24

  5    Major practices implemented through SWCD, SCS and ASCS
       programs	27

  6    SWCD/SCS accomplishments in Washington County compared
       to assessed treatment needs 	 30

  7    Distribution of ACP accomplishments and expenditures from
       1968-1977 compared to assessed conservation needs . . .  «  . 35
                                 vii

-------
                              APPENDICES


Appendix                                                           Page

   A     Major Data Sources	41

   B     SWCD and SCS Annual Programs	44

   C     Method used by the State ACS Committee to allocate
         ACP funds to counties derived from discussions with
         I. Bolstad, ASCS State Office, Madison, Wisconsin  .... 46

   D     Washington County Plan - 1977 Agricultural Conserva-
         tion Program ..... 	 48

   E     Washington County Crops, 1965-1976 	 50

   F     Data from the 1975-76 Washington County "99-Report"  ... 51

   G     Results of 208-2% Survey for Washington County cropland  . 52

   H     Major planning accomplishment data, Washington County
         SWCD/SCS	54

   I     Major SWCD, SCS and ASCS practices» affected acreage
         per practice, and approximate technical assistance time
         requirements for design and implementation in Washington
         County	55

   J     Inventory of conservation practices installed in
         Washington County, prepared by SEWRPC, 1965-1975 	 56

   K     Conservation practice accomplishments in Washington
         County, 1971-76  	 57

   L     Data comparing practice distribution with cropland and
         soil loss distribution	58

   M     Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) data for
         Washington County, 1968-1977 	 60
         1.  Program accomplishments, 1968-1977 	 60
         2.  Summary,  ACP expenditures and costs per
             acre affected	64
         3.  Demand versus supply of ACP practices in Washington
             County, 1971, 1975 and 1976	65
                               viii

-------
                               1.  INTRODUCTION
     Most soil and water conservation programs in operation today have been
underway since the 1930's.  The most important programs are administered
locally by the county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service  (SCS), the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), and the cooperative Extension Service.  These
programs have been concerned historically with protecting and enhancing
agricultural productivity  through the control of soil erosion and are
credited with playing an important role in the recovery from the depression
and dustbowl eras.  In the 1970's, however, a new dimension has been added
to the conservation program's mandate, i.e., control of water pollution that
results from land use activities or "nonpoint source (NFS) pollution".  The
success of the nation in reaching the goal of "fishable-swimmable" water
quality by 1983  (1) depends on the degree to which water quality objectives
can be incorporated into present conservation programs.

     This paper presents the findings of a detailed study of the structure
and recent accomplishments of the SWCD, SCS and ASCS programs in Washington
County, Wisconsin.  Dairy  farming is still the dominant land use in Washing-
ton County, which is situated northwest of the Milwaukee metropolitan area,
although the land area devoted to cash cropping and urban development is
expanding rapidly.  This research is part of a comprehensive study of NFS
pollution problems and alternative control strategies in Washington County,
funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  The programs of Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Extension—though important—are not discussed because they
are being evaluated separately by Washington County Project personnel.  The
primary objective of the study is to identify ways in which programs might
be improved in order to ensure their effectiveness under an expanded set of
responsibilities.

     While we recognize the danger of generalizing from a single case study,
it is felt nevertheless that the Washington County experience with these
programs is not unique and that its documentation illuminates the important
institutional problems which must be addressed by those involved in conserva-
tion program evaluation and development.

     A variety of information sources have been utilized in this study
(Appendix A).   Agency mandates were derived from the relevant laws and other
clarifying documents.   Program effectiveness was determined from detailed
analysis of land use and management inventories and agency accomplishment
data.   This included information concerning:

     A.  The procedures used by each agency to gather information,  specify
priorities and implement programs.

       B.  The interagency  linkages which influence how each agency perceives
  its mission.

-------
                      2.  CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
     The objective of the study was to consider the detailed structure and
operation of the principal soil and water conservation programs in Washing-
ton County.  The evaluation has focused on the effectiveness of these pro-
grams in meeting their mandate to control erosion on agricultural lands.

     Despite extensive past program accomplishments, farmland erosion is
still a serious problem in Washington County, and there is ho indication
that the situation has been improved in recent years.  On the contrary, it
appears that the situation is becoming more serious.  Findings seem to
indicate, however, that only a small portion of the land has excessive
erosion rates.  In Washington County, only 17% of the cropland has soil
loss rates >3 tons/acre/yr (5.4 Tonnes/ha/yr) and the largest sources of
soil loss can be narrowed down even further.  Thus, the primary concern is
how these critical areas can be better identified and programs better
focused towards meeting each area's specific needs.  In principle, only
minor, though essential, adjustments are needed to improve substantially
program results, and it is not inferred  that  massive new programs, agen-
cies and directives are needed.  It is recognized that the existing opera-
tional procedures and agency interrelationships result from years of evolu-
tion, and cannot be expected to change overnight.  It is encouraging to
note, however, that agency programs are being redirected, but it is too early
to evaluate these changes.

     Some specific limitations of the past soil and water conservation pro-
grams in Washington County and recommended improvements are summarized below:

     A.  Better information is needed concerning the use and management of
lands with potential problems.  The soil survey provides a good indication
of an area's problem potential, but only a survey of 2% of the land completed
in 1977 provides any detailed information on how problem areas are managed.
A survey procedure which involves field checking areas with potential problems
could facilitate problem identification.

     B.  The SCS "99-Report", meant to quantify the amount of practices
currently on the land, has not been compiled accurately, mainly because
practices removed are inadequately accounted for.  Breakdown of the distri-
bution of practices by problem area categories do not exist, e.g. soil capa-
bility class or slope class.

    Regular field-checks of past practices installed through agency efforts
should be,made.  Surveys like that suggested in Conclusion A should enumerate
the coverage of different practices in the problem areas.  Use of the Census
of Agriculture to collect data on management practices should be reconsidered.
Aerial photographs also might provide a simple mechanism of quantifying the

-------
amounts and changes in certain practices, such as stripcropping.

     C.  Some past surveys, such as the Conservation Needs Inventory (CNI) ,
have tended to yield inflated estimates of treatment needs.  This has been
due to both the multiplicity of program objectives and to the subjective
nature of decisions concerning the desired levels of treatment.

     Surveys of future needs should be tied closely to quantifiable, uniform
and replicable measures of the problems, and with the determination of treat-
ment needs made in accordance with clearly specified objectives.

     D.  Neither the SWCD Long-Range nor the Annual Planning process has yet
been effectively utilized to establish the district's authority over program
policy within its jurisdiction.  Neither sufficiently acknowledges past pro-
gram deficiencies, quantifies treatment needs, prioritizes a sequence of
objectives, nor specifies where needs are the greatest within the district.
This has resulted in implementation efforts that are often inconsistent with
district policy.

     The Long-Range and Annual plans should 1. draw directly upon the latest
available surveys of problems and treatment needs, 2. specify the priority
with which problems will receive attention, and 3. specify what methods will
be used to achieve these objectives, how staff requirements will be met, how
funding will be provided, and how program elements will be coordinated and
evaluated.  Additionally, the Annual Program should be developed before the
SCS's Annual Plan of Operations and the County Budget are completed in the
fall, and should contain sufficient information to enable the allocation of
SCS and County funds and technical staff-time.

     E.  The allocation of AGP funds among counties has not been tied effec-
tively to the severity of needs for specific practices.  Many of the newer
ACP practices, e.g., grass waterways and minimum tillage, were not considered
directly in the 1967 CNI and priority ranking among counties has been based
solely on amount of croplands.  An estimate of the needs for these newer
practices could be based on past estimates of needs for similar practices,
e.g., grass waterway priorities could be based on assessed needs for strip-
cropping, diversions and terraces in the 1967 CNI.

     F.  The SWCD has not yet taken full advantage of its advisory responsi-
bility to the ASC Committee during the preparation and implementation of the
Annual ACP Program.

     The SWCD and ASC Committees should develop a stronger commitment to
cooperation.  The ACP Program should complement and help implement the Dis-
trict's Annual Program.  Consideration might be given to having each ACP
application sent to the SWCD for review and recommendations before the ASC
makes its final decisions.

     G.  Too much SWCD/SCS staff time—relative to accomplishments—has been
devoted to preparing traditional farm conservation plans.  This, in part, has
been responsible for limiting the amount of effort used in identifying and
assisting landowners with high priority problems.

-------
     A streamlined, problem-oriented planning process should be developed
which identifies only those practices most critically needed.  District and
SCS staff should seek out individuals needing such plans and encourage their
cooperation.  The priority followed in completing plans should be based on
comparative need.  Overseeing such a revised planning process ideally would
be the responsibility of SWCD personnel.

     H.  The actual distribution of SWCD/SCS technical assistance effort has
deviated significantly from that required just to meet assessed treatment
needs and established district objectives.  In particular, the effort expen-
ded to implement drainage practices has limited the amount of time that has
been available to implement high priority practices.  In addition, those
practices which have been implemented are not concentrated in areas of great-
est need.

     The District must more effectively define its objectives and encourage
the SCS and ASC Committee to follow the objectives more closely.  The district
might consider developing its own technical staff whose activities would be
directed by its supervisors.

     I.  The real value of ACP support has been decreasing continually.  Sub-
stantially fewer people received ACP incentives in 1977 than in 1968.  The
program also has suffered from the many fluctuations it has undergone in
recent years.  This has made it difficult to plan ahead or to generate support
for programs, e.g., the Long-Term Agreement (LTA) program, which depend on
funding over a number of seasons.

     It is unlikely that ACP appropriations will be increased or that the
program will stabilize.  Thus, the importance of careful spending is height-
ened.  State and county cost-sharing programs undoubtedly are needed to
supplement the ACP.

     J.  ACP expenditures on low priority but highly popular practices have,
in part, been responsible for reducing the relative accomplishments of the
more important erosion control and vegetative cover practices.  This situa-
did improve greatly during the 1977 program year.

     As described in Conclusion F, the SWCD should play a greater role in
development and implementation of the ACP, particularly in light of the large
portion of technical assistance time required to implement ACP-supported
practices.  Also, consideration should be given to once again permitting
states to withhold a certain amount of funds from the counties to use as an
incentive for the adoption of specified practices.  This type of approach may
be essential to enable counties to implement practices such as streambank
fencing, and programs such as the LTA.

     While the major emphasis of this analysis has been on meeting cropland
erosion control objectives, many of the findings have direct implications
for the institutional changes needed to effectively achieve NFS pollution
control objectives.  The success of the action agencies depends on how well
they can define their objectives, identify problem areas and focus their
efforts on the worst problems.

-------
     An underlying premise of this discussion has been that existing programs
will likely remain the major tools by which old and new conservation objec-
tives will be addressed.  It is possible that new state and federal legis-
lation could alter agency authority and interrelationships.  In particular,
the addition of a regulatory component undoubtedly would change program
structures.  Any new arrangements must build upon and be influenced by
existing conditions.

     Regardless of future uncertainties, it is essential that strong steps
be taken to overcome past limitations, eliminate program inconsistencies,
accept the need for change, and get on with the job.

-------
                            3.  AGENCY MANDATES
     The mandate of each agency is established formally by its enabling
legislation.  Over time, these mandates become to some extent operationally
modified by the ways in which agencies become accustomed to interpreting
their program objectives.  As shown later each of the agencies analyzed
has powers which extend quite broadly into areas of conservation and environ-
mental protection.  Yet not until the last few years has water quality
improvement and protection become recognized as priorities.
                   Soil and Water Conservation Districts
     The Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD or district) has tradi-
tionally been the governmental unit with responsibility for local coordination
of conservation programs.  Districts have been established in each of the 72
counties, by a resolution of the County Board under the authority of Chapter
92 of the Wisconsin Statutes.  They are governed by a committee which con-
sists of the Agriculture and Extension Education committee of the County
Board and up to two appointed non-board members.  Each district's primary
responsibility is to plan and carry out a county-wide program of assistance
to assure the good stewardship of land, water and related resources.
                         Soil Conservation Service
     The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was created by the Soil Conser-
vation Act of 1935.  Its mandate is to carry out a broad program of assistance
to farmers and other landowners and to cooperate with and assist the SWCD
in conserving and improving soil, water, vegetation, wildlife, and related
resources.  Local SCS offices have been established in nearly every SWCD,
subsequent to the District's formation and the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding between the District and SCS.

     The Clean Water Act of 1977 explicitly gives the SCS and SWCD important
responsibilities in the implementation of water quality enhancement programs
(2).
            Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service


     The U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
 administers the Agricultural Conservation Program (AGP),  xvhich until recently

-------
has been the only large-scale government cost-sharing program supporting
voluntary implementation of a variety of approved conservation practices
on farms.  The AGP has been providing cost-sharing dollars directly to
farmers since the passage of the Domestic Allotment and Agricultural
Adjustment Act in 1936.

     The principal objective of the ACP is to help to "maintain the pro-
ductive capacity of American agriculture" (3),  by reducing "the loss of
agricultural soil, water, woodland, or wildlife resources and to prevent
agricultural-related pollution of water, land and air" (4).  Practices to
be approved for cost-sharing are those deemed necessary to meet program
objectives which would not be accomplished without federal assistance.

