In the early 1970’s the topic of “Urban Development in Rural Areas” (UDIRA) was a driving force in the development and implementation of rural planning. Thirty years later we continue to respond to many of the same issues. While these topics have a new label—“Smart Growth” or “Growth Management”—the issues in some ways remain fundamentally unchanged. In the 1960’s and 1970’s we recognized that urban development in rural areas was consumptive of land and resources, was in competition with agriculture and from an environmental perspective was often less than desirable. As planners we still acknowledge these problems, but in addition we need to recognize that the countryside has changed in many other ways—agriculture has become larger, more obnoxious, and less compatible, the rural economy has restructured in a variety of ways, and rural institutions are increasingly threatened.

In this context the question can be asked: “What have we learned over the last 30 years?” To provide answers to this question municipal planners from across Ontario have been consulted to help develop a provincial overview of the successes and failures in dealing with “Rural Non-Farm Development”. The presentation will present the results of this research to help establish current development trends in the rural areas of Ontario. The fieldwork for this research was completed during the summer of 2001.

The research will have implications for anyone who is interested in the planning aspects of such terms as “Smart Growth”, “Growth Management,’ “Farmland Preservation’ and the related implications for rural communities. Although there is an Ontario focus, the authors will ensure that the results and observations are presented in a format that will be of interest to those from other states and provinces.

Keywords: urban development in rural areas, rural non-farm development, Ontario, land use trends, Smart Growth

Technology and comprehensive land use planning
Miskowiak, D.A.
Corresponding author: Douglas Miskowiak
University of Wisconsin, B102 Steenbock Library, 550 Babcock Dr,
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-263-5534 Fax: 608-262-2500
Email: damiskow@students.wisc.edu

Comprehensive Land Use Planning is mandated for all Wisconsin municipalities by 2010, including rural towns. To meet state requirements, each community must address nine “Smart Growth” elements and engage citizens in the planning process.

Communities in Wisconsin are relying on geo-spatial technologies and a sufficiently robust Land Information System (LIS) to catalyze community decision-making. Planning Analyst is a concept for linking LIS to the planning process using a mix of GIS, decision-support software, Web technologies, and engagement tools.

Using Planning Analyst, the professional and citizen planner alike will be able to EXPLORE community issues, ANALYZE place-based factors, ALLOCATE resources and sustainable new growth, and EVALUATE impacts from various “what if” scenarios.

The Planning Analyst decision support system is derived from the “Shaping Dane’s Future” project in the Town and City of Verona in Dane County, Wisconsin. This project was selected as one of six United States Reinventing Government program sites in 1998 and recipient of Former Vice President, Al Gore’s Hammer Award in 2000. The Natural Resource Conservation Service has extended this research into the Town and City of Brillion, Wisconsin.

Rising farmland values: How much is attributable to government payments and urbanization?
Nehring, R., C. Barnard, and V. Breneman
Corresponding author: Richard F. Nehring
USDA-ERS, 104 Crossing Pointe Ct, Frederick, MD 21702
Phone: 202-694-5618 Fax: 202-694-5756
Email: rnehring@ers.usda.gov

Farm real estate is the most valuable asset of the farm sector, currently accounting for more than three-quarters of total assets. Yet, increasing proportions of that wealth are attributable to factors that are unrelated to the productive capacity of farmland. Today, two of the largest determinants of the value of US farmland are urban influence and direct Federal commodity program payments. Both factors may increase the fixed cost of agricultural production without any corresponding increase in productivity and without proportionally increasing the wealth of the many farmers who do not own large percentages of the land they operate. In this study, we estimate the percentages of farmland values attributable to government payments and urban influence in US agricultural regions. We employ hedonic regression and other techniques to calculate the county average amount that per-acre land values increased (on farms receiving program payments) for each additional dollar of commodity program payments. The technique allows us to simultaneously account for differences in soil quality, availability of irrigation, urban influence, and other factors that also influence value. Using that information, we estimate the total amount that county farmland values increased due to farm commodity program payments. We use USDA survey data in conjunction with a Geographic Information System to estimate the total dollar amount of regional farmland value that is attributable to urban influence. Results indicate that payments under previous farm commodity programs added $62 billion to US farmland values in 2000 while urban influence added $237 billion. The combined effect is particularly strong in the Heartland.

