1. Authors: Megan Cole, Dan Mrotek, Nick Reynolds, Mitchell Schutte, and Tyler Wildman
Prepared for: Dodge County Land Conservation Department
and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
December 14, 2015
of a County-wide
Riparian Buffer Ordinance
in Dodge County, WI
EVALUATING THE FEASIBILITY
2.
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 DODGE COUNTY LAND USE ................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 TYPES OF BUFFERS ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 BUFFER WIDTH AND EFFECTIVENESS ...................................................................................................... 5
2.5 MANAGEMENT OF RIPARIAN BUFFERS .................................................................................................. 11
2.5.1 Headwater Streams ................................................................................................................ 11
2.5.2 Maintenance ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.5.3 Managing Invasive Species ..................................................................................................... 12
2.6 ISSUES WITH IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................... 12
2.6.1 Economics: .............................................................................................................................. 12
2.6.2 Complications with Drainage .................................................................................................. 13
3.0 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 REGULATORY APPROACHES ................................................................................................................. 15
3.1.1 Conservation Agriculture Methods ........................................................................................ 15
3.1.2 Nutrient Management ........................................................................................................... 16
3.1.3 Edge‐of‐field techniques ........................................................................................................ 17
3.2 VOLUNTARY .................................................................................................................................. 21
3.3 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 22
3.3.1 Farmer‐led Watershed Councils .............................................................................................. 22
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 24
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 25
6.0 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................ 26
6.1 APPENDIX A. TABLE OF THE SOIL TYPES OF DODGE COUNTY ..................................................................... 26
6.2 APPENDIX B. SUGGESTED TREES AND SHRUBS ........................................................................................ 31
7.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 34
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following for their assistance in the completion in this report:
Laura Stremick‐Thompson – Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Marc Bethke – Dodge County Land Conservation Department
Dr. Neal O’Reilly, Ph.D., PH – Professor at the University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee
Julia Olmstead – Coordinator with the St. Croix/Red Cedar River Basin, Farmer‐led Watershed
Councils
Nathan Utt – Environmental Engineer, EcoExchange
3. 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Dodge County is an area with a population of 88,759 and an estimated stream length of 1,649 miles.
Non‐point source pollution in the form of agricultural runoff can cause declining water quality. This is
definitely the case in Dodge County, where more than 90% of land use is agriculture. Large amounts of
associated runoff due to fertilizer use and farming practices are central to this issue. With a history of
poor water quality, the concerns of the county's citizens have continually increased. This report is an in‐
depth review of the effectiveness of riparian buffers and their implementation on a county‐wide scale.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Due to high levels of chemical runoff from agricultural fields, Dodge County has begun to consider
mandating practices that would help contribute to the reduction of these problems. Local stakeholders
have offered criticism as water pollution made wells undrinkable, and waterways unsightly. Policy
makers have struggled to find a solution that is fair to all involved.
With more than 5,000,000 pounds of nitrogen lost per year from farmer's fields in Dodge County, much
of it ends up in the streams, lakes, and groundwater that provide the population with potable water.
When nitrate levels were tested in the wells of Dodge County, more than 15% contained levels higher
that 10 mg/l, and an additional 20% contained between 1‐10 mg/l of nitrates. According to the EPA,
ingesting nitrate levels above 10 mg/l could lead to serious illness and death in infants. Safe drinking
water has since grown as a priority for the residents of Dodge County. (Masarik, Neuendor, Mechenich,
2007)
In addition to nitrogen running from fields into streams and lakes, the county is also concerned about
the levels of phosphorus that are entering waterways in the same manner. In 2014, an aquatic
monitoring station in Dodge County found an average total phosphorus value of 0.1465 mg/L which is
nearly double the state's total phosphorus criteria of 0.075 mg/L. (Cadmus Group, 2011) These high
levels of phosphorus encourage algal growth in lakes and lead to eutrophication. Although phosphorus
is an essential nutrient for plant growth, too much can lead to a loss of biodiversity and in turn reduce
the recreational potential for a waterway. (UW‐Extension, 2014)
To combat these unsafe levels of chemical runoff, the people of the county pushed to legally require all
farms to enact riparian buffers for every stream on their property. This action was not supported by all
shareholders within the county, and garnered a tie vote from the policy‐makers. While this may be
discouraging to some, it afforded more time to gather information and research the effectiveness of
stream buffers. This paper will focus on the viability of a stream buffer mandate, and whether or not this
injunction could be successful in the county. Although stream buffers are the focal point, some attention
will be given to alternative methods of chemical reduction in runoff from agricultural land.