     The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 further directs the ACP to
consider "the need to encourage voluntary compliance by agricultural pro-
ducers with Federal and State requirements to solve point and nonpoint
sources of pollution", and to promote those "conservation measures needed
to improve water quality in rural America" (5).

-------
                   4.  PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
     The administrative structure of the SWCD, SCS and ASCS at the county
level is obviously an important determinant of the nature and extent of
agency programs.
                       SWCD and SCS Administration
     The Washington County SWCD is governed by the five members of the
Agriculture and Extension Education Committee of the County Board.  The
County Board has chosen not to appoint any additional nonboard members as
District Supervisors.  District and SCS employees share an office in West
Bend under the direct supervision of the SCS District Conservationist (DC).
Personnel include two technicians (one SCS and one District-hired), a conser-
vation aid during the summer (Comprehensive Employee Training Act employee)
and a part-time clerk (District-hired).  The DC is involved primarily in
administration and farm planning.  The conservation aide and the technicians
perform in-the-field assistance by designing and implementing conservation
practices.  The Washington County SWCD in 1978 hired a full-time County
Conservationist, who assumed technical and administrative responsibilities
for the supervisors.
                            AGP Administration
     The AGP is administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion (ASC) County Committee.  Three farmers in the county are appointed as
sole voting members of the committee by delegates to "community committees"
elected by farmers from designated agricultural districts in the county.
The ASC County Committee employs a professional staff which—in Washington
County—includes the county executive director, a full-time office manager,
and a part-time employee.

-------
                        5.  OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
                          SWCD and SCS Programs
     Although both agencies have some responsibilities which do not overlap,
nearly all past involvement in conservation programs in Washington County
(and most other counties) has been undertaken jointly.  The interaction
between the SWCD and SCS has had a tremendous impact on the design and imple-
mentation of existing programs.  This relationship must be evaluated care-
fully to assess its role in new or redirected programs.

     The SWCD and SCS jointly administer three major tasks:  1. developing
the district resource conservation program, 2. conservation planning, and
3. providing technical assistance to landowners, local units of government,
and community and business groups.
The District Resources Conservation Program
     The overall program is guided by a two-tiered planning process—long-
range and annual.  The long-range plan is to serve as a general guideline for
district activities while a basis for the specific programs is defined by the
annual work program.

     The long range resource conservation program for Washington County was
updated in 1976. Four subcommittees consisting of about 40 people were in-
volved, including committees on agricultural and natural resources; rural
and urban development; wildlife, forestry and conservation; and education
and public relations.  The new program sets forth the policies of the Wash-
ington County SWCD and its program objectives.  In addition it includes an
inventory of the county's natural resources and a review of resource problems.
An important objective adopted is to identify "water pollution problems result-
ing from livestock and cropping practices (and) evaluate these problems and
assign priorities for technical assistance" (6).

     The district's annual planning process revolves around an annual meeting
during which the long-range program is reviewed and, if necessary, revised.
Program accomplishments for the past year are assessed and an annual work
plan is developed which establishes district objectives for the following
year.  A detailed breakdown of how staff time will be allocated to carry out
the district's programs is included in an annual plan of operations (APO) pre-
pared by the SCS District Conservationist.  According to a Memorandum of Under-
standing between the SCS and the Washington County SWCD (similar to those
signed nationwide):   "SCS assistance will be allocated in accordance with an

-------
annual plan of operations prepared by SCS in consultation with the District
and based upon the District's annual work plan."  Furthermore:  "The District's
annual work plan, .  . ., will include whatever information SCS needs for
preparing its annual plan of operations."  Excerpts from the Washington County
SWCD 1978 Annual Work Plan and the SCS APO for FY 1978 are presented in Appen-
dix B.

     Finally, a key component of the district's annual planning is the develop-
ment of its annual operating budget.  This is prepared during the summer in
conjunction with the complete county budget.  At this time projects are defined,
work priorities established, and materials, personnel and funds allocated.


Conservation Planning and Technical Assistance


     Conservation planning and the provision of technical assistance services
are the main activities of SWCD and SCS staff directed toward carrying out
District programs.  As specified in the Memorandum of Understanding between
SCS and the Washington County SWCD:  "The District will (a) adopt a procedure
for the orderly and progressive development and application of conservation
and resource development plans for farms, communities, watersheds, and other
land units, (b) be responsible for determining the recipients of services pro-
vided by the District and for setting priorities for the kind and amounts of
work to be performed in the District, and (c) develop a systematic method for
group and individual follow-up work essential to carrying out of conservation
and resource development plans."

     In the past, the planning program has been centered on the preparation of
"farm conservation plans" by SCS.  These plans include a detailed look at the
total resource capabilities and management needs of the property and recommend
changes to be carried out during successive years.  Soil erosion, drainage
needs, woodland productivity, and wildlife habitat development are among the
items considered.  SCS guidelines call for updating every 5 yr plan that
has become obsolete.

     Landowners must sign a formal written cooperative agreement with the
SWCD, i.e., become "District Cooperators" to be eligible to receive assistance
from SCS personnel in developing or carrying out these comprehensive farm
plans (7).  While SWCD cooperation and farm-conservation plans are encouraged,
they are not prerequisite to receiving planning or technical assistance.  In
fact, an estimated 60 to 75% of the technical services provided by the Wash-
ington County SWCD and SCS staff are for non-SWCD cooperators.  Less formal
planning and assistance have been termed "inventories and evaluations," which
SWCD and SCS staff perform primarily for non-SWCD cooperators.  These normally
involve single-problem studies such as developing and presenting alternatives
for the construction of 3 commonly-used drainage channel fcr a group of
farmers.  In addition to their SWCD commitments, the SCS staff also is respon-
sible for most of the technical aspects of the ASCS cost-sharing program;
District cooperator status also is not a prerequisite to participation in the
ACP.

     Planning and technical aid to non-farm landowners and local units of
                                     10

-------
 government or agencies are becoming more important functions of SWCD and
 SCS,  e.g., recommendations are offered to home builders on the suitability
 of  sites for septic systems.  Assistance provided to units of government
 includes review of plats for the adequacy of their erosion and drainage
 control provisions, assessment of septic tank suitability, and aid in draft-
 ing plans, regulations and standards to control erosion.  This type of plan-
 ning  assistance is becoming increasingly important as a mechanism for meeting
 the needs inherent to rapidly growing, changing communities.
                  The Agricultural Conservation Program


     The process by which ACP funds are transferred to farmers begins each
year with the passage of the appropriation bill in Congress.  The appropria-
tion for each stage, determination of which conservation practices are to be
eligible for cost-sharing, and what guidelines will be used by states and
counties to determine their priorities and to approve cost-sharing applica-
tions are decided at the national level.  Funds have been distributed to
states primarily on the basis of past funding levels and the state's compara-
tive "conservation needs," as reported in the most recent CNI, e.g., Wiscon-
sin's needs for the past 10 years have been determined, in part, from the
1967 CNI, described in Appendix A.

     The State Development group, which includes the State ASC Committee and
ASCS State Executive Director, and representatives of the SCS, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), State Board of Soil and Water Conser-
vation Districts (BSWCD), Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection, University of Wisconsin-Extension, and University
Departments of Soil Science and Agricultural Engineering draw up the state
program.  Only voting members of the State ASC Committee have decision-
making authority.  The major statewide decision is allocation of funds to
each county.  The formula used currently in Wisconsin considers:

     A.   Practice priorities established by the State Committee.

     B.   The relative needs for each practice by each county, based on:

         1.  a comprehensive needs inventory (1967 CNI),

         2.  length of streams and a streambank erodibility index,  and

         3.  .total cropland acreage (single most important factor);

     C.   The county's allocation used the previous year.

See Appendix C for details of county allocation calculations and an example
of the relative needs factors used for Washington County.

     Once the total annual allocation is established, the County ASC Commit-
tee has a great deal of flexibility on disbursement of the money.  A County
Development meeting is called and the participants normally include ASC
Committee members, the ASCS County Executive Director, an SWCD Supervisor,


                                     11

-------
SCS and DNR representatives, and the County Extension Agent.  The County
Program is approved typically by concensus of the group (only the ASC County
Committee has actual authority).  The Program consists of the establishment
of objectives, eligible practices, technical guidelines, and cost-sharing
rates.  These  decisions are subject only to national standards (generally
no state-level controls exist).   A copy of the 1977 ACP Washington County
Program appears in Appendix D.

     All farmers in the county are eligible to apply annually for cost-sharing
funds.  "An eligible person is a farmer or rancher who. as an individual,
partnership, association, corporation, estate, trust, or other business
enterprise, or other legal entity. . .and, as an owner, landlord, tenant,
or sharecropper, participates in the operation of a farm or ranch" (4).  SWCD
cooperator status is not required; roughly 40% of the ACP participants in
Washington County each year are non-cooperators.  Until 1978, an individual
could receive a maximum of $2500 in a given year and the federal government's
share normally ranged from 50 to 75% of total cost.  A range of 30 to 80% is
now permissible and the $2500 limit has been removed.  The farmer's share
can be paid in part by in-kind services during practice installation.

     Rather than apply individually, a group of farmers can request funding
to control such problems as streambank and hillside erosion.  When part of
an approved "pooling agreement," each participant can receive up to $10S000/
yr.  Outdoor and conservation clubs have often encouraged such group projects
by paying the farmers' share of the costs.

     The three farmer members of the County ASC Committee have complete respon-
sibility for deciding who will receive the funds.

     Coordination between ACP and SWCD programs is provided for through a
Memorandum of Understanding.  Each group involves the other in their respec-
tive annual planning and program development meetings.  The County ASC Com-
mittee is directed to "consider the District's long-range objectives and
annual work plan in developing its county plan" (8).


                      The Long-Term Agreement Program


     The Long-Term Agreement (LTA) program was started on a trial basis in
1974.  This unique program combines planning, implementation, and cost-sharing
components of the SWCD, SCS and ASCS soil and water conservation programs.
The farmer signs a binding 3 to 10 yr contract with the County ASC Committee,
agreeing to follow a comprehensive SWCD-approved conservation plan in return
for a guaranteed committment of cost-sharing funds from ASCS and technical
assistance from SCS and the District.  The LTA conservation plan calls for
meeting conservation needs on the entire farm within the contract period.
                                     12

-------
           6.  EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
     Presented thus far has been a description of the structure and working
relationships of Washington County agencies charged with administration of
soil and water conservation programs.  With this background the extent to
which agencies are accomplishing their stated objectives can be evaluated.
It has already been pointed out that NFS pollution abatement has not—until
recently—become an accepted program objective.  Therefore, it would be
improper to pass judgemnt at this early date on how well NFS pollution
control, per se, has been addressed.  Erosion control, albeit in the interest
of maintaining soil productivity, has been the most important mandate of
these programs.  Therefore, this evaluation focuses on the erosion control
effort.  The discussion follows the sequence of implementation steps more
or less followed by the conservation programs and includes:

     A.  Needs assessment

     B.  Priority setting

     C.  Program implementation

Each step is analyzed in terms of its importance, the agencies involved, and
how it has been performed historically.  In particular, the identification
and analysis of the linkages between the implementation steps is stressed
because this shows the greatest promise for improving existing programs.
                         Assessing Treatment Needs


     The ability to direct program efforts to places where they are most
needed is related closely to the availability of sound information concerning
the present state of land treatment.  A wide range of data sources is avail-
able.  While some of the individual sources are thorough, as shown later,
some of the most critical linkages between different kinds of information
are poorly developed, thereby limiting the reliability of current treatment
needs assessments.

     The County Soil Survey provides the most detailed information available
on problem potential.  Large scale maps delineate soil series throughout the
county.  Each soil type is further categorized into "capability classes."
The soils capability system was designed primarily to indicate factors that
might limit crop production.  However, the same factors often determine the
likelihood of erosion occurring.  Data from the Washington County soil survey
indicate that roughly 25% of the county (70,000 acres = 28,330 ha) has severe
erosion potential, while 33% (90,000 acres = 36,420 ha) has moderate erosion


                                     13

-------
potential (9).

     Land use and management—rotations, plowing methods,  and conservation
practices employed—determine whether a potential erosion problem is actually
realized.  Extensive data on cropland use are available from the Assessor's
Farm Statistics, published annually by the Wisconsin Statistical Reporting
Service.  The amount of land planted in major crop types for Washington
County from 1965 to 1976 is shown in Appendix E.  Unfortunately, the critical
information concerning the proportion of these different types of crops
located on problem soils, or the management practices being employed, is
not typically available.

     Some methods, however, have been in use in District and SCS offices to
attempt to provide this key information.  The CNI was designed, in part, to
serve as the basis for establishing program priorities.  Developed by the
USDA in the mid 1950's for nationwide application, the CNI involves a strati-
fied random survey of approximately 2% of the land in each county and is
undertaken usually by personnel responsible to the SCS District Conservation-
ist.  In Washington County there are 36 quarter-section CNI plots.  For each
plot surveyed, data are collected on soils, slopes, land use and management
practices.  Information is also collected on the amount of "land adequately
treated."  For lands needing treatment, the surveyor recommends the extent
of need within specific classes of practices, e.g., stripcropping, terraces
and diversions; drainage.  The last published inventory was made in 1967.  The
needs derived for Washington County at that time are shown in Table 1.

