Targeting conservation practices
0 likes178 views
1) The Pleasant Valley project targeted conservation practices to 10 farms within a watershed that were estimated to have the highest phosphorus loss to improve water quality. 2) Through practices like no-till farming, pasture improvements, and constructed structures, the targeted farms reduced their estimated phosphorus runoff by 3,300 pounds per year and soil erosion by 2,000 tons per year. 3) However, changes in untargeted areas of the watershed increased overall phosphorus loads, highlighting the challenges of continuously tracking conservation efforts across all land within a watershed.
Targeting conservation practices
- 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