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
------- |