     This needs assessment is regularly updated by the "99-Report."  To be
completed annually by the SCS District Conservationist, the 99-Report is
intended to provide detailed information on the cumulative number and extent
of all conservation practices on the land and to indicate the total amount
of "adequately treated" land in the county.  In theory, for a given year's
report, the DC will add or subtract from the previous year's level all treat-
ments added or removed in the county during that year.  This should include
all SWCD/SCS-supervised work (which also covers nearly all ASCS cost-sharing
work) plus private activities that comply with SCS technical standards.  Data
from the Washington County 1975-1976 99-Report are shown in Appendix F.  Based
on the 99-Report information, the Washington County DC reported "treatment
needs" as having decreased to 95,271 acres (38,556 ha) by 1975 from the 123,051
acres (49,800 ha) derived by the 1967 CNI.

     Further analysis reveals that the CNI and 99-Reports that exist cannot
be relied upon to properly guide county soil and water conservation programs.
The CNI is limited primarily because it includes such a small percentage of
the county land area.  Another difficulty with the CNI is the uncertainty
regarding the the criteria used to determine "treatment adequacy."  The
variety of practice needs identified in Table 1 reflects the range in program
objectives at this time.  Generally speaking, nearly all problems which tend
to reduce agricultural productivity appear to have been accounted for.  This
results in the very high number derived for "land needing treatment"—over
90,000 acres  (36,240 ha), including 65% of the county's cropland.

     The only objective criterion which has been proposed to define treatment
adequacy is to determine whether the average annual soil loss rate, as


                                     14

-------
 Table  1.   Conservation  Needs  Inventory results for Washingt
           County  in  1967*
on
Practice category and
practice needed
Direct erosion control
Contouring only
Stripcropping, terraces
and diversions
Vegetative cover
Residue and annual cover
Sod in rotation
Permanent cover
Pasture improvement
Woodlands
Establishment and reinforcement
Stand improvement
Livestock exclusion only
Drainage
TOTAL
Area needing treatment
Acres
58,967
18,624
40,352
30,087
10,999
5,114
5,661
8,313
14,522
8,714
4,995
813
12,223
115,808
Ha
23,867
7,537
16,330
12,176
4,451
2,070
2,291
3,364
5,877
3,527
2,021
329
4,947
46,867
%
51

26

13

10
100
^Wisconsin Conservation Needs Committee, 1970, Wisconsin
 Conservation Needs Inventory for 1967.
                               15

-------
estimated by the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) (10 ) , is below a pro--
scribed tolerable limit.  Tolerable soil loss rates have been adopted by
SCS for each soil to represent the maximum rate of erosion permissible
before there is likely to be a decline in crop productivity.  Tolerable
rates range from 2 to 6 tons/acre/yr (3.6 to 10.7 Tonnes/ha/yr) for most
Wisconsin soils.  Unfortunately, the data collected during the 1967 CNI
were insufficient to permit a direct computation of soil loss by USLE.
However, another 2% survey completed in 1977 (see later) did secure the
necessary information.  Analysis of these data leads to some interesting
conclusions that indirectly pertain to the 1967 CNI.  Based on the 1977
survey, only 17% of Washington County's croplands, about 20,000 acres
(8100 ha), currently have soil loss rates that exceed a 3 tons/acre/yr
(5.4 Tonnes/ha/yr) limit.  The "land needing treatment" category in 1967
(including over 90,000 acres (36,420 ha) obviously included more than lands
with soil losses above tolerable levels.  The amount of conservation work
accomplished between 1967 and 1977 could not account for this large discrep-
ancy.  On the contrary, the increasing proportion of corn in rotations in
recent years (see Appendix E) has undoubtedly led to a worsening of the
erosion problem below 1967 standards.  Further substantiation of this is
provided later.  Overestimation of the problem makes it extremely difficult
to focus programs on those areas most in need of treatment.

     The 99-Report has its own series of deficiencies which render it difficult
to apply effectively.  The most significant problem is the apparent overesti-
mates of the cumulative amounts of certain key practices on the land.  It
seems that only rarely are practice removals actually subtracted from cumula-
tive totals.  In the 6 yrs of 99-Reports analyzed for Washington County, in
only one instance was the amount of a given practice on the land reported to
be less than in a previous year—in the 1970-1975 reports, 51,500 ft (15,700 m)
of terracing were reported to be on the land while no terracing was reported
in the 1975-76 report.  Thus it took several years to acknowledge that old
terrace work had been removed in the county.  Further direct verification that
practice removals are not accurately assessed in 99-Reports is provided by
comparison with U.S. Census of Agriculture data.  The Census for 1959, 1964,
and 1969 included figures on total area under stripcropping; unfortunately,
this information was not collected by surveyors for the 1974 Census.  Accord-
ing to the Census, the amount of stripcropped land decreased from 7293 to
5328 acres (2951 to 2156 ha) between 1964 and 1969 in Washington County.  Yet
the 99-Report for 1970-71 showed 12,169 acres.  The reason for such poor esti-
mates of practice removal stems from the lack of a mechanism for following up
on the fate of implemented practices once they have been established.  This
is true whether the practices were established with or without SWCD, SCS and
ASCS assistance.

     As mentioned earlier, an update of the CNI was completed in 1977.  During
1976-77 the BSWCD, county SWCD, SCS, and DNR cooperated to make this revised
inventory a part of the statewide 208 NFS water pollution control planning
process.  The "208-2% survey" was not a complete CNI, but utilized the 1967
CNI plots.  Information collected pertains directly to assessing NFS pollution
problems from erosion and animal wastes.  Results of the animal waste survey
have been evaluated in detail by other members of the Washington County Project staff
(11).  Soil loss information derived from this survey could help serve as an
initial guide for erosion control programs in the future.  Estimates of average


                                     16

-------
 annual  soil  loss  rates were  made  for  surveyed  cropland  areas  in  6  southeastern
 Wisconsin counties,  using the  USLE.   Due  to  the  small portion of land  sampled,
 these  findings  must  be interpreted with caution—of  the 120,000  acres  (48,560
 ha)  of  harvested  cropland in Washington County,  2900 acres  (1175 ha) were
 analyzed  in  the 36 quarter-sections sampled.   Nevertheless, the  survey provides
 the  best  information available on the management of  lands of  high  erosion
 potential and helps  to identify the major sediment-contributing  areas.   The
 most significant  finding  was that in  all  counties  analyzed, a relatively small
 portion of the  surveyed croplands accounts for a large  portion of  the  total
 cropland  soil loss (Fig 1):  about 50% of the  soil loss comes from 10-20%  of
 the  cropland.

     Results  from  Washington  County were analyzed in  detail  in order to char-
 acterize  more precisely the  nature of the major  sediment contributing  areas.
 The  results  are not  surprising.   The  21%  of  the  cropland on slopes >6% contri-
 butes 57% of the  total cropland soil  loss.   Furthermore, fields  that are on
 only 12%  of  the surveyed  cropland area accounted for 40% of the  soil loss.
 In fact,  one 20-acre (8.1 ha)  field of the 146 surveyed accounted  for  near.ly
 20%  of  the total  soil loss from the surveyed cropland,  with an average soil
 loss of 62 tons/acre/yr (111 Tonnes/ha/yr).

     The 2% Survey cannot  be  used  to identify specific portions of  the  county
 needing more intensive treatment, but survey results indicate that a program
 focused on the  control of cropland erosion from  those relatively few areas
 with slopes  greater  than  6%  under a continuous corn  system, or which are
 plowed  up and down slope, could significantly  reduce soil losses in the  county.

     Since the 1977 2% Survey utilized the same sample plots as did the 1967
 CNI, a  direct comparison  of  needs with accomplishments  is possible.  Of  the
 84 fields determined to need erosion  control or  permanent cover  in 1967, only
 5 have  been  treated  by 1977.   Thus, while the  1967 CNI  may have  overstated
 conservation needs,  there is little indication that  any real  progress  in
 solving erosion problems  has been made.

     Additional  2% Survey  results  for  Washington  County  croplands are shown  in
 Appendix  G.
                            Setting Priorities


    Program objectives must be translated into specific priorities which
can directly guide implementation efforts.  Priority-setting procedures which
have been used by SWCD, SCS and ASCS programs in Washington County will be
assessed.  The main basis for comparison is data from the 1967 (CNI) (Table 1),
which provides the most recent quantifications of needs for meeting program
objectives.  While objectives have changed since 1967, these changes have not,
as yet, been articulated in terms of specific practice needs.   It is still
worthwhile to consider the linkages between established program priorities
and treatment needs based solely on past program mandates.
                                     17

-------
            100
             90
             80
             70 .
   % Total
   County
  Soil Loss
(cumulative)
             10
 Milwaukee

Racine
                0    10    20    30    40    50    60    70

                               % Total County Cropland Area
                                       (cumulative)
                                   80    90
100
      Fig.  1.  Cumulative  distribution of cropland soil loss  in southeastern
              Wisconsin counties,  based on a 2% sample of land in each county.
                                     18

-------
 SWCD/SCS  Programs


      The  SWCD Long-Range  and Annual Planning processes were described earlier.
 As the  only formal  mechanisms  for  deciding program priorities,  these planning
 procedures  have, until  recently, been  under-utilized  in Washington  County.   The
 effort  to improve this  situation began in 1977 with the adoption of the revised
 Long-Range  Resource Conservation Program.  Some of the major causes of nor-
 point source pollution  are  recognized  specifically in the new Program; e.g.,
 the trend toward the use  of larger equipment, the increase in row cropping,
 and the close proximity of  many feedlots to surface waters.  The Program ques-
 tions the proper practice of tiling lowlands because of its impact on valuable
 wetlands; tiling is declared  a production rather than a conservation-oriented
 practice.   However,  the Long-Range Program lacks detailed quantification of
 the county-wide needs;  recommendations remain broad and are not organized in
 order of  priority.

      The  annual planning  process is being strengthened.  Objectives in annual
 reports have typically  been too general and are only by coincidence related
 to assessed treatment needs.   While the District has set broad program poli-
 cies  at the annual meetings, it has had little influence over the allocation
 of manpower among specific  programs and practices.  One reason for this it
 timing.   The SCS Annual Plan of Operations (APO), which sets forth specific
 goals for SCS  and District  staff,  is submitted in October for the following
 fiscal  year.   Yet the District has traditionally operated on a calendar year
 basis,  not  holding  its  annual  meeting  until January.  This has also precluded
 the possibility of using  the annual plan to input into the county budget,
 which is  also  prepared  each fall.  The  Washington County SWCD began to remedy
 this  situation in 1978  by holding  its  annual meeting in August.

      The  process used by  SCS to derive  its APO is uncertain but indications
 are that  consideration  is given to practice popularity as well as practice
 need.   In Table 2 the distribution of  technical assistance goals for F.Y. 1977
 and the distribution of needs  reported  by the 1967 CNI are compared.

      The  large proportion of 1977 goals in the vegetative cover category is
 due primarily  to the conservation cropping system accomplishment objective
 (2000 acres =  809 ha).  While  the treated area objective is greatest for
 direct  erosion control and vegetative cover practices, other practices—
 particularly drainage-related—require  a disproportionately large amount of
 technical assistance time.  Under the proposed APO,  approximately 33% of the
 total assistance effort would be required to meet the drainage objective.
 This  high priority placed on drainage practices conflicts directly with
 stated district objectives in the new Long-Range Resource Conservation
 Program and the 1977 Annual Report.


The Agricultural Conservation Program


     Prioritizing land treatment needs  is important  at two  stages  during
implementation of the ACP.  At  the  State level,  1967  CNI  data  for  each
county are used in  part  to determine  annual  allocations  among  counties  (see


                                     19

-------
Table 2.  Distribution of SCS technical assistance goals for F.Y.
          1977 compared to 1967 assessed conservation needs
Practice
category .
Direct erosion
control
Vegetative cover
Woodland
Wildlife habitat
Drainage
Total
Treatment
1977 SCS
Acres

1,130
2,100
64
295
298
3,887 1,
goals,
APO*
Ha %

457 29
850 54
26 2
119 8
121 8
573 100
Treatment needs,
1967 CNI**
Acres

58,976
30,087
14,522
—
12,233
115,818
Ha

23,867
12,176
5,877
—
4,951
46,871
%

51
26
13
—
10
100
 *Washington County SCS Annual Plan of Operations for F.Y. 1977.
**Wisconsin Conservation Needs Committee, 1970, Wisconsin
  Conservation Needs Inventory for 1967.
                                  20

-------
Appendix C).  The extent to which the CNI can be used in this manner is
limited by the fact that many recent ACP priority practices, e.g., grass
waterways and minimum tillage were not considered in the 1967 survey.  Their
priority ranking among counties has been based solely on relative amount of
cropland.

     Within the county, practices to be approved are recommended and priori-
tized annually by the County Development Group.  Although the ASC Committee
alone has the final authority, the SWCD may play a key role in this critical
phase of the county ACP Program.  The relative priorities established by the
1976 and 1977 Washington County Annual Programs are compared with practice
needs in the 1967 CNI (Table 3).

     At least during the past 2 yrs the planned distribution of program effort
has followed relative treatment needs.  Note also that drainage practices are
not given any priority by these recently proposed programs.

