69th SWCS International Annual Conference July 27-30, 2014 Lombard, IL

1. Targeting conservation practices within a watershed:
Lessons learned from the Pleasant Valley project
Steve Richter, The Nature Conservancy
Laura Ward Good. Dept. of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin
Pat Sutter, Curt Diehl, Duane Wagner, Dane County Land Conservation

2. 2005: Wisconsin Buffer Initiative
Report

3. WBI Recommendations for Targeting
Conservation in Watersheds
Field
Stream
Recommended tools:
• RUSLE2 Erosion (estimates
average annual in-field
erosion)
• Wisconsin P Index
(estimates average annual P
delivery to surface water)

4. 2006: Paired watershed study began
Pleasant Valley:
Treatment
Smith Conley:
Reference

5. 20112006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015
Stream monitoring, sediment and P budgeting
Partners: US Geological Survey, University Wisconsin, WI
Department of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy
Additional funding: USDA-NIFA
Inventory and Assessment
Partners: Dane County Land Conservation Department and Univ. of
Wisconsin
Additional funding: The Nature Conservancy
Partners: Producers, Dane County Land Conservation
Department, NRCS, UW-Extension
Practice funding: NRCS, The Nature Conservancy
Implementation
M. Godfrey

6. P Index Used to Identify Highest P
Loss Fields and Pastures
Conservation efforts in project watershed focused on 10 farms with
highest estimated runoff P loads

7. Participating Farms Reduced Runoff
P Loss and Erosion
Acres
P
reduction
(lb/yr)
Erosion
reduction
(ton/yr)
No‐till/reduced
till/residue
management
1840 3300 2000
Pasture systems
(stream crossings,
fencing, seeding)
315 1100 100
Estimated average annual runoff P and erosion reductions
in Pleasant Valley from cost-shared management in the
implementation period (2010-2013) compared to baseline
(2006-2009)

8. Constructed practices
Constructed practices:
• Small water control
structures
• Diversions
• Barnyards/feeding areas
• Milk house waste
Stream bank protection
• Fencing and cattle
crossings
• Shaping

9. Land use changes on non-targeted
farms added to watershed P loads
Estimated P delivery
from agricultural
land in Pleasant
Valley if only
participating farms
assessed in 2013
Estimated P delivery
from all agricultural
land in Pleasant
Valley

10. Challenges of inventory and tracking
• Many small fields (average field size <5
acres)
• Labor intensive
• Farm ownership and field boundaries and
names changed
• Could not use nutrient management plans
for updates due to inconsistencies in field
names and crop records
• Original assessment for targeting highest P
loss areas; not geared to quantifying
reductions

11. Challenges of implementation
• Short time-frame for sign-up for
federal cost-share
• Two of ten farms in initial target group
reluctant to participate
• Green County and local agricultural
consultants not brought in as initial
partners
• “Learning curve” for all partners
• Shifts in land operators
• Verification time consuming

12. Farmers responded
Targeted implementation worked
Stream responded
Photos: L. Betts
M. Godfrey

13. $ per pound P ?
Cropland management practice cost-share
expenditures per unit reduction in P delivery
and erosion (assuming 4 years with same)
Adding in costs of technical assistance and
verification would add $5 - $10 per pound P
P Index Erosion
$ per lb $ per lb
Dairy farm 5 8
Beef farm 7 30
Cash grain 19 32

14. Lessons for Water Quality Projects
• Involve all land managers and
advisers at the start
• Periodically reassess watershed for
new high delivery risks
• Provide adequate assistance and
time for farmers to make decisions
about their management changes

15. We gratefully acknowledge funding from USDA‐NIFA award #2009‐51130‐06049
Questions?