4. 2
2.1 Goals and Objectives
The goal of this project is to research the feasibility of implementing mandatory stream buffers within
Dodge County.
Determine effectiveness of a buffer based on width and vegetation.
Estimate potential cost of implementing a county wide buffer ordinance, based on different
widths (including loss of agricultural revenue).
Provide alternative practices for meeting water quality goals.
2.2 Dodge County Land Use
Using ArcMap GIS software, a representation of Dodge County was made, displaying the different types
of land use prominent throughout the county. As expected, our results show that agriculture occupies
the majority of the land within Dodge County. With the software, we also displayed lakes and rivers
within the county. Looking at figure 1, it is quite evident that there is a high potential for agricultural
runoff into water bodies due to the proximity of agricultural land to nearly any stream.
Figure 1 showing Dodge County by Land Use
12. 10
Brown et al. Buffer Width Equation:
Bw = S1/2
/E
Bw = the width of the buffer in ft.
S = average slope of the land in ft. per 100 ft.
E = erodibility factor; SCS erosion factors: 4 = k factors of 0.1, 3 = k factors of 0.15, 2 = k factors
of 0.17, and 1 = k factors > 0.17.
Soil data on Dodge County was obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service Soil Survey of Dodge County Wisconsin (Fox, 1937). Erosion factors (k) can be
found using the above source and are defined as the rate at which a soil will erode (Brown et al., 1987).
Slopes in the county ranged from 0‐2, 2‐6, 6‐12, 12‐18, 12‐25, and 18‐30 percent. For example, a "palms
muck" (Pa) 0‐2 percent slopes, farmland of statewide importance, has an erosion factor (k) of 0.1. Using
the above equation, buffer width can be calculated and graphed (Figure 3) using the erodibility factor of
4, giving an efficient buffer length of 35.36 ft. Figure 8 shows the width of buffer needed for each
erodibility factor and the slope attributed to the specific soil type. As shown in the graph, the lower the
soil erosion factor, the higher the erodibility factor (it takes more energy to erode the soil), leading to a
smaller buffer width requirement. There is a positive relationship between buffer width and slope, the
higher the slope percent, the larger the buffer needed in this area.
Figure 8. Erodibility factors by slope vs. buffer widths. Shows the required buffer widths for certain soil types based on erosion
factors of soil and slope. Soil with high erosion factors is given a lower erodibility factor to account for a larger buffer width.
This equation is meant to be used as a general reference from which a more detailed, specific formula
can be developed for conditions within Dodge County. At a very site‐specific level, the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE) may be more appropriate for determining buffer widths if adequate knowledge can be
obtained (Brown et al., 1987). The USLE could be used in conjunction with the previous equation to find
better site specific buffer widths by including rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility factor, topographic factors,
and cropping management factors. Brown’s equation addresses the sediment runoff of a field but fails
to address the other main pollutant nitrogen. The shorter buffer widths derived from this formula are
14. 12
implemented into the smaller stream sections leaving the already forested areas of some larger streams
untouched to minimize the cost of the project.
2.5.2 Maintenance
Sound nutrient management plans and erosion control systems can lead to less maintenance costs.