     Although the SWCD and ASC Committees interchange information—as speci-
fied in their Memorandum of Understanding—no direct mechanism exists to assure
that the county committee will follow district priorities.  The State ASC
Committe, while allocating funds to counties based on relative practice needs,
also has no means currently to encourage implementation of a particular prac-
tice.  This has advantages and disadvantages.  The program approved in each
county can be aligned closely with local preferences, thereby increasing the
likelihood that farmers will choose to participate.  However, this limits the
possibility for utilizing the ACP to encourage specific district or statewide
program objectives.

     The State Committee at one time did have the authority to earmark funds
for particular practices.  This authority was utilized to stimulate implemen-
tation of innovative practices such as minimum tillage and animal waste control
measures, and initiate programs such as the LTA Program.  For example, in
1974 and 1975 the State Committee withheld about 10% of each county's allo-
cation to LTA programs.   As a result of strong lobbying efforts by the Nation-
al Limestone Institute and representatives of county ASC committees, the
states' authority to withhold money from counties was removed by Congress in
1976.
                          Program Implementation
     While meaningful planning is essential, the ultimate measure of how well
needs are being met is determined by what is actually accomplished—to what
extent are high priority conservation practices being implemented?  In par-
ticular, how effectively have the agencies been able to focus their efforts
on the most critical erosion control needs.

     Data on practice accomplishments over the past 10 yrs x^ere analyzed.
Information also was collected on the distribution of agency effort, i.e.,
staff time and funds expenditures between each program component, e.g., admin-
istration, planning, technical assistance and cost-sharing (including a break-
down by practice).
                                     21

-------
Table 3.  Distribution of ACP annual program priorities for 1976 and
          1977, compared to 1967 assessed conservation needs
                           1976 ACP       1977 ACP      Total treatment
                         priorities,*   priorities,*   needs, 1967 CNI,**
  Practice categories         %              %                  %
Direct erosion control
Grass waterways
Diversions
Stripcropping
Other
Vegetative cover
Woodlands
Drainage
76
50
15
11
—
4
14
—
63
40
15
8
—
8
15
—
51
—
—
35
16
26
13
10
 *USDA,ASCS - Washington County Annual Programs.
**Wisconsin Conservation Needs Committee,  1970, Wisconsin Conservation
  Needs Inventory for 1967.
                                    22

-------
     Since actual program implementation depends on acceptance by landowners,
the agencies are limited in their ability to control what is ultimately
accomplished.  While the agencies do have some control over how their efforts
are distributed, it is difficult to determine to what extent agency alloca-
tional decisions should or could influence landowner participation.  A care-
ful comparison of past accomplishments  to objectives, however, provides
insight into how well the two have been linked and perhaps what changes may
be needed.
SWCD/SCS Program


     District and SCS staff time is distributed between three major activi-
ties:  administration, conservation planning and the provision of technical
assistance.  The DC annually compiles a report that breaks down time allocation
by these broad work categories (the "E-Report").  Data from 3 yrs for Washing-
ton County are shown in Table 4.   Over this period, the breakdown of staff-
time between Technical Assistance:Conservation PlanningAdministration has
been roughly 2:2:1.

     In Fig. 2 the major planning accomplishments of SWCD/SCS programs in
Washington County are summarized for the 1970s.  More detailed data are
presented in Appendix H.  As of June 30, 1976, there were 699 SWCD cooperators
managing 71,290 acres (28,850 ha ) of land in Washington County.  Of these,
605 have farm plans covering 60,308 acres (24,406 ha) of land, i.e., 35% of
total farmland, 85% of cooperator-land.

     During the 1970-1976 period, an average of 42 conservation plans for
about 4000 acres (1,620 ha) were completed each year.  Taking into account
plan cancellations (average of 13/yr), the net increase in land covered
by farm plans has been 2750 acres/yr, (1110 ha/yr).  For the 60,000 acres
(24,280 ha) under conservation plans, the plan revision rate has averaged
1100 acres/yr (445 ha/yr) (8 plans) and some trends are evident over this
period.  The rates of new cooperator sign-ups and conservation plan
preparation have decreased markedly, while cancellation rates have fluc-
tuated but remained relatively high.  For example, the 1975-76 level of new
area planned was 41% below the 1970-71 level.

     The effectiveness of the traditional conservation planning program has
been questioned at the national level.  In its Report to Congress on Feb-
ruary 14, 1977, the Government  Accounting Office (GAO) published findings
of its  plan-effectiveness research carried out in 10 counties in 8 states,
including Grant County,  Wisconsin.  They found that most plans are not
followed, that the comprehensiveness of the typical conservation plan is
unnecessary and in fact  detracts  attention from the most critical erosion
problems, and that planning effort—an average of 6 work-days/plan or
$600/plan—reduces the amount of  landowner contact that could otherwise be
possible and the amount  of effort staff could be spending to provide the
assistance necessary to  implement needed practices.
                                     23

-------
                Table 4.  Allocation of SWCD/SCS staff time in
                          Washington County
       It               1973-74        1974-75        1975-76        1973-76
                       hr      %      hr       %     hr      %      hr      I
Developing Con-       950     25      921     24    1,295   32    3,166    27
  servation Plans

Technical           1,359     36    1,414     37    1,584   39    4,357    38
  assistance

Other planning        647     17      544     14    317      8    1,508    13
  and assistance

Program support,      794     21      926     24    857     21    2,577    22
  management,
  administration
       TOTAL        3,750    100    3,805    100  4,053    100   11,608   100
*Source:   SCS "E Reports" for 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 Program Years (see
  Appendix A).
                                     24

-------
           Status of SWCD Cooperation  and Conservation Planning
                 1500 —
              F
              A
              R
              M
              S
                 1000 -
                  500
 Farm
Plans
(571)
                                      Total Farms
                                        (1304)
^Cooperators
   (699)
 Acres
 Planned
(60,308)
                                                              Acres in
                                                              Farms
                                                             (173,699)
                                                                     —150,000
        —100,000   A
                  C
                // R
                  £
_Cooperator        g
   Acres
  (71,292)
     41% - 50,000
Sources:  Cooperator and Conservation Plan Data for July  1, 1976,  from SCS 1975-76 "F-Report.»
         "Total Farms" and "Acres  in Farms" data from 1974 Census of Agriculture.
             b.   Trends in Amount  of Acreage Planned Annually
NET NEW PLANNED
ACRES
NEW
PLANNED
ACRES
CANCELLED
PLANNED lg
ACRES

70-
	
-71 19

71-



~~ 	 -_.
72 1972-73 197
•""•
3-
,„---"
<4 19

y
74-
•--....



b
-75 1975-
— 5000
— 4000 A
— 3000 C
onnn ^
E
— 1000 s
0
— -1000
76 	 2000
                 Note:  See Appendix H for complete planning accomplishment data
 Fig. 2.   SWCD/SCS major  planning accomplishments in  Washington County
            as reported as  SCS "F-Reports" from  1970-1976.
                                       25

-------
     The findings in Washington County do not suggest otherwise.  While the
traditional conservation planning process undoubtedly results in landowners
adopting new practices, it certainly is not a prerequisite—many farmers in
Washington County have installed practices, even with cost-sharing assis-
tance, without first having a farm plan.  Thus, it may not be the most
effective means of getting the most critical needs treated in a timely
fashion.  Approximately equal effort is expended by SWCD/SCS staff on con-
servation planning as on technical assistance for practice implementation.

     It is recognized that during winter, staff-time probably is best spent in
planning.  Yet as has been shown, accomplishments of the traditional planning
system have been limited.  At the current rate of planning, it would take over
40 yr for plans to be completed for all farmland in the county and over 50
yr for all existing plans to be revised.  Clearly, consideration should be
given to developing a less comprehensive, more problem-oriented conservation
plan.  A great variety of conservation practices have been developed and
are implemented by SWCD/SCS technical assistance.  Major practices are
described in Table 5 with a more detailed list and relevant SCS and ASCS
codes in Appendix I.

     The distribution of accomplishments is important to consider, since
these practices are highly variable with respect to their effectiveness
in erosion (and NFS) control, installation costs, technical assistance
requirements and popularity.  To simplify the analysis which follows, each
major practice has been categorized, as shown in Table 5.

     While all of the practices may provide for some erosion reduction, the
first 5 categories of practices shown in Table 5 are ordered by what is
felt to be their relative importance, i.e., direct erosion control>vegetative
cover>woodland>wildlife habitat>drainage practices.  The impact of "other
practices" is variable; e.g., streambank and animal waste management prac-
tices are important for  pollution control but generally cannot be quantified
on an areal basis; farm ponds may help keep eroded sediment out of streams
and lakes lower in the watershed but they do nothing to stop the problem at
its source; farmstead/feedlot windbreaks serve  primarily to improve
aesthetic values.  Most of the accomplishment data presented below are
summarized by these major practice categories.

     Two principal data sources were used to determine SWCD/SCS past prac-
tice accomplishments and distribution of technical staff time:

     A.  The SEWRPC inventory of conservation practices installed between
1965 and 1975.

     B.  The SCS "F-Reports" for 1972-76.

These inventories and detailed results are presented in Appendices I, J
and K.  To make survey results compatible, all practice accomplishment data
were converted into "acreage affected" units.  The methods used to estimate
the technical assistance time required/unit of practice implemented also
are described in Appendix I.  The amount and distribution of practice
accomplishments and technical assistance time determined from the 2 inven-
                                     26

-------
  Table 5.   Major practices  implemented  through  SWCD,  SCS,  and  ASGS programs
          Practice type
                                                                      Rationale
 Direct erosion control

   Contour plowing
   Stripcropping

   Diversions
  Grass waterways
  Runoff control structures

  Conservation tillage systems
  Critical area planting and
    mulching

Vegetative cover

  Establishing or improving
    permanent cover
  Pasture and hayland
    planting and management
  Conservation cropping systems
 Reduce  soil  erosion by:

 Reducing  runoff velocity, and filtering out sediment lost from clean-
 tilled  strips  and  reducing effective slope length.

 Cutting field  length and field slope, and diverting runoff in a
 controlled manner.

 Reducing  runoff velocity, trapping sediment, and providing a
 stable  outlet  for  excess runoff.

 Reducing  the intensity of soil disturbance  .nd maintaining surface
 protection.

 Providing permanent cover or mulch for areas vith severe erosion.
 Reduce  erosion potential and often decrease surface runoff through
 conversion  of tilled cropland to meadow and permanent pasture,
 improvement of existing covered lands, and through utilization of
 cover crops in rotation.
Woodland
  T ree/sh rub plant in g
  Timberland improvements
  Livestock exclusion
  Field windbreaks
 Protect against water and wind erosion while increasing the value
 of woodlots.
Wildlife habitat management

  Permanent wildlife habitat
  Upland and wetland habitat
    management
  Hedgerow planting

Drainage
  Surface (open) drainage
  Underground (tile) drainage
 Improves habitat value of unproductive or erosive lands and wetlands,
 and generally increases wildlife potent ial.
 Increases production potential of land by disposing of excess
 water.
Other
  Animal waste management

    Feedlot diversions


    Waste storage  facilities


  Streambank protection
  Reservoirs  and  farm ponds
  Farmstead/feedlot windbreaks
Protect water quality by:

Preventing upslope surface waters from entering feedlot and feedlot
drainage from entering downslope streams.

Retaining wastes until conditions exist for disposal  with  minimum
potential for nutrient loss to  water.

Cuts stream pollution by reducing tillage  and animal  use of buffer
strips along streams, stabilizing eroding  strearabanks,  and
preventing direct animal waste  contamination.

Provide for some incidental erosion reduction but  primarily serve
other purposes such as recreation,  fish and wildlife  management,
farmstead beautification,  and fire  protection.
                                                 27

-------
tories is summarized in Fig. 3.

     The differences noted between the survey results are due to trends in
program emphasis and to differences in the surveys; the SCS F-Report is
more comprehensive.  In particular, conservation cropping systems, in the
vegetative cover category, is the practice with the largest areal coverage
in the SCS report, but was not included in the SEWRPC inventory.

     The distribution of technical assistance time differs  from the dis-
tribution of acreage affected, reflecting inclusion  in the time breakdowns
of practices which cannot be measured on an areal basis, e.g., runoff
control structures, farm ponds, etc.   The practices differ greatly in the
amount of technical assistance time required for implementation, e.g., the
average assistance time/acre treated is 0.3 hr for stripcropping against
1.1 hr for tile drainage (see Appendix I).

     In general, about 2000 to 4000 acres/yr (810 to 1620 ha/yr) have been
treated as a result of SWCD/SCS technical assistance.  The largest accom-
plishments were for practices in the direct erosion control and vegetative
cover categories.  However, it appears evident that the portion of aid
expended for these high priority practices has been compromised by large
efforts in low priority areas; more technical assistance time has been
expended on drainage practices than on any other single practice.

     Drainage work has declined, however and direct erosion control plus
vegetative cover accomplishments, and work on runoff control structures
have increased in relative importance.  Drainage programs declined sub-
stantially during 1974 and 1975, when no ACP funds for these practices
were available.  However, it once again increased in importance, to the
extent of taking > 30% of the total technical assistance time in 1977 (12).
This large increase in drainage effort contrasts with the strong anti-
drainage stand taken in the new Long-Range Resource Conservation Program
developed during the same time period.  It seems evident that linkages
between established SWCD priorities and what actually gets accomplished
are not sufficiently strong.