Keywords: government payments, urbanization, hedonic techniques

Planning in multiple-ownership watersheds: Social, agricultural and hydrological factors
Kraft, S., C. Lant, J. Beaulieu, L. Duram, J. Ruhl, D. Bennett, J. Adams, J. Nicklow, and T. Loftus
Corresponding author: Steven E. Kraft
Southern Illinois University, Dept of Agribusiness Economics, Mail Code 4410, Carbondale, IL 62901-4410
Phone: 618-453-2421 Fax: 618-453-1708
Email: sekraft@siu.edu

Using an open-ended questionnaire, in-depth interviews of 30 individuals who were significant players in a recently completed watershed planning process were conducted. The informants came from of three main groups: Technical Committee and Other Agency Personnel (e.g., including SIU, TNC, NRCS, Shawnee RC&D, IDNR, and FWS); Local Activists (e.g., including two active environmentalists who were not members of the watershed planning group, but who have had a long-term influence in the region); and Resource Planning Committee (RPC) Members. Interviews were conversational in format, but were based on questions relating to the individual, the planning group, and outside influences.

Based on the interviews and literature review, we have developed a set of preliminary findings. These findings deal with the following topics: (1) The Watershed Plan provides agency legitimacy "on up" in agencies; (2) There are divergent views between agency personnel and farmers in regard to the format and substance of the planning meetings; (3) Differences in the power-base between farmers and environmentalists in the region have developed over time, so that environmentalists rely on the agencies, while farmers rely on elected officials; and (4) Theories of power structure are relevant and must be illuminated in order to understand the planning process and its outcomes.

Identifying the legal framework within which watershed planning takes place is an important goal. The legal framework in conjunction with the analysis of the in depth interviews and literature review are shedding light on the question of the legitimacy of the planning process and the resulting watershed resource management plan.

Refinement of a Spatial Decision Support System (SDSS) is showing the economic and environmental consequences of different policy scenarios designed to enhance environmental quality. Watershed planners can use the SDSS to develop a number of what if scenarios and see their economic consequences and the implications for the watershed's landscape.

Keywords: watershed planning, legitimacy of the planning process, Spatial Decision Support Systems, multi-owner watersheds

Resources management and conservation for sustainable agriculture in small holder peri-urban farms in central Kenya
Mwangi, J.N. and J.M. Miriti
Corresponding author: Joseph N. Mwangi
National Agricultural Research Centre, Muguga, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 30148, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: joengamwangi@yahoo.com

Due to migration from rural areas to the fast growing urban centres close to the central Kenya highlands, agriculture in the peri-urban areas is fast changing from subsistence to intensive horticulture and livestock farming. These changes are a result of the ready market for those farm commodities. This rapid change in land use to intensive agriculture has however caused land degradation and environment pollution due to heavy use of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals. This has resulted to a decline in biodiversity because of monocropping and clearing of natural vegetation to expand cropland. An inventory on the state of natural resources management and environment conservation was carried out between 1995 and 1999 in Lari Division, a peri-urban area of Nairobi, the capital city of Kenya. Lari Division is a major supplier of vegetable, fruit and dairy products to people living in the capital. The study show there is a wide variation in resources and biodiversity management as well as environment conservation between farms. Some farms had diversified cropping systems with good nutrient management innovations that incorporated intensive soil and water conservation technologies, on-farm manure production and utilization and adoption of agroforestry systems. These had increased land productivity, conserved biodiversity and the environment. It was recommended that these farms serve as models for community training in sustainable agriculture in order to scale up and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the natural resources management and agroforestry innovations for soil fertility improvement, fodder and fruit production among other benefits to the community in this area.

10:50 – 11:10 am Relating farm size and scale to the spatial distribution of soil phosphorus at multi-field and multi-catchment scales, Perry Cabot, University of Wisconsin

11:10 – 11:30 am Managing nonpoint source water pollution on Amish farms, James Hoorman

11:30 – 11:50 am Experience with nutrient management legislation in the Province of Ontario, Pamela Joossee, Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs

11:50 – 12:10 am An analysis of soil management and tillage systems in U.S. corn production: Implications for resource use and the environment,

Lee Christensen, USDA-ERS

This presentation summarizes the results of over 20 TMDLs developed for fecal coliform impairments in agricultural watersheds in Virginia. These TMDLs were developed by six different agencies and consulting firms. The developed TMDLs are remarkably similar in their findings. All of the developed TMDLs call for 90 to 100% reductions in direct deposits of cattle manure to streams and riparian areas and some require reductions in NPS fecal coliform loadings from pasture and cropland. TMDLs that considered fecal coliform loadings from wildlife usually also required reductions in contributions from wildlife. As a result of these studies, Virginia is considering modifying its bacterial water quality standards to better consider background concentrations from wildlife. In addition to summarizing the results of previous TMDL studies, the presentation also discusses the shortcomings encountered in the TMDL development process, the use of bacterial source tracking in TMDL development, and suggests ways that the TMDL development process can be streamlined in Virginia to save time and money.

Keywords: fecal coliform, total maximum daily loads, nonpoint source pollution, water quality, agriculture, modeling

Relating farm size and scale to the spatial distribution of soil phosphorus
Cabot, P.E., P. Nowak, K. Brasier, L. Cutforth, and B. Kahn
Corresponding author: Perry E. Cabot
University of Wisconsin, 