Yearly and following large storms, inspections for buffers are needed to address the potential sediment
build up or erosion from channelized flow (Welsch, 1991). Grass buffer strips may also need to be
occasionally mowed if no controlled grazing activities are in place.
2.5.3 Managing Invasive Species
Due to a lack of a native seedbank in the soil and a long period with no natural vegetation, it is highly
likely that invasive species will have to be addressed. Young, growing vegetation next to riparian areas
are susceptible to invasives transported by the stream. It is not recommended to plant non‐native
species but to instead plant young seedlings or larger plants transplanted from other local sites (Correll,
2005). Herbicide use is not recommended unless extreme action is needed. A management plan for
invasive species is a necessary step in any riparian buffer ordinance.
2.6 Issues with Implementation
2.6.1 Economics:
Estimating the cost of implementing a county‐wide stream buffer ordinance is imperative to determine
its feasibility. By utilizing previous corn and soybean prices, the two most commonly grown crops in
Dodge County, its possible to gain an idea of the economic commitment required to go forward with a
stream buffer ordinance.
In 2012 the average corn yield for Wisconsin was 121 bushels per acre and one bushel of corn was
selling for an average of $6.90 (USDA). On average for all of Wisconsin, if one acre of corn were
harvested, it would equate to gross revenue of $834.90 per acre. Dodge County in particular had an
average yield of 141.4 bushels per acre in 2012 (USDA). In turn, farmers in Dodge County were averaging
gross revenue around $972.90 per acre of corn. On average, the input cost to maintain a cornfield is
around $743, according to the University of Illinois‐Urbana‐Champaign. When considering the input
costs, in 2012 Wisconsin averaged a profit of $91.90 per acre of corn. For Dodge County, 1 acre of corn
constituted an average of $229 per acre.
In 2012 the average soybean yield for Wisconsin was 41.5 bushels per acre and soybeans were selling
for an average of $13.90 per bushel (USDA). Cumulatively, Wisconsin was averaging a yield of 41.5
bushels per acre. Dodge County in particular had an average yield of 47.2 Bushels per acre in 2012
(USDA). Consequently, farmers in Dodge County were averaging gross revenue around $656.08 per acre
of soybeans. The total input cost to maintain an acre of soybeans is about $531. When considering the
input costs, Wisconsin averaged a profit of $45.85 per acre of soybeans. Dodge County in particular
averaged a profit of $125.08 per acre of soybeans.
Based on the 2012 data and GIS mapping of total stream length we were able to estimate the loss in
profit per year when adopting buffers with different widths. It important to keep in mind the fluctuation
of market price per bushel of corn, ever‐changing weather conditions, and growing season conditions,
which is why we are only able to make a rough estimate as to how much money farmers, would lose by
converting farmland into stream buffers.
15. 13
Total Buffer width (ft2
) Potential loss in profit ($177/acre)
20 $707,731
40 $1,415,463
60 $2,123,194
80 $2,830,926
100 $3,538,657
Figure 11: A table estimating the potential loss in profit for Dodge County per year corresponding to theoretical stream buffer
areas.
Yet another monetary cost to consider is how much it would cost to install the riparian buffers along the
streams in Dodge Country. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Sates that on the high end to seed a riparian
buffer it would cost $1000 per acre. By computing the total stream length by different buffer widths we
are able to gauge how much it would cost to implement these buffers.
Total buffer width (ft2
) Potential cost to create riparian buffer
($1000/acre)
20 $3,998,482
40 $7,996,960
60 $11,995,447
80 $15,993,929
100 $19,992,412
Figure 12: A table estimating the potential cost for Dodge County to construct different stream buffer areas around every
stream in the county. This table does not take into account the existing stream buffers in Dodge County; instead it assumes
there are currently no existing buffers.
2.6.2 Complications with Drainage
Further complications arise when considering that not all of Dodge County’s land is naturally drained.