     By comparing the SEWRPC survey results with practice needs determined
by the 1967 CNI (Table 6), it would appear that only 20% of the total needs
identified have been met.  However, while 20% of the needs for direct
erosion control practices have been achieved, 47% of the land needing
drainage has been treated.  Especially given the relatively high costs
required to install drainage systems, this strongly suggests that practice
implementation has been influenced more by practice popularity than by the
assessed conservation needs.

     One further analysis was made of past accomplishment data in order to
determine what proportion of the practices implemented were in critical
problem areas.  Data from the SEWRPC Inventory, and the 1976 2% Survey were
utilized.  As part of the SEWRPC Survey, the locations of each practice
implemented during the 1965-75 period were indicated on a large scale map
of the county.  By overlaying this map on a slope map, the distribution of
practices arranged by differing slope classes were determined.  The 2% Survey
was used to provide estimates of the amount of cropland soil loss within


                                     28

-------
         SEWRPC INVENTORY, 1965-1975
                                                         SCS "F-REPORTS," July,73 to June,76
            VC   WD   WF   DR
                                      TECHNICAL
                                     ASSISTANCE
                                      EFFORT
 ^3/3

I
                                                                          RC   FP


10,000-
8000-
RES
6000-
4000-
2000-




527
1


12%


25?
I
EC-Erosion control 7000_

WF-Wildlife habitat 600°-
DR-Drainage
0-Other 5000-
RC-Runoff control
structures
FP-Fam ponds 400°-
ACRES
3000.
2000.
1000-
PROGRAM
., 	 AnmMPT.T^HMFHTR





25?
I




rrrr\
\


11Z
        EC   VC    WD   WF   DR
                                                   EC   VC   WD   WF   DR
Fig.  3.   Distribution  of program accomplishments and technical
           assistance effort  in Washington  County.
                                        29

-------
     Table 6.  SWCD/SCS accomplishments in Washington County compared to
               assessed treatment needs.
  Practice Category
   Needs
(1967  CNI)
 acres    ha
                                                SWCD/SCS
                                            Accomplishments
                                             (1965-1975)
                    acres
ha
Source:   SEWRPC Inventory (see Appendix J)
              Needs
           Accomplished
Direct erosion control
Vegetative cover
Woodlands
Drainage
Total
58,976
30,087
14,522
12,233
115,808
23,867
12,176
5,877
4,951
46,867
11,728
1,276
1,236
5,784
22,709
4,746
516
500
2,341
9,190
20%
4%
9%
47%
20%
                                     30

-------
 each slope category.   Detailed results are presented in Appendix L and a
 summary in Fig.  4.

      While most  cropland is on the flatter slopes,  the small portion on
 slopes >12% is seen  to contribute the greatest portion of cropland soil
 loss.  If conservation practices were installed preferentially on these
 problem areas,  it is  expected that the percentage of practices installed
 would be higher  than  the percentage of land area they represent.   Instead,
 practice accomplishments follow closely the area distribution, suggesting
 a fairly even spread  of projects over the land.   While the analysis by
 necessity is rather crude,  the results are somewhat disturbing from the
 standpoint of efficient resource allocation.
 The Agricultural  Conservation  Program
      The Agricultural  Conservation Program does not  operate  independent  of
 the  SWCD/SCS  programs,  in  that nearly  all  ACP  accomplishments  are  undertaken
 with SCS technical  assistance.  However, the ACP  is  planned  and  administered
 separately.   Thus,  the ACP has a marked  influence on the SWCD/SCS  technical
 assistance programs; the reverse is not true.

      Based on the detailed findings, presented in Appendices K and M,
 implementing  ACP practices accounts for  >  50%  of  the SWCD/SCS  implementation
 efforts, compared to assistance time spent  on  non-cost-shared  programs,  as
 follows:
     Direct Erosion Control

        Stripcropping
        Diversions

        Grass waterways

     Vegetative (not including
        conservation cropping
        systems)

     Woodland

     Wildlife

     Drainage
                                        SWCD/SCS
                                   Assistance time
                                        for ACP
                                    practices, %
80

57

97

32
69

37

79
                      SWCD/SCS
                 Assistance time
                 for non-cost-shared
                   programs, %
20
43

 3

68
31

63

21
Thus, conservation practice application priorities have—to a large extent-
been determined more by ACP program purposes than by SWCD supervisors'
                                     31

-------
•u
o
4J
4-1
C
Q)
O
(-1

-------
directives.  Unless the SWCD assists the ACS Committee in implementing the
ACP, the supervisors' ability to insure that district technical support staff
are carrying out SWCD objectives will be severely limited.

     Data on ACP accomplishments and expenditures were collected for the 10
yr period from 1968 to 1977.  This information is reported in annual reports,
as described in Appendix A.  The actual data is presented in Appendix M.
During the 10 yr period surveyed, ACP cost-sharing expenditures averaged
around $37,000/yr.  Additionally, about $12,,500/yr were spent to administer
the program.  Approximately 25% of the ASC Committee's and the ASCS office
staff's time is spent on ACP work,  The $12,500 figure was arrived at by
taking 25% of $50,000, the average total annual administrative expenses
reported from 1968 to 1976 in Washington County.  These costs do not account
for the SCS staff time required for ACP practice implementation.  An
average of about 100 requests/yr have been served, treating approximately
1000 acres (400 ha).

     Yearly expenditures and accomplishments have undergone considerable
flux in this period, reflecting the increasing instability of the ACP
nationally.  Four major program revisions have been made since 1970.  After
the low years of 1974 and 1975, the 1976 and 1977 programs were funded
at relatively high levels.  The number of applicants served and area
treated have also decreased steadily; in Washington County the average area
served per $1000 expended in 1968 was 39 acre (15.8 ha) compared with
16 acre (6.5 ha) in 1977; for the same two periods the number of applicants
served dropped from 148 (1968) to 79 (1977), while total expenditures
increased by 33% and the average area affected per applicant remained
approximately 10 acres (4 ha).  Clearly the ACP has lost ground to inflation.
Unfortunately little evidence exists that needs are any less pressing.

     In Fig. 5 the distribution of cost-sharing accomplishments is shown
together with expenditures among major practice categories in the 1968 to
1977 period.  Over 40% of both accomplishments and expenditures have been
used for direct erosion control practices, while about 20% have been for
drainage.   Just as it takes varying amounts of technical assistance time for
each practice, cost-sharing expenditures/unit area affected also vary sub-
stantially.  For example, based on the 10 yr record from Washington County,
it has cost $19/acre ($47/ha) for strippcropping and $57.40/acre ($142/ha)
for tile drainage (see Appendix M).

     The 1968 to 1977 data can be compared directly to assessed treatment
needs from the 1967 CNI.   In Table 7 relative accomplishments and expen-
ditures are compared with relative assessed needs.  Considerably less
program outputs were directed towards the high priority erosion control
and vegetative cover practices than was relatively needed, according to the
CNI, while more was spent on lower priority practices and those not included
in the CNI.  Expenditures for low priority practices can reduce signifi-
cantly the amount of money spent on high priority practices, from the
perspective of either erosion control or NPS pollution control.
                                     33

-------
                                                   Practice categories;
     150,000 -
     100,000  -
  DOLLARS
(1968-1977)
      50,000  _
         5000 _
         4000  -
         3000  -
    ACRES
         2000  -
         1000 -
 47%
m
                   EC
                    43%
EC-Erosion control
VC-Vegetative cover
WD-Woodland
WF-Wildlife habitat
DR-Drainage
 R-Reservoirs
 0-Other
                           4%
                                  13%
                        4%
                                                        11%
         VC     WD      WF     DR      R

          COST SHARING EXPENDITURES
                                                 18%
                          11%
                          w.
                                 13%
                                         15%
                  EC      VC      WD     WF

                               AREA AFFECTED
                               DR
                                                                3%
                                                              K//VJ
             o
  Fig.  5.  Distribution of ACP cost sharing accomplishments and expenditures
          in Washington County, 1968-1977
                                   34

-------
            Table 7.  Distribution of AGP accomplishments and expenditures
                      from 1968-1977 compared to 1967 assessed conservation
                      needs.
  Practice
  Category
  AGP Relative
Accomplishments,
  1968-1977
AGP Relative
Expenditures
 1968-1977
    % Total
Treatment Needs,
    1967 CNI
Direct erosion control

Vegetative cover

Woodland

Wildlife habitat

Drainage

Reservoirs

Others
      43%

      11%

      13%

      14%

      19%
    42%

     4%

    14%

     4%

    20%

    13%

     3%
       51%

       26%

       13%



       10%
                                      35

-------
     The distribution of Washington County AGP payments has fluctuated
considerably during 1968 to 1977 (Fig. 6).  The vegetative cover, woodland,
and wildlife habitat practices have shown the most stability ($7800/yr total).
Funding of reservoirs, e.g., farm ponds, was consistently high through 1973,
after which implementation of the practice was reduced substantially and
eventually eliminated.  Expenditures on the drainage practices have varied
greatly, providing perhaps the best example of the conflicting pressures that
underlie the ACP program.  Whenever there has been some state or national
level practice approval authority, e.g., during 1974 and 1975, cost-sharing
for these practices in Washington County was cut severely or eliminated.
However, when controls were returned solely to the county committee, the
drainage practice again became a priority effort, being the second highest
funded practice in 1976.

     Animal waste practices, the main component of the "other" category in
Fig. 6, were funded only during the period from 1970 to 1973, a result of
State incentives to implement these practices during this period.

     The variation in erosion control practice expenditures has—until
recently—appeared to be the result of simply making up the difference
between these other payments and total county annual allocations.  The
relative importance of these practices has been increasing.

     Comparison of the 1975 and 1976 programs provides further insight into
some important characteristics of the ACP.  Although total 1975 expenditures
were comparatively low, relative and absolute expenditures and accomplish-
ments in the direct erosion control category were high and included 62% and
77% of that year's total accomplishments and expenditures, respectively.
This was the last year that drainage practices were prohibited nationally.
In 1976, total program expenditures grew substantially due to increased
federal allocations, yet erosion control accomplishments and expenditures
actually dropped.  Drainage practices, which once again became permissible,
took up nearly all of the increased program allocation.

     In order to evaluate how strong uhe demand for certain practices is, a
comparison of cost-share applications with the amount approved was made.
Complete results appear in Appendix M.  The findings for 1976 were typical.
While twice as many applications were made for direct erosion control
practices as were approved, nearly 6 times the number of applications
for drainage practices were made.  One must appreciate the amount of pressure
this intensity of demand places on the ASC Committee.  Although drainage
was the single most funded practice in 1976, the relative demand for it was
even greater.

     Data from 1977 show that the Washington County ACP has recently be-
come more effectively directed towards priority problems (Fig. 6), even in
light of continued high demands for production-oriented practices.   In this
year, drainage accounted for only 2% of program effort, while 48% of the
area affected and 80% of program expenditures were for erosion control.
                                     36

-------
100 ,-

 90 -


 80 -


 70 -

 60 .-

 50


 40 -

 30 „


 20 -


 10 -

   0
Animal Waste +
Runoff Control

    Reservoirs
      Drainage


      Wildlife

      Woodland

    Vegetative
       Cover

       Erosion
       Control
                   1968   1969
                            1970   1971   1972    1973
1974   1975   1976   1977
 %  Total  1971
 Expenditure
                             Fig.  6.  Trends in distribution of ACP cost
                                      sharing funds in Washington County,
                                      1968 to 1977

-------
The Long-Term Agreement Program
     The Long-Term Agreement Program (LTA)  has received high priority in the
Washington County SWCD Long-Range and Annual Programs and has been promoted
continually, by the ACP Annual Programs.  Yet in the 4 yr that the program
has been operable, only 9 farmers have signed LTA contracts in the County,
i.e., < 2% of the SWCD cooperators.   Significant fund commitments of as much
as 20% of total ACP expenditures were made to LTA participants during the
1974 and 1975 program years, when the State earmarked funds to stimulate the
program.  In 1976 the State could not earmark any funds, and although it
encouraged LTA participation, only one new contract was signed in Washington
County.

     There are many reasons why the LTA program has not been well received.
The Washington County ASCS and SCS staff report that an LTA plan takes
over twice as long to prepare as a regular farm conservation plan.  Once an
agreement is signed, constant checks are necessary to assure that planned
treatments are undertaken on schedule and that they meet specifications.
Farmers may feel that they must deviate from the plan to meet a year's
particular climatic or economic conditions.  Thus time-consuming compliance
monitoring and deliberation over variance-authorization may be needed.
The paperwork involved also can be substantial.  The ASCS is accustomed to
completing its books each year and starting anew with the next year's
program.  The adjustment to a program running more than one year requires
many additional complications.  Finally, a major reason why the program
is not supported is because funds must be committed for the duration of
the agreement in the year it is initiated,  since it has been impossible to
guarantee continual funding levels for future years.  Rather than tie up
funds for one farm's long-term use,  the county ASC Committee would prefer
to share costs with more individuals each program year.
                                     38

-------
                                 REFERENCES
  1.   U.S.  Congress.   1972.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
      of  1972, Public  Law  92-300"!

  2.   U.S.  Congress.   1977.  The Clean Water Act of 1977, Public Law 95-217,
      Section 35,  amending Section 208, P.L. 92-500.

