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

1. How Understanding Field to Stream Sediment and
Phosphorus Fluxes can Inform Targeted
Conservation in Agricultural Areas:
Lessons Learned from the Pleasant Valley Project
Rebecca Carvin
USGS WI Water Science Center, Middleton, WI
Laura Ward Good
University of Wisconsin‐Madison Soils
Faith Fitzpatrick
USGS WI Water Science Center, Middleton, WI
Jasmeet Lamba
University of Wisconsin‐Madison Bio‐Systems Engineering

2. Sources and Sinks of Sediment and
Nutrients ‐‐ Objectives
Quantify and track how targeted conservation reduces
phosphorus and suspended sediment fluxes at a
watershed outlet
Better understand storage, delivery, and lag times of
phosphorus and sediment from uplands and eroding
banks to the watershed outlet
Provide data for decision‐making on targeted upland
conservation practices and stream restoration
Expand tools for understanding ecology‐based impairments
and TMDLs.

3. Sources and Sinks of Sediment and
Nutrients ‐‐ Objectives

4. Total P saw a significant reduction in
2013 (p=0.1)
0 10 100 1,000 10,000
TotalP[lbs]PleasantValley(treatment)
0101001,00010,000
Total P [lbs] Smith Conley (reference)

5. Sediment sources, fluxes, and sinks act at different
spatial and temporal scales
Soft sedimentSoft sediment
Valley bottoms
Hillslopes

6. BANK (SOURCE) SILTATION/SOFT SEDIMENT (SINK)
V = L x H x R
L = Length of eroding bank (m)
H = Height of eroding bank (m)
R = bank retreat rate (m/yr)*
V = volume of eroded sediment (m^3/yr)
*Retreat rate based on average from
UW Pioneer Farm of 0.041 m/yr
L
H
V = L x W x T
L = Length of soft sediment (m)
W = Width of soft sediment (m)
T = thickness (m)
V = volume of stored soft sediment
(m^3)
L
W
T
R
Channel Sediment Sources and Sinks Calculator
(2009‐10)

7. Bank Erosion
Fitzpatrick, et al., in draft
Bank Erosion and Main Causes
Pleasant Valley
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Channel Slope (%)
Eroding Banks Total Area (ft2)
Fluvial/masswasting
Cattle
None
Bank Erosion and Main Causes
Pleasant Valley
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
Watershed Area (mi^2)
Eroding Banks Total Area
(ft2)
Fluvial/masswasting
Cattle
None
• The amount of eroding banks in Pleasant Valley was not simply related to a
single cause‐‐geomorphic agent, position in the watershed, or channel slope.
• Much of the main stem has riprap bank stabilization.

8. Soft Sediment Deposition
Fitzpatrick, et al., in draft
• Amount of soft sediment was somewhat related to position within the
watershed.
• Reach at USGS gage had lowering amount of soft sediment from 2009‐11.
0
500
1,000
1,500
0 10 20
Soft Sediment (tons/mile)
Watershed Area (mi^2)
Soft Sediment Deposition
2009
2011
Soft Sediment Deposition
0
500
1,000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Channel slope (%)
Sediment (tons/mile)
USGS Gage
USGS
Gage

9. WI DNR Habitat Data
Trends in Silt Coverage

10. Suspended Sediment Sources
Sediment Fingerprinting Results
Gage
2010 2011 2012
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Relative Contribution (%)
Stream Banks
Woolands
Agriculture
Lamba, et al., in press
Woodlands
Streambanks

11. UPLAND SOIL EROSION
0.8 tons/ac/y
SOFT SEDIMENT
SAVINGS AND LOAN
1.2 tons/ac
Pre‐Implementation Watershed Sediment Budget
USGS Gage
BANK EROSION
0.06 tons/ac/y
ANNUAL WATERSHED
EXPORT (GAGE)
0.15 tons/ac/y
(2007 -10 data, various sources)

12. Science to Targeted Conservation Connections
Lessons Learned
• Total phosphorus loads have decreased compared to the
reference watershed.
• Sediment yields from farm fields are about 13 times higher
than bank erosion (but sediment erosion from fields has
add’l storage in hill slopes and floodplains).
• Bank erosion amounts vary but likely account for about
30% of annual export, but no more than 40%.
• There are about 8 yrs worth of annual export of suspended
sediment stored in soft sediment deposition.
• For targeted conservation, consideration is needed of both
agricultural conservation practices and stream restoration
Coon Creek Restoration,
October 2010 Silver Spring Creek, Site 11, June 2010

13. STUDY PARTNERS, ASSISTANCE, AND FUNDING
Dane County, Land Conservation Division
Iowa County Land Conservation Department
Green County Land Conservation Department
University of Wisconsin‐Madison
University of Wisconsin‐Extension
U.S. Geological Survey
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
Wisconsin DNR
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection
The Nature Conservancy
Landowners and Farmers
Monsanto Corporation
McKnight Foundation
USGS cooperative program
Research funding provided by USDA‐NIFA award #2009‐51130‐06049
Questions?