Drain tile systems are common in farms throughout the county, and in many cases reduce or negate
natural surface runoff that would otherwise be addressed by a riparian buffer. Rain and irrigation water
(along with excess nutrients) are drained via subsurface pipes that bypass the buffer and lead straight to
a stream or ditch, rendering the buffer useless. Figure 13 shows that a full 25% of Dodge County land is
only considered “prime” for farming if it is in some way drained. We may also speculate that due to the
undeniable agricultural advantages provided to farmers, drain tiles likely exist in lands within the
category of “prime farmland” as well. While the exact percentage and acreage of drain‐tiled farmland is
not quantified here, it is a large enough “unknown” to give pause when designing a blanket ordinance.
17. 15
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
As previously illustrated, there are scenarios where riparian buffers are not an appropriate solution.
There are other practices that can reduce agricultural runoff from polluting water systems. For the
purpose of this report, select alternatives have been divided into 3 categories: regulatory, voluntary, and
implementation strategies.
Regulatory alternatives are categorized as such due to their non‐incentivized nature ‐‐ they may be
"enforced" by a governing body. These methods may be used in that capacity. Voluntary alternatives are
incentive‐based, and farmers may elect to participate if desired. Implementation strategies do not
strictly fall into either category, and may contain a mix of methods and incentives.
3.1 Regulatory approaches
3.1.1 Conservation Agriculture Methods
Conservation Tillage
Tillage practices are used in agriculture as a way to prepare a soil for planting crops in the growing
season; this is done by turning up the top horizons of a soil. Farmers have a variety of reasons why they
till their soil, but primarily it is a way to make their soils less compacted, by breaking up the structure of
the soil, allowing water and air to infiltrate it. This is often performed by heavy machinery (plows). There
are no cover crops and crop residue is removed from the surface of the soil.
Soil erosion on agricultural fields is a problem intensified by tillage. This is a problem that should
concern farmers, as increased erosion in their fields will decrease productivity of their soils, requiring
additional application of fertilizers. The erosion off of agricultural land can develop into runoff carrying
sediments containing fertilizer and pesticides, affecting water quality of nearby waterways. Thinking
from this perspective, it would be wise to reform tillage practices to a more conservational approach to
reduce soil erosion (Al‐Kaisi, 2004).
Conservation Tillage, or “no‐till” removes the process of tilling on the field. This allows the soils to retain
their structure and continue to develop, whereas tillage will eliminate on‐going internal soil processes.
Conservation tillage practices have multiple benefits for the soil, farmers, and surrounding environment.
For the purpose of this study, the reduction in soil erosion is most relevant. Leftover crop residue and
reduction in tillage can hold the soil in place, resulting in a decrease of the amount of runoff from
leaving the site. Although this practice is listed as an alternative in this report, it would be wise to use
conservation tillage in addition to implementing a riparian buffer. Any reduction in runoff from leaving
the field would benefit water quality (Conservation Technology Information Center, 2015).
Cover Crops
In addition to conservation tillage, the inclusion of cover crops on agricultural land will also reduce
erosion and runoff. Runoff can decrease as much as 80%, and sediment loss can be from 40‐96%. The
amount of erosion and runoff reduction coincides with the amount of biomass a cover crop produces.
The more biomass produced, the more runoff is contained. In addition to reducing the amount of runoff
flowing off of the field, cover crops can also prevent dissolved nutrient loss. During precipitation events,
20. 18
Benefits:
Can be retrofitted to many existing tile systems
Potential savings on irrigation water in drier parts of growing season
New technology allows control of structures remotely
Allows for future utilization of other tile drain technologies (bioreactors, saturated buffers, etc.)
Challenges:
As with all end‐of‐field methods, some maintenance is required
Funding: Technical and financial assistance does exist through EQIP.
Saturated Buffers
“Saturated buffers” modify the traditional riparian buffer to work with tile drainage systems.