  3.   U.S.  Department  of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
      tion  Service.  1975.  Agricultural Conservation Program.  Background
      Information  Publication 12.ASCS, Washington, B.C.

  4.   Federal Register.  1975.  Agriculture Conservation Program—Rules and
      Regulations.  Federal Register, Nov. 10, 1975.Vol. 40, No. 17,
      Section 701-3.   pp.  52341, 52342.

  5.   U.S.  Congress.   1977.  The Food and Agricultural Act of 1977, Public
      Law 95-113,  Section  1501  (a)(1).

  6.   Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District.  1977.  Washington
      County Long  Range Resource Conservation Program.  9 pp.

  7.   Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District and the U.S.
      Department of Agriculture.  1944.  Memorandum of Understanding,
      January 15,  1944.

  8.   Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Washington
      County Agricultural  Stabilization and Conservation Committee.  1978.
      Supplement Memorandum of Understanding.   February 17, 1978.

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

10.  Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith.   1965.   Predicting Rainfall-Erosion
     Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains,  USDA-ARS-Ag.  Handbook
     No.  282.       ~~~   ~

11.  Moore, I.C.,  F.W. Madison, and R.R.  Schneider.   1979.   Estimating Phos-
     phorus Loading from Livestock Wastes:   Some Wisconsin Results.In!
     Proc.  1978 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference.   Ann Arbor
     Science,  Ann Arbor,  Michigan.

12.  U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Soil Conservation  Service.  Washington
     County Office.  1978.  Annual  Report to Washington County SWCD Super-
     visors.   February 1,  1978.

                                    39

-------
APPENDICES A - M

-------
                        APPENDIX A.   MAJOR DATA SOURCES
I.   Land Inventory and Treatment Needs Information
  A.   Washington County Detailed Soil Survey.   The modern soil survey contains
      a considerable amount of material relevant to assessing erosion poten-
      tial.   Washington County is fortunate to have a modern soil survey.
      The survey includes detailed soil series maps, slope information and
      interpretive materials.   The categorization given of soils into soil
      capability units is applicable directly  to the identification of
      potential problem areas.

  B.   U.S.  Census of Agriculture.  Completed every 5 years by the U.S.
      Department of Commerce,  the Census is an accurate source of some
      relevant land use information for the county.  Included are estimates
      of area in total cropland, harvested cropland, corn land,  hay land,
      pastureland, and woodland.  Animal inventory data also is  included.
      Census data prior to 1974 also included  a limited amount of information
      on the extent of some conservation practices on the land—contouring,
      strip-cropping and terraces.   Unfortunately this information was not
      collected for the 1974 Census.   It takes 2 to 3 years for  the Census
      data to be made available.

  C.   Wisconsin Assessor Farm Statistics.   Summaries of the annual assessors'
      farm statistics reports  provide useful information and are obtainable
      from the USDA Statistical Reporting Service office in Madison,
      Wisconsin, as well as from local assessors offices.   Detailed informa-
      tion is included on crop  types and animal populations.  Besides the
      county summaries, information also can be obtained by town and
      incorporated cities and  villages.

  D.   Conservation Needs Inveatory.   The CNI procedure was developed by the
      USDA in the mid 1950's for nationwide application.   The CNI involves a
      stratified random survey of approximately 2% of land in each county  and
      is undertaken usually by personnel responsible to the SCS  District
      Conservationist.   In Washington County there are 36 quarter-section  CNI
      plots.   For each section surveyed, data  are collected on soils,  slopes,
      land use and management  practices.  Recommendations are made on needed
      management changes.  The last  published  inventory for Wisconsin was
      made in 1967.

  E.   208 2% Survey.   During 1976 and 1977 the BSWCD, county SWCD,  SCS,  and
      DNR cooperated to make a revised land use and treatment needs inven-
      tory as part of the statewide  208 NFS water pollution control planning
      process.   The same survey plots as those used in the CNI were analyzed.
                                      41

-------
      The 208 inventory was geared more directly towards assessing nonpoint
      water pollution problems.  Specific management practice data were
      collected.   For croplands,  this included information on rotations,
      plowing methods and conservation practices.   Animal waste problems
      and urban lands also were surveyed in the 1976 inventory.
II.  Effort Information
  A.   SCS "E-Report".   The "E-Report",  compiled annually by the SCS District
      Conservationist, gives a breakdown of time expended by SWCD/SCS staff
      in broad work categories during the previous year.  Included is time
      spent in conservation planning, technical assistance, special planning
      and assistance programs, and program support, management and adminis-
      tration.  Staff salary information is included.

  B.   SCS Annual Plan of Operations (APO).   The APO, completed annually by
      the DC, includes estimates of:   1.  Proposed SWCD/SCS accomplishments
      for the following year, quantified by specific goals in each planning
      and practice category; 2.   technical assistance time required to
      implement each unit of proposed work; and 3.  total work time to be
      allocated to each planning and  practice accomplishment effort.
III.   Program Accomplishment Information
  A.   SCS "F-Report".   The DC completes the "F-Report" annually.   Included
      is:  1.  A list  of planning accomplishments—new and cancelled
      cooperators,  farm plans,  inventories and evaluations;  2.   the number
      and extent of each practice implemented during that  year under
      SWCD/SCS staff technical supervision and 3.  an estimate of the amount
      of land "adequately treated" due to SWCD/SCS efforts during that year.

  B.   SCS "99-Report".   The "99-Report" follows the same format as the
      "F-Report" and is completed annually by the DC.   This  provides the
      only detailed estimate available of the cumulative number and extent
      of all practices  on the land,  plus an estimate of the  total amount of
      "adequately treated" land in the county.   To complete  this  report the
      DC must estimate—for every practice—the total amount added or
      removed during the year and accordingly add or subtract this amount
      from the previous year's level.   This should include all SWCD/SCS-
      supervised work (which covers nearly all ASCS cost-sharing  work) plus
      private activities that comply with SCS practice standards.  This
      cumulative procedure has been underway since the 1940's.

  C.   Wisconsin ASCS Annual Reports.  These reports, published by the State
      ASCS office in Madison—list for each county—the number of ACP
      program participants, the amount of each practice implemented, the
      area affected, and the amount of cost-sharing funds  expended.  These
      detailed reports  have been published since 1968.
                                   42

-------
         The lack of compatability between SCS and ASCS practice defini-
    tions leads to some confusion, particularly when attempting to
    determine the proportion of SCS projects that involve AGP funds.
    For example, under the ASCS permanent wildlife habitat practice
    (RE-10) there are at least four different acceptable SCS practices
    which could be applied (pond construction, hedgerow planting,
    wetland wildlife and upland wildlife habitat management).  On the
    other hand, accomplishments under the SCS subsurface drainage
    category could include tiling applied to implement three different
    ASCS practices—SC-10, subsurface drainage; KE-12, tile associated
    with grass waterways; and RE-8, tile associated with diversion
    terraces.

D.  Survey of Conservation Practices.  The Southeastern Wisconsin
    Regional Planning Commission made a detailed survey of ASCS cost-
    shared and SWCD/SCS-supervised practices implemented during the
    1965-75 period.   Data were gathered directly from ASCS files and
    SWCD/SCS farm plans, counting all practices to be implemented.
    Maps were constructed showing the location of practices implemented.
    Summaries of the data have been compiled by county, township and
    subwatershed units.   Data totals unfortunately don't separate
    ASCS-cost-shared practices from non-cost-shared SCS activities,
    although these have been differentiated on the maps.  While this
    source provides  information spanning the largest time period,
    some questions exist  as to its accuracy since it is possible that
    some of the practices indicated on the farm plans were never
    implement ed.
                                 43

-------
                  APPENDIX B.  SWCD AND SCS ANNUAL PROGRAMS



I.  Excerpts from Washington County SWCD Work Plan Activities for 1978.

  A.  Provide planning and technical assistance to landowners and users.

  B.  Promote total resource development and pollution control in all
      land use planning.

        1.  Assist Land Use office to administer provisions of land
            division ordinance relating to erosion control.

        2.  Continue assistance to units of government (town, village and
            city) in developing and implementing erosion control programs.

        3.  ProVide promotion and training in special land management
            practices through field days, field trips, tours, and other
            educational programs (minimum tillage, crop residue, cover
            cropping, animal waste management, sewage sludge, and other
            innovative best management practices).

        4.  Continue cooperation with SCS, SEWRPC, UWEX,  ASCS, and WCP
            in developing county priorities for improving sediment control
            and pollution abatement program.

        5.  Limit assistance and provide contractor training on tile to
            outlets, staking main lines and critical laterals.

        6.  Provide educational information on the proposed Washington
            County Agricultural Erosion Control Ordinance.

        7.  Cooperate with ASCS in identifying and developing pilot
            projects relating to animal waste management.

  C.  Promote use of soil survey by all in planning and land division
      proj ects.

        1.  Provide technical consultive assistance on soil limitations  for
            sewage disposal systems and sludge management  to landowners,
            engineers,  planners, developers and realtors.

  D.  Promote conservation through education awards,  contests, tours and
      special observances with Jr.  Board assistance and involvement.
                                     44

-------
  E.  Update and publish the "Moving to the County" pamphlet.

  F.  Review long range resource conservation programs by district super-
      visors.

        1.   Amend annual plan as needed.

        2.   Review SCS annual plan and review SWCD budget needs by August.
II.  Excerpts from SCS Annual Time Budget Plan of Operations for F.Y. 1978,
     Washington County.
Planned job or
activity
Planning activities
District cooperator
Conservation plans
Plans revised
Inventory 4-
evaluat ion
Practice implementation
Animal waste
management
Critical area
planning
Diversions
Ponds
Grass waterways
Hedgerows
Minimum tillage
Pasture and hayland
management
Streambank protection
Stripcropping
Subsurface drainage
Surface drainage
Tree planting
Wildlife management
Woodland harvesting +
improvement
SCS code
no.

100
108
110

111


312,13

342
362
378
412
422
478

512
580
585
606
607
612
644,45

654,66
Units

Number
11
11

ii


Numb er

Acre
Feet
Number
Acre
Feet
Acre

it
Feet
Acre
Feet
ii
Acre
it

M
P lann ed
amount

25
24
7

25


4

4
2,500
10
20
10,000
1,000

40
750
300
75,000
2,500
20
260

30
Total
Rate, planned
units/hr time, hr

3
35
30

5


30

6
65
10
13 hr/ac
450
100/day

40 /day
50
25/day
500/day
60
5
30

3

75
840
210

125


120

24
40
100

24
80

8
15
96
150
42
4
9

10
                                   45

-------
        APPENDIX C.  METHOD USED BY THE STATE ASC COMMITTEE TO ALLOCATE
              AGP FUNDS TO COUNTIES DERIVED FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH
               I. BOLSTAD, ASCS STATE OFFICE, MADISON, WISCONSIN


I.  Practices are prioritized by the establishment of a percentage of total
    funds for each.  In 1976 and 1977 funds were prioritized in Wisconsin
    as follows:
                                                       Funding priority
                                                            factor
                    Practice                           1975        1977
Grass waterways
Erosion control
Tree shrub planting
Contour strip cropping, terracing, diversions
Streambank protection
Improved vegetative cover
Permanent vegetative cover
Timberstand improvement
Wildlife habitat improvement
Water impoundments
Minimum tillage
0.29
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
— —
0.30
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.04
0.10
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
II.   The relative needs factor (county's need divided by total need in the
     State) of each county for each practice is determined from a variety
     of sources:

       °The CNI for the prioritized practices it includes (i.e.,  forestry-
        related and vegetative cover practices).

       °Streambank protection  relative needs are determined from DNR data
        based on  the length of streams in a county  multiplied  by  a relative
        erodibility factor.

       °The relative percentage of  cropland in the  county is used as the
        needs factor for all other  practices.

       0Factors derived from Washington County are  shown under No.  5,
        below.
                                   46

-------
III.   Total county allocation is derived by applying the relative needs
      factor (II above)  to the amount  of money available statewide for
      each practice (I above) and summing:

                          n
      County Allocation  =  ZA.TN.    i  - index of individual practices

                                    n  - total number of practices included
                                        in  fund allocation  determination

                                   A.  - funding priority factor given
                                        practice i  (I)

                                    T  - total AGP funds available

                                   N.  - relative need factor,  practice i,
                                        in  County (II)
 IV.  The  county  allocation  is  finally  adjusted  so that  each  county
     receives  an amount proportionally similar  to what  is  received the
     previous  year.  The percentage  change permitted  in a  year  has varied
     from 5  to 25% of  the county's previous year's  allocation.
 V.   Relative needs  factor applied to allocate AGP  funds to Washington
      County  in  1975
               Practice categories               Ratio of needs*
         Permanent vegetative cover                    1.17
         Improved vegetative cover                     0.42
         Tree/shrub planting                           0.18
         Timberstand improvement                       0.14
         Stripcropping/terraces/diversions             1.40
         Streambank protection                         0.32
         Total cropland                                1. 35
         *This is the ratio of practice needs in Washington County
          versus the needs of an average county in Wisconsin,
          determined as described above, e.g., Washington County
          needs 1.17 times as much permanent vegetative cover as
          the average Wisconsin county.
                                    47

-------
                     APPENDIX D.  WASHINGTON COUNTY PLAN -
                    1977 AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM
  I.  Program Objectives


    A.  To achieve maximum conservation benefits for soil and water conserv-
        ing practices of an enduring nature which would not be performed
        without cost-sharing assistance.

