0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Agr

icul

tura

l Lan

d Po

rtec

ted

(acr

es)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Num

ber o

f BM

Ps Im

plem

ente

d .Area protected by BMPs

Number of BMPs implemented

Figure 1. Increases in best management practices implemented in the Cheney Lake Watershed, 1994-2006.

Cheney LakeWatershed

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service

Trends in Conservation PracticesIt is difficult to evaluate conservation practice effects on

water quality because of the many confounding factors in space and time. It requires a detailed knowledge of both the trends in water quality conditions and the type, number, and location of the conservation practices adopted. The location of conservation practices implemented is particularly important. If the practices are implemented in critical areas, which generate the majority of nonpoint source pollution, they will have a greater influence on water quality than practices implemented in less critical areas. Therefore, a history of conservation practice implementation within a watershed is necessary to determine progress toward achieving watershed project goals.

Conservation Practices in Cheney Lake WatershedA total of 1,369 conservation practices were implemented

from 1994 through 2006, protecting more than 77,800 acres of land, or approximately 17 percent of the total agricultural land in the Cheney Lake Watershed. Conservation practices were implemented on 15 and 25 percent of the crop and pastureland, respectively. After accounting for the expired incentive contracts, there was a net increase of 781 conservation practices in place, affecting 60,050 acres (Figure 1).

There were 39 different types of conservation practices implemented, with the top four practices (nutrient management, terraces, household waste improvements, and conservation tillage) accounting for 65 percent of all conservation practice contracts.

Nutrient management. Nutrient management was the most commonly implemented practice. A total of 17,586 acres were under nutrient management contracts during the study period (5 percent of all cropland). The cropland area under nutrient management contracts peaked in 2001, then declined to just 100 acres in 2006.

Terraces. Terrace installation was the top-ranked conservation practice implemented in terms of area affected, and the second-ranked practice in terms of number of contracts. Terraces were installed multiple times in several fields during the study period, resulting in an increase in the number of terrace contracts after 2002, but with little or no increase in the cropland area protected by terraces. These additional terraces would increase the level of conservation practice protection for the affected fields, but do not increase the distribution of conservation practices throughout the watershed.

Household waste improvements. Household waste improvements (i.e. on-site septic systems) were the third most common conservation practice implemented in the watershed. About 10 percent of the septic systems were

improved through cost-sharing conservation practice funding. Adoption of household waste conservation practices remained fairly consistent during the study period because cost sharing was limited, and demand was high.

Conservation tillage. As with nutrient management plans, the number of conservation tillage contracts were highly variable during the period examined. This could be a result of the changes in cost-share programs, influences of weather, crop prices, or other variables affecting the willingness of producers to change tillage practices. Because many producers have changed tillage practices without cost-share payments or conservation practice contracts, we surveyed the current tillage practices in the watershed (Figure 2). Our data show that 22 percent of the cropland was either no-till or reduced till in 2009. No-till and reduced till were practiced on as much as 50 percent of the cropland for some sub-watersheds.

Trends in the Location of Conservation PracticesConservation practice implementation was not evenly

distributed throughout the watershed during the 13-year study. The number of conservation practice contracts per hydrologic unit code sub-watershed ranged from 14 to 219 contracts (Figure 2). The sub-watershed with the greatest number of contracts was Goose Creek watershed. The vast majority of contracts were for nutrient management planning. The other commonly implemented conservation practices were terraces and household waste system improvements (Figure 4).

The percent of agricultural land area affected by cost-share conservation practices during the study ranged from 1 to 43 percent. The sub-watershed containing Irish Creek had the

Goose Creek

Irish Creek

Red RockCreek

0 6 12 18 243

Miles

® Percent of Animal Feeding Operations thatinstalled BMPs between 1994 and 2007

14

24 - 27

34 - 40

52 - 56

101

116 - 134

147 - 169

219

Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned.

Publications from Kansas State University are available at: www.ksre.ksu.eduPublications are reviewed or revised annually by appropriate faculty to reflect current research and practice. Date shown is that of publication or

last revision. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, creditDaniel Devlin et al., Cheney Lake Watershed: Trends in Conservation Practices, Kansas State University, August 2011.

Daniel Devlin, Director, Kansas Center for Agricultural Resources

and the EnvironmentHoward Miller, Cheney

Lake Watershed Inc.

Nathan Nelson, Agronomist, Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management,

Department of AgronomyPhilip Barnes, Water Quality Engineer

Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Lisa French, Cheney Lake Watershed Inc.Lyle Frees, USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service

Figure 5. Differences in implementation of three conservation practices in two sub-watersheds (1997 and 2007).

Goose Creek

Irish Creek

Red RockCreek

0 6 12 18 243

Miles

® Percent of Cropland Converted to CRPfrom 1997 to 2007

-4 - 02 - 3

5 - 89 - 14

16 - 20

Rivers

Cheney Reservoir

Conventional Till

Reduced Till

No Till

4

0 8 16 244

Miles

Figure 4. Location of best management practice contracts implemented in each sub-watershed (1994-2006).

Figure 6. Trend in Conservation Reserve Program enrollment by sub-watershed (1994-2006).

Figure 2. Location of no-till cropping systems by sub-watershed (1994-2006).

Figure 3. Number of conservation practices implemented in each sub-watershed (1994-2006).

Cheney LakeWatershed

Kansas

0 6 12 18 243

Miles

®Cropland BMPs

Incentive BMPs

Pasture/Range BMPs

Other BMPs

Household Waste BMPs

Animal Waste BMPs

Perennial Streams

HUC 14 Boundaries

This project is funded by the USDA-CSREES Integrated Grant Program Conservation Effects Assessment Projects (CEAP) project number 2006-51130-30707.

greatest relative conservation practice coverage based on land area, with 43 percent of the agricultural land protected by conservation practices. Primary conservation practices imple-mented in Irish Creek Watershed were nutrient management planning, conservation tillage, and terraces.

The trend for implementation of specific conservation prac-tices varied considerably among sub-watersheds. Conservation Reserve Program enrollment, for example, was higher in Goose Creek sub-watershed than in Red Rock Creek (Figures 5 and 6). The difference in no-till cropping system adoption between those two sub-watersheds was also striking (Figures 2 and 5).

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension ServiceMF3034 August 2011K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, as amended. Kansas State University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, Gary Pierzynski, Interim Director.