(Kjaersgaard et al, 2011). Applied to a conventional tile‐drained field, the underground pipes would
bypass the traditional buffer and discharge into a nearby stream or ditch, rendering it useless. A
saturated buffer would require placement of an additional control structure intercepting the tile main
coming from the field, and additional length of pipe to run parallel to the stream (at a distance from the
buffer, based on its width).
The control structure would divert a chosen percentage of the water from the main into the newly
placed parallel pipe, thereby discharging water into the soils of the buffer zone and saturating it (Jaynes
and Isenhart, 2014). At this point the saturated buffer would serve the same purpose as a traditional
buffer – with a portion of the nitrates and water being directly uptaken by plants, and a portion of the
nitrates being dealt with via denitrifying microorganisms in the saturated soil. The water continues to
percolate through the soil in its downhill gradient toward the stream where it is naturally discharged
(Jaynes and Isenhart, 2014).
The control structure can be set to divert differing amounts of flow into the saturated buffer. In the case
of unexpected heavy rains, there is still an overflow pipe that leads out from the control structure
directly to the stream and will prevent back‐ups on the field side of the structure.
As with other end‐of‐field techniques, research is ongoing. “Best practices” have not sufficiently evolved
to give solid recommendations on dimensions of saturated buffer width and length, or exact length of
pipe. However, the results are encouraging.
28. 26
6.0 Appendix
6.1 Appendix A. Table of the soil types of Dodge County
AcA Ackmore silt loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
Ar Adrian variant muck Consociation Not prime farmland
AsA Ashippun silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
AsB Ashippun silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
BsA Brookston silt loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
CcB Casco loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
CcC2 Casco loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
CcD2 Casco loam, 12 to 20 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
CdB Channahon silt loam, 1 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
CdC2 Channahon silt loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
CdD2 Channahon silt loam, 12 to 25
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
ChB Chelsea loamy fine sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation Not prime farmland
ChC Chelsea loamy fine sand, 6 to 18
percent slopes
Consociation Not prime farmland
Co Colwood silty clay loam Consociation Prime farmland if drained
DdA Dodge silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
DdB Dodge silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
DdC2 Dodge silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
EbA Elburn silt loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
Ev Elvers silt loam Consociation Prime farmland if drained and either
protected from flooding or not
frequently flooded during the growing
season
FoE2 Fox loam, 18 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
FsA Fox silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
29. 27
FsB Fox silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
FsC2 Fox silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
FsD2 Fox silt loam, 12 to 18 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
Fu Fluvaquents Consociation Not prime farmland
FxC3 Fox soils, 6 to 12 percent slopes,
severely eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
Gb Granby variant fine sandy loam Consociation Not prime farmland
HnB Hochheim silt loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
HnC2 Hochheim silt loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
HnD2 Hochheim silt loam, 12 to 20
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
HnE2 Hochheim silt loam, 18 to 30
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
HoD3 Hochheim soils, 12 to 18 percent
slopes, severely eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
Hu Houghton muck Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
Hw Houghton muck, ponded Consociation Not prime farmland
IoA Ionia silt loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
JuA Juneau silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
JuB Juneau silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
Ke Keowns silt loam Consociation Prime farmland if drained
KlA Kibbie loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Consociation Prime farmland if drained
KlB Kibbie loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Consociation Prime farmland if drained
KrB Kidder loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Consociation All areas are prime farmland
KrC2 Kidder loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
KrD2 Kidder loam, 12 to 18 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