    B.  To emphasize the continuing need for forestry practices,  upland
        erosion control practices and total farm conservation planning.

    C.  To offer long-term agreements when desirable and applicable.


 II.  Major Conservation and Pollution Problems
    A.  Soil erosion from water runoff is a major problem.   Parts of the
        Town of Trenton have excessive sand which need long range cover
        protection.   Steep hills in the Kettle Moraine Region through the
        center of the county are in need of additional trees and permanent
        cover.
III.   Priorities
    A.   Priority will be given to farms which are recommended by SCS as
        needing erosion control practices and cost-sharing would be an
        incentive to accomplish the work planned.   Practices  to provide
        more cover and minimum tillage promotion will be used to discourage
        excessive open fields of recent years.

    B.   The county development group decided that  all the practices in the
        county program except the SC-9 and SC-10 will be considered high
        priority.  Less emphasis for lowland assistance is anticipated
        along with lesser technical assistance  from SCS.   Cost-sharing
        may be considered for some land owners  later on an individual
        basis.
                                    48

-------
IV.   Program Funding
  A.   Total state allocation                         $5,182,000
      Original allocation for the county is               43,165
      No special reserves for LTA's  will be
        established.
      Additional funds for pooling agreements
        will be requested from the state
        reserve if available.

  B.   It has been tentatively agreed to  allocate  and  use  the  funds  on
      the following basis:

                  RE-1 & 2      8%          RE-9        4%
                  RE-3 & 4     15%          RE-10      5%
                  RE-6 & 7      8%          RE-12     40%
                  RE-8        15%          Others      5%
 V.   Program Implementation
  A.   The County  Committee will  encourage  all  the high priority practices
      periodically  in news releases, newsletters and  in public appearances
      as  opportunities  permit.   Individual mailings to all operators and
      owners  announcing the program will be used to provide an equal
      opportunity to all eligible persons  interested.

  B.   Pooling agreements and  group cooperation will be emphasized.  Approv-
      als will be granted according to the individual needs and recommen-
      dations from  SCS.

  C.   Counties are  encouraged to seek the  participation of FFA, 4-H and
      minority groups in program promotion.  Special  projects involving
      youth groups  should be  encouraged.

  D.   The progress  being made in implementing  the phases of the ACP should
      be  reviewed periodically.  Periodic  interviews  with SCS personnel
      held to appraise  progress and select farms for  tentative approvals.
                                 49

-------
                                    APPENDIX E.  WASHINGTON COUNTY CROPS,  1965-1976*
Ln
O
Date
1965
1967
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Number of
farms
1642
1509
1450
1391
1318
1249
1165
1087
1057
985
Area of
farms, acres
205819
194954
187864
183289
180340
180992
180352
167902
165976
161177
Harvested
area, acres
124523
118655
114055
112800
118132
115797
114414
114317
115415

Corn
Oats
Hay
Wheat
Soybeans
Peas
Sweet
corn
Acres
36294
37410
36923
37165
45185
44523
43698
44314
45782
45418
32258
27891
28413
27311
23258
24781
23140
20737
20727
20502
53418
48752
46521
46635
47631
44751
45762
45616
44779

2347
4352
1799
1533
1878
1366
1218
3244
3878

206
250
399
356
180
376
598
406
249

2687
2000
1015
2222
2154
2705
2748
2987
2583

1290
1580
1615
1571
1418
2158
2076
1944
1506

          ^Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service, Assessors Farm Statistics Reports.

-------
       APPENDIX F.   DATA FROM THE 1975-76 WASHINGTON COUNTY "99  REPORT"
Practices
Erosion and agricultural
pollution control
Conservation cropping system
Contour farming
Critical area planning
Crop residue management
Diversion
Grass waterway/outlet
Holding pond
Minimum tillage
Mulching
Streambank protection
Stripcropping
Structure for water control
Vegetative Cover
Pasture & hay land management
Pasture & hayland planting
Woodland
Tree planting
Woodland improvement
harvesting
Woodland improvement
Livestock exclusion
Field windbreaks
Wildlife
Hedgerow planting
Wildlife wetland management
Wildlife upland management
Drainage
Drainage field ditch (open)
Subsurface drain (tile)
Other
Ponds
Farmstead/f eedlot windbreak
SCS code


328
330
342
344
362
412
425
478
480
580
585
587

510
512

612

654
666
472
392

422
644
645

590
606

378
380
Total amount on the
land as of July 1, 1976


41,527 acre
14,459 "
48 "
280
152,701 feet
338 acre
3 acre
1,862 acre
6 "
1,500 feet
13,785 acre
70 "

1,071 acre
4,308 "

3,389 acre

302 "
1,417 "
2,091 "
2,700 feet

507,270 feet
8,765 acre
7,272

309,410 feet
1,230,891 "

371 acre
674 "
Land adequately treated
691
121,274 acre
                                    51

-------
 APPENDIX G.  RESULTS OF 208 2% SURVEY FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY CROPLAND
 I.  Survey information
        Quarter-sections surveys                   36
        Rotation cropland "fields" surveyed       146
        Cropland surveyed                       2,915 acres
        Total cropland soil loss                6,908 tons/yr
        Average cropland soil loss rate             2.37 tons/acre/yr
II.  Soil loss distribution among quarter-sections
Item
Quarter-sections
Area
Soil loss
Soil loss for worst
quarter section
III. Soil loss distribution
Item
Fields
Area
Soil loss
Soil loss for
worst field
% of item
0-3
80
79
44


averaging soil loss rate of
(tons/acre/yr)
3-6
14
16
28


among surveyed fields*
% of item
0-3
78
83
43


6-9 > 9
3 3
2 3
7 21

21
and cropland acres
averaging soil loss rate of
(tons/acre/yr)
3-6
15
12
24


6-9 > 9
3 3
2 3
5 28

18
    *A "field"  as  used  here  refers  to  the  smallest  inventoried land unit.
                                   52

-------
IV.   Distribution of 2% survey cropland and soil loss  by  land classes  and
     land management categories.
Total croplani
Land class* (C)(P) Range** area, %
1 0.0-0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.4
Sub-total
2e 0.0-0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.4-1.0
Sub-total
3e, 4e, 6e, 0.0-0.1
7e 0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.4
0.4-1.0
Sub-total
W 0.0-0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.4
0.4-1.0
Sub-total
S 0.0-0.1
0.1-0.2
0.2-0.3
0.3-0.4
Sub-total
0.86
4.7
2.09
0.99
8.64
19.04
21.68
0.14
1.72
42.57
11.2
5.63
0.45
0.69
0.69
18.63
1.65
10.3
6.28
4.56
0.24
23.02
1.03
2.78
0.45
2.88
7.14
Total cropland soil loss
%
0.16
1.59
0.98
0.53
3.26
10.64
18.1
0.10
7.7
36.54
15.46
14.14
3.57
0.96
17.9
52.03
0.26
2.4
1.7
1.6
0.09
6.09
0.23
0.49
0.12
1.24
2.08
tons /acre
0.45
0.80
1.11
1.26
0.89
1.32
1.98
1.72
10.63
2.03
3.27
5.95
18.95
3.3
61.86
6.62
0.37
0.55
0.65
0.84
0.90
0.62
0.52
0.41
0.65
1.02
0.69
     *"Land Class" refers to soil capability classes used in modern soil
       surveys.
    **(C)(P) refers to the "Crop Management Factor", (C), times the
       "management practice factor", (P), from the Universal Soil Loss
       Equation (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965- ARS Agricultural Handbook #282),

                                   53

-------
           APPENDIX  H.   MAJOR  PLANNING  ACCOMPLISHMENT  DATA,  WASHINGTON COUNTY  SWCD/SCS*
                          70-71         71-72          72-73          73-74         74-75         75-76      Mean annual
       Item             No.    Acres   No.     Acres   No.    Acres    No.    Acres   No.   Acres   No.   Acre   No.   Acre


New SWCD cooperators     53    5,467    51     5,090                   37    4,107    40   4,926    43   3,137    45   4,546

Cancelled SWCD
  cooperators            12    1,428    16     1,548    -       -      14    1,817    21   1,595     9   1,038    15   1,485

Net increase SWCD
  cooperators            41    4,039    35     3,542    34    3,172     23    2,290    19   3,331    34   2,099    30   3,061

New conservation
  plan                  56    5,363    44     4,651                   35    3,470    37   3,288    38   3,043    42   3,963

Cancelled
  conservation plans     11    1,083    18     1,603                    7    1,042    22   1,824     4     353    13   1,217

Net increase
  conservation plans     45    4,280    26     3,048    27    2,429     28    2,428    15   1,464    34   2,508    29   2,746

Total SWCD
  cooperators           513    52,819   554    56,858   589   60,400    623   63,572   646   65,862   665  69,193  699  71,292

Total conservation
  plans                430    44,151   475    48,431   501   51,479    528   53,908   556   56,336   571  57,800  605  60,308

Conservation plans
  revised                9    1,252     8     1,503    -       -       6      537     6      847    11   1,351     8   1,098


*SCS "F-Reports" for 1970-71 to 1975-76 program years.
-Data not available.
                                                         54

-------
APPENDIX  I.   MAJOR SWCD,  SCS AND ASCS PRACTICES, AFFECTED  ACREAGE PER PRACTICE,  AND APPROXIMATE
                 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TIME  REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN AND  IMPLEMENTATION  IN WASHINGTON
                 COUNTY
                                        AGP                                            Units                Acre
                            SCS  code     code      Unit     Units/acre affected     implemented/staff hr*    affected/staff hr

Stripcropping
Diversions
Terraces
Grass waterways
Minimum tillage
Critical area planting
Mulching
Contouring

Conservation cropping
system
Pasture/hay land
management
Pasture /hay land
planting

Tree planting
Woodland improvement
Livestock exclusion

Wildlife wetland
management
Wildlife upland
management
Hedgerow planting

Drainage field
ditch (open)
Subsurface drain
(tile)
Drainage,
main/lateral

Streambank
protection
Animal waste
management
Ponds
Runoff control
structures
Farmstead and
' feedlot
windbreaks

585
362
600
412
478
342
484
330


328

510

512

612
666
472


644

645
422


390

606

480


580

312,13
378

410,587


380

RE- 6
RE-8
RE- 7
RE- 12
S-l
RE- 12
RE- 12





RE-1,2

RE-1,2

RE- 3
RE-4
RE-3,4


RE-10

RE-10
RE-10


SC-9

SC-10

SC-9


RE-9

SI
RE-5

RE-11


RE- 13

Acre
Feet
"
Acre
"
"
"
"


Acre

"

"

Acre

"


Acre

"
Feet


Feet

"

"


Feet

Number


"


Acre
Erosion Control
1
50**
375**
0.066***
1
1
1
1
Vegetative Cover

1

1

1
Woodland
1
1
1
Wildlife

1

1
—
Drainage

70

550**
^
620'
Other

—

—
—

—


1

3. 1
65
50
0.077
7.5
0.17
0.17+
2.5


16. 2"""

5

5

4
4
4.4"""


27.5

27.5
450


60

500
^
60~'


50 ~i"

0.033
0.10

0.012


4

3.1
1.3
0.13
1.15
7.5
0.17
0.17
2.5


16.2

5

5

4
4
4.4


27.5

27.5
—


0.86

0.91

0.10


—

--
—

—


4
      *Derived from SCS  1977 Annual Plan of Operations, except where noted.
     **General SCS design Standards.
    ***Rough estimate, based on  analysis of ASCS data.
      +Mulching time assumed same as critical area planting time.
     -H-Estimates provided by Herb Tauchen, DC,  Shawano County.
    +++Average of 4 yr of ASCS data.
      tRough estimate:  Assume 35 ft of adjacent land on each side of lateral directly impacted.  Acreage drained by feeder systems
      not included.
     ffDrainage main/lateral time assumed same as Drainage field ditch time.
    tttFrom 1978 SCS APO.
                                                      55

-------
                APPENDIX J.   INVENTORY  OF  CONSERVATION PRACTICES  INSTALLED  IN WASHINGTON
                             COUNTY PREPARED  BY  SEWRPC,  1965-1975
Practices
Erosion Control
Stripcropping
Diversions
Terraces
Grass waterways
Mulching
Vegetative Cover
Permanent and improved
vegetative cover
Woodland
Treestand planting and
improvements
Wildlife
Wildlife habitats
Drainage
Open drainage
Tile drainage
Total area affected
Other
Farm ponds
Runoff control structures
Animal waste facilities
Inventory Amount
unit found
Acre 7, 116
Feet 84,729
13,635
" 262,258
Acre 172
Acre 1,276
Number 299
Number 370

Feet 292,476
" 883,566
Acre
Number 186
2
2
Estimate of area
affected, acres*
11,728
7,116
1,685
36
2,709
172
1,276
1,276
1,236
1,236**
2,685
2,685**
5,784
4,178
1,606
22,709

Estimate of technical
assistance time, hr*
7,229
2,227
1,304
271
2,347
1,030
255
255
309
309
98
98
6,642
4,875
1,767