KrE2 Kidder loam, 18 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
KwA Knowles silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
KwB Knowles silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
KwC2 Knowles silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
KxA Knowles variant silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
30. 28
KxB Knowles variant silt loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
LmA Lamartine silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
LmB Lamartine silt loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
LrB LeRoy silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
LrC2 LeRoy silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
LrD2 LeRoy silt loam, 12 to 18 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
LrE2 LeRoy silt loam, 18 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
LvB Lomira silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
LvC2 Lomira silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
MdB Markesan silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
MdC2 Markesan silt loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
MoA Mayville silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
MoB Mayville silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
MoC Mayville silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
MrB McHenry silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
MrC2 McHenry silt loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
MrD2 McHenry silt loam, 12 to 18
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
MsB Mendota silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
MsC2 Mendota silt loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
MyB Miami silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
MyC2 Miami silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
MyD2 Miami silt loam, 12 to 18 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
MzD3 Miami soils, 12 to 18 percent
slopes, severely eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
MzE3 Miami soils, 18 to 30 percent Consociation Not prime farmland
31. 29
slopes, severely eroded
NeB Neda silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
NeC2 Neda silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
NeD2 Neda silt loam, 12 to 18 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
NeE2 Neda silt loam, 18 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
NvB Neda variant silt loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
NvC2 Neda variant silt loam, 6 to 18
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
NxA Nenno silt loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
NxB Nenno silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
Ot Otter silt loam Consociation Prime farmland if drained and either
protected from flooding or not
frequently flooded during the growing
season
Pa Palms muck, 0 to 2 percent slopes Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
Ph Pella silty clay loam, cool, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Consociation Prime farmland if drained
Pk Pella variant silt loam Consociation Prime farmland if drained
Pn Pits Consociation Not prime farmland
PsA Plano silt loam, till substratum, 0
to 2 percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
PsB Plano silt loam, till substratum, 2
to 6 percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
PtA Plano silt loam, moderately well
drained, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
PuB Puchyan loamy fine sand, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
RcE Rock outcrop‐Channahon
complex, 5 to 30 percent slopes
Complex Not prime farmland
RxC2 Rodman‐Casco complex, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Complex Not prime farmland
RxD2 Rodman‐Casco complex, 12 to 30
percent slopes, eroded
Complex Not prime farmland
ScA St. Charles silt loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
ScB St. Charles silt loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
ScC2 St. Charles silt loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
32. 30
SdA St. Charles silt loam, moderately
well drained, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
SeA St. Charles silt loam, gravelly
subtratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
SeB St. Charles silt loam, gravelly
subtratum, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
Sk Saprists and Aquents Undifferentiate
d group
Not prime farmland
Sm Sebewa silt loam Consociation Prime farmland if drained
SuA Sisson fine sandy loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
SuB Sisson fine sandy loam, 2 to 6
percent slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
SuC2 Sisson fine sandy loam, 6 to 12
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
SuD2 Sisson fine sandy loam, 12 to 25
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
ThB Theresa silt loam, 2 to 6 percent
slopes
Consociation All areas are prime farmland
ThC2 Theresa silt loam, 6 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded
Consociation Farmland of statewide importance
ThD2 Theresa silt loam, 12 to 18
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
ThE2 Theresa silt loam, 18 to 30
percent slopes, eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
TrD3 Theresa soils, 12 to 25 percent
slopes, severely eroded
Consociation Not prime farmland
Ud Udorthents, loamy Consociation Not prime farmland
Uf Udifluvents Consociation Not prime farmland
W Water Consociation Not prime farmland
M‐W Miscellaneous water Consociation Not prime farmland
LDF Landfill Consociation Not prime farmland
34. 32
White Ash (Fraxinus americana)
Black Ash (Freaxinus nigra)
Zone 4 Trees (Evergreen)
Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
Zone 5 Shrubs
Silky Dogwood (Conrus amomum)
Common Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Zone 5 Trees (Fruit‐bearing)
Prairie Crabapple (Pyrus ioensis)
Sweet Crabapple (Pyrus coronaria)
Hawthorn (Crataegus)
Red Mulberry (Morus rubra)
Zone 5 Trees (Nut‐bearing)
Shagbark Hickory (Carya ovata)
Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)
Zone 5 Trees (Deciduous)
Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis)
Zone 4 & 5 Shrubs
Green Alder (Alnus viridis)
Speckled Alder (Alnus incana)
Smooth Alder (Alnus serrulata)
Red‐osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea)
American Highbush Cranberry (Viburnum trilobum)
Ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius)
Wild Rose (Rosa)
Zone 4 & 5 Trees (Fruit‐bearing)
Wild Plum (Prunus americana)
Eastern Serviceberry (Amelanchier canandesis)
Downy Serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea)
Smooth Serviceberry (Amelanchier laevis)
Zone 4 & 5 Trees (Nut‐bearing)
Butternut (Juglans cinerea)
Black Walnut (Juglans nigra)
White Oak (Quercus alba)
35. 33
Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa)
Swamp White Oak (Quercus bicolar)
Red Oak (Quercus rubra)
Black Oak (Quercus velutina)
Northern Pin Oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis)
Zone 4 & 5 Trees (Deciduous)
Basswood (Tilia americana)
Boxelder (Acer negundo)
Willow (Salix)
Zone 4 & 5 (Evergreen)
Jack Pine (Pinus banksiana)
White Pine (Pinus strobus)
Red Pine (Pinus resinosa)
Tamarack (Larix laricina)
When selecting species of vegetation to plant in a buffer zone, it is important to avoid plants that have
the potential to out‐compete native species. The DNR has provided a list of trees and shrubs to avoid.
Trees to avoid
Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica, Rhamnus frangula)
European Mountain Ash (Sorbus aucuparia)
Amur maple (Acer ginnala)
Norway maple (Acer platanoides)
Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
Chinese elm (Ulmus parciflora)
Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila)
European or black alder (Alnus glutinosa)
White poplar (Populus alba)
Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra italica)
Shrubs to avoid
Honeysuckles (Lonicera tatarica, Lonicera x bella, Lonicera morrowii, Lonicera aackii)
Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii)
European barberry (Berberis vulgaris)
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
European cranberry bush (Vibernum opulus)
Common privet (Lingustrum vulgare)
Burning bush (Euonymus alatus)
Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate)
Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)
Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra)
36. 34
7.0 REFERENCES
1. "2012 Corn and Soybean Budgets." Farmdoc Daily. The University of Illinois Urbana‐ Champign.
Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
2. Al‐Kaisi M. 2004. “Fre1.quent tillage and its impact on soil quality”. Integrated Crop
Management. 492:13. 78‐79.
3. Blanco‐Canqui H., Shaver T. M., Lindquist J. L., Shapiro C. A., Elmore R. W., Francis C. A., Hergert
G. W. 2015. “Cover Crops and Ecosystem Services: Insights from Studies in Temperate
Soils”. Agronomy Journal. 107:6. 2449‐2474.
4. Cadmus Group, Inc. "Total Maximum Daily Loads for Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended
Solids in the Rock River Basin." 1 July 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
5. "Conservation Practices to Reduce Pesticide Losses." National Resource Conservation Service,
USDA (2000): 1‐21. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
6. Cooke, R. A., Bell N. L. "Protocol and Interactive Routine for the Design of Subsurface
Bioreactors." Applied Engineering in Agriculture Appl. Eng. Agric. (2014): 761‐71. Print.
7. Correll, David L. "Principles of Planning and Establishment of Buffer Zones." Ecological
Engineering (2005): 433‐39. Print.
8. "Cover Crops." Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
9. Diebel, M. “Cover photo.” UW‐Madison Center for Limnology. 2014. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
10. Fox, Robert E., 1937‐. Soil Survey of Dodge County, Wisconsin. [Washington]:Dept. of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, 1980. Print.