2,266
1,860
160
60
Wind erosion control and
  hedgerows

Total technical assistance
  time
Feet
              83,828
186
                                                                                     16,799
  *See Appendix J for conversions used to  derive Acreage affected values  and  technical assistance
   time estimates.
 **Assuming 4.13 acres served/project  (taken from average acre served/project value in ACP).
***Assuming 7.25 acres served/project  (taken from average acre served/project value in ACP).
                                           56

-------
    APPENDIX K.   CONSERVATION PRACTICE  ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY,  1971-76



1971-72 1972-73
Practice

Stri cro
Diversions
Grass waterways
Minimum tillage
Critical area planting
Mulching
Crop residue use
Contour farming
TOTAL

Pasture/hay land management /plan ting
TOTAL





Open
Underground
Main/lateral

I"" 7d=- "™b" f
Animal waste holding facilities, number
Hedgerow planting, 1000 feet
'
A Accomplishments listed by SCS "99 Report
B SWCD/SCS Accomplishments listed by "SCS
A


68
165
173
0
0
0
515
1,402

213
1,000
1,213





294
78
0

1
0
335
23

s" for each
reports" for
A
M5J

56
105
407
6
0
20
433
1,311

315
1,732
2,047





114
133
0

33
1,000
190
6

program year
each progra
Units
1973-74
A B
or Erosion Control

55 55
120 107
280 196
19 16.5
1 0.5
20 0
314 289
989 844 1
Vegetative Cover
430 350
1,867 1,718 2
2 ,297 2,068 2
Woodland

Wildlife

Dra^age
176 54
119 108
0 0
Other
30 27
0 0
200 175
2 2
73 62

(see Appendix A)
m year (see Append!
affe
ted for
1974-75
A


4?
195
308
8
1
100
175
248

307
273
,580





41
156
0

24
0
300
0
17


x A)
B


42
159
148
4
0
0
125
864

137
7,123
2,260





20
150
0

11
0
270
0
12
5


period

1975-76
A


50
540
694
15
4
100
100
1,755


2,280
2,572





38
416
20

20
500
341
1
75
5


13


50
444
519
7
0
0
0
1,247

144
2,005
2,149





9
368
0

10
0
277
1
22




1971-76
A


2 1
1,1 5
1,8 2
8
6
2 0
1,5 7
6,705

1,557
9,152
10,709





663
902
20

108
1 ,500
1,366
3
194
30





1973-76
A


1 7
8 5
1,2 2
2
H,
220
539
3,942

1,029
6,420
7,449





255
691
20

74
500
841
3
165
18


B


147
710
863
27 5
0.5
0
414
2,955

631
5,846
6,447





83
625
0

f)
722
1
95
16


'lime,**


113
625
115
165
3

Ibh
1,44]

U6
360
486





97
689


480
165
90
2 12
1..80


:*Units are acres unless
                .ndicated othe
                                           57

-------
            APPENDIX L.   DATA COMPARING PRACTICE DISTRIBUTION WITH
                         CROPLAND AND SOIL LOSS DISTRIBUTION
1.   Number of Installed Agricultural Practices Per Slope Class—Washington
    County:  1965-1975*
Number of practices
Practice name
Strip cropping**
Tree planting
Wind erosion control**
Wildlife habitat
Permanent vegetative
cover**
Terracing**
Farm ponds
Diversion**
Open drains
Runoff control
0-3.9%
slope
97
87
22
152
49
—
66
18
39

4-5.9%
slope
39
69
5
80
18
1
35
7
22

6-11.9%
slope
31
43
13
48
12
—
21
12
12

12-19.9%
slope
4
12
—
9
2
—
3
5
—

20-More %
slope
1
2
—
7
__
—
1
1
1

  structures**
Runoff control
  measures**
Liming
Tiling
Mulching**
Animal waste facilities
Total erosion control and
  vegetative cover
  practices
 69
  5
 53
  2
  3

257
 38
  1
 25
  1
15

15
 1
111
84
19
21
 *SEWRPC staff derived this information from materials collected in the
  SEWRPC inventory of conservation practices (see Appendix A).
**Erosion control and vegetative cover practices.
                                    58

-------
2.  Cropland and Soil Loss Distribution in Washington County.*

Cropland area
Soil loss
Practices**
1965-1975
0-3.9% slope
60.0%
22.9%
54.3%
4-5.9% slope
19.6%
20.5%
23.5%
6-11.9% slope
14.8%
26.1%
17.8%
12 -More %
slope
5.6%
30.5%
4.4%
 *Derived from 2% Survey Data - see Appendix A and G.
**Derived from SEWRPC Inventory, above.
                                   59

-------
                       Appendix M:   Agricultural  Conservation Program  (ACP)  Data  for Washington County.


  1.   Program Accomplishments,  1968-1977*
ON
o
Practices
Erosion Control
Practices
Stripcropping


Terraces


Diversions


Sediment or
Chemical Runoff
Control (Grass
Waterways
Vegetative Cover
Practices
Permanent Vege-
tative Cover

Improvement of
Cover




Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$



Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$
1968


9
227
3,179
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
180
6,071



22
363
2,553
1
8
66
1969


16
324
3,758
0
0
0
6
83
1,310
17
165
5,064



14
122
1,200
0
0
0
1970


8
334
5,949
0
0
0
2
43
886
11
105
4,136



9
137
1,407
1
10
60
1971


15
363
8,186
0
0
0
4
33
1,523
20
130
12,030



10
107
1,214
0
0
0
1972


8
180
2,783
0
0
0
5
20
589
7
61
2,785



5
30
255
1
9
54
1973


15
494
5,694
0
0
0
3
27
1,691
20
285
14,870



2
14
175
1
9
85
1974


2
3
916
0
0
0
6
41
3,288
14
150
9,699



0
0
0
0
0
0
1975


12
302
6,162
0
0
0
8
37
3,969
17
172
11,812



8
105
2,352
1
4
125
1976


5
107
4,391
0
0
0
8
30
3,171
19
264
13,975



8
74
1,830
2
12
265
1977


5
152
6,214
0
0
0
11
71
6,854
12
136
25,033



12
99
3,024
2
12
259
1968-77


95
2,486
47,232



53
385
23,281
150
1,676
105,475



90
1,051
14,010
9
64
914

-------
Appendix M (Continued)
Practice
Woodland Practices
Trees or Shrubs


Timberstand
Improvement

Wildlife Practices
Wildlife Food &
Habitat Improve-
ment
Drainage Practices
Open Drainage


Tile Drainage


Other Practices
Reservoirs
(Farm Ponds & Wild-
life Ponds)


Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$

Farms
Acres
$

Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$

Farms
Number
$
1968

43
160
5,456
6
47
487

11
7
1,015

20
390
7,404
6
52
1,761

14
15
6,991
1969

47
109
4,469
2
11
135

44
84
1,944

15
190
3,464
20
145
5,391

14
14
6,543
1970

31
115
4,170
9
81
670

17
96
1,639

10
165
4,102
7
59
2,024

13
13
9,400
1971

51
196
7,406
7
51
602

17
52
2,793

7
248
7,085
8
28
950

11
11
7,588
1972

36
130
5,325
3
10
157

25
634
1,773

1
4
149
4
21
808

14
14
9,640
1973

3
10
582
0
0
0

25
55
2,249

7
148
3,181
11
252
13,646

3
3
1,863
1974

20
112
5,568
1
6
150

0
0
0

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

0
0
0
1975

20
72
3,244
1
6
679

5
117
177

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

0
0
0
1976

23
139
4,169
2
11
405

21
347
2,071

1
13
375
11
122
14,053

0
0
0
1977

13
47
2,364
4
23
455

17
169
2,680

1
10
375
1
3
512

0
0
0
1968-77

277
1,090
42,753
35
246
3,740

182
1,561
16,341

62
1,168
26,135
68
682
39,145

69
70
42,025

-------
                                               Appendix M (Continued)
Practices
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
                                                                                                   1977
                                                                                1968-77
Other Practices
(cont.)
Streambank
Protection

Erosion & Water
Control
Structure
Windbreaks ,
Shelterbeds,
Beautif ication
Springs/Seeps
for Livestock

Interim
(winter)
Cover Crop
Animal Waste
Storage/Diver.
Facilities


Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Acres
$
Farms
Number
$


0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
400
2
2
482
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
225
3
45
79
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
460


0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
1,488


0
0
0
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3,475


0
0
0
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2,500


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.


0
0
0
0
0
0
1
15
99
N.A,
N.A.
N.A.
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0
0
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
0
0
0
1
20
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


0
0
0
0
0
0
4
46
537
3
3
707
3
45
79
11
11
7,923

-------
APPENDIX M (Continued)
Practices 1968 1969
Other Practices
(cont.)
Special Farms
Conservation Acres
Measures $
Program Totals Farms
Number 1
$ 35
Special Programs
Low-Income Farms
Farms $
Pooling Number
Agreements Farms
$ 5
Long Term Number
Agreements $
Program
Administration** *
N.A. Not available that
Number Indicates "acreage
* From Wisconsin ASCS


0
0
0
148
,434 1
,865 33

0
0 1
1
10
,000
N.A.
N.A.
,035 47
year.


0
0
0
113
,233
,582

2
,024
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
,745

affected".
Annual
** Administrative costs shown
1970


0
0
0
96
1,145
34,903

0
0
1
3
1,000
N.A.
N.A.
49,872

1971


0
0
0
145
1,408
50,873

0
0
3
10
5,250
N.A.
N.A.
50,688

1972


5
125
437
107
1,099
28,230

0
0
0
0
0
N.A.
N.A.
56,885

Conversion derived from
Reports, 1968
are
to 1977
(1977
1973


0
0
0
65
1,286
46,536

0
0
3
9
9,549
N.A.
N.A.
53,971

Appendix
1974


N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
28
312
19,621

0
0
0
0
0
2
2,420
52,486

J.
1975


N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
43
812
28,619

0
0
0
0
0
1
4,351
51,291


1976


0
0
0
100
1,119
44,705

0
0
0
0
0
?
4,779
55.032


1977


0
0
0
79
742
47,800

0
0
0
0
0
?
8,907
N.A.


1968-77


5
125
437
924
10,590
370,734

2
1,024
8
32
20,799
?
20,457
460,005
(68-76 only)


data preliminary) .
for all ASCS county programs.

-------
          2.   Summary,  AGP  Expenditures  and Costs  per Acre Affected.
ON
-P-
1968-1977

Practice
Stripcropping
Diversions
Grass waterways
Permanent vegetative
cover
Improved vegetative
cover
Tree/shrubs planting
Timberstand improvement
Wildlife food +
habitat improvement
Open drainage
Tile drainage
Reservoirs
Windbreaks
Animal waste facilities
Acres
affected
2,486
385
1,676

1,051

64
1,090
246

1,561
1,168
682
70 (number)
46
11 (number)
Cost
shares, $
47,232
23,281
105,475

14,010

914
42,754
3,740

16,341
26,135
39,145
42,025
537
7,923

$/acre
19.00
60.47
62.93

13.33

14.28
39.22
15.20

10.47
22.38
57.40
600.36/unit
11.67
720.27/unit
1975-1977
Acres
affected
561
138
572

278

28
258
40

633
23*
125**
—
35
—
Cost
shares
16,767
13,994
50,820

7,206

649
9,777
1,539

4,928
750
14,565
—
129
—

$/acre
29.89
101.41
88.85

25.92

23.18
37.90
38.48

7.79
32.60
116.52
—
3.69
__
            *Drainage  practices  only  during  1976  and  1977.
           **A variety of  facility-types  included.
             Source:   ASCS Annual Reports for Wisconsin,  1968-1977.

-------
 3.  Demand Versus Supply of ACP Practices in Washington County, 1971, 1975
    and 1976.
Practice
Erosion control
Stripcropping


Diversions


Grass waterways


Vegetative cover
Permanent
vegetative cover


Improved vegetative
cover


Woodland
Tree/shrub
planting


Timberstand
improvement


Wildlife


Drainage
Open


Tile


Other
Reservoirs


Runoff control
structure


Special conservation
practice


Windbreaks
shelterbeds


Year

1971
1975
1976
1971
1975
1976
1971
1975
1976


1971
1975
1976

1971
1975
1976


1971
1975
1976

1971
1975
1976
1971
1975
1976

1971
1975
1976
1971
1975
1976

1971
1975
1976
1971
1975
1976
1971
1975
1976

1971
1975
1976
# Applied

18
10
21
7
15
40
32
27
38


12
20
9

0
1
5


59
26
25

16
5
12
26
9
24

14
2
11
17
4
64

55
1
2
1
N.A.
7
7
N.A.
2

2
1
2
# Approved

15
8
11
4
5
10
20
16
25


10
8
8

0
1
3


51
19
22

5
1
4
16
4
20

8
N.A.
1
8
N.A.
13

10
N.A.
N.A.
0
N.A.
0
5
N.A.
0

1
1
0
7. Approved

83
80
52
57
33
25
63
69
66


83
40
89

-
100
60


86
73
88

31
20
33
62
44
83

57
0
9
47
0
20

18
0
0
0
-
0
71
-
0

50
100
0
Source:  Records provided by Myra Brummond and Donald Sampson, Washington County
         ASCS Office, West Bend,  Wisconsin.
                                       65

-------