11. Frankenberger, J., Kladivko, E., Sands, G., Jaynes, D., Fausey, N., Helmers, M., Cooke, R., Strock,
J., Nelson, K., Brown, L. “Drainage Water Management for the Midwest.” 2006. Purdue
University Extension. Web. 1 Dec. 2015
12. "Guidance and Resources for Stream Improvement Projects." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southeast Region. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/partners/pdf/GuidanceResources4StreamImprove
mentProjects.R4FINAL.pdf>
13. Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
Iowa State University Department of Agriculture and Life Sciences. "Iowa nutrient
reduction strategy: A science and technology‐based framework to assess and reduce
nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico." Iowa State University. 2013.
http://www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/NRSfull
130529.pdf (accessed 11/12/15)
14. Jaynes, D. B., and T. M. Isenhart. "Reconnecting Tile Drainage to Riparian Buffer Hydrology for
Enhanced Nitrate Removal." Journal of Environment Quality: 631. Print.
15. Lee K. H., Isenhart T. M., Schultz R. C. 2003. “Sediment and nutrient removal in an
established multi‐species riparian buffer”. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.
58:1. 1‐8.
16. Masarik, K.C., D.L. Neuendorf, and D.J. Mechenich. "Dodge County Groundwater: A Community
Resource." Center for Watershed Science and Education/UW‐Stevens Point. 1 July 2007.
Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
17. Mayer, Paul M., Steven K. Reynolds Jr., Timothy J. Canfield. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative
Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness a Review of Current Science and Regulations.
Cincinnati, Ohio: National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Print.
18. "MCCC: Cover Crop Information." Midwest Cover Crop Council. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
37. 35
19. Mutch, Dale. "Cover Crop Overview." Michigan State University. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.
20. NRCS. "Environmental Quality Incentives Program." Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/>.
21. NRCS, Iowa. “Natural Resources Conservation Service Interim Conservation Practice Standard
Vegetated Subsurface Drain Outlet – Code 739.” 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2015
22. NRCS. “Rapid Watershed Assessment Upper Rock River.” 2007. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_019941.pdf>
23. "Nutrient Management." WI DATCP. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
24. Olmstead, J. “Utilizing Performance‐Based Farmer‐Led Watershed Councils to Reduce
Phosphorus Runoff, Improve Water Quality and Enhance Agricultural Productivity.”
2014. University of Wisconsin Extension. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
<http://blogs.ces.uwex.edu/wflcp/files/2014/05/Farmer‐Whitesheet‐Pages‐May
2014.pdf>
25. Osborne, L. L. and D. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water‐quality
restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29: 243‐258.
26. Osmond, D.L., J.W. Gilliam and R.O. Evans. 2002. Riparian Buffers and Controlled Drainage to
Reduce Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution, North Carolina Agricultural Research
Service Technical Bulletin 318, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
27. Singer, Jeremy. "Legume Living Mulches in Corn and Soybean." (2005): University of Iowa. 1‐4.
Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
28. “So, What Should I Plant? Trees, Shrubs and Vines with Wildlife Values”. Wildlife and Your Land.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Date accessed: 11 November, 2015.
<http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0223_a.pdf>
29. Sweeney, Bernard W. and J. Denis Newbold, 2014. Streamside Forest Buffer Width Needed to
Protect Stream Water Quality, Habitat, and Organisms: A Literature Review. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 50(3): 560‐584. DOI:
10.1111/jawr.12203
30. “Top 10 Conservation Tillage Benefits”. Conservation Technology Information Center. 2015.
Web. <http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/resourcedisplay/293/>.
31. Welsch, D., 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement
of Water Resources. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area
State and Private Forestry. Publication NA‐PR‐07‐91. Randor, PA.
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/n_resource/buffer/cover.htm.
32. USDA. “2012 Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics.” United States Department of Agriculture
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2012. Web.
33. USDA. “Wisconsin Ag news – 2014 Corn County Estimates.” United States Department of
Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 21 Nov. 2015.
34. UW‐Extension. "Volunteer Total Phosphorus Monitoring." Water Action Volunteers. 2014. Web.
12 Dec.2015
<http://watermonitoring.uwex.edu/pdf/level3/TP/Reports/2014/OliverCrkCthS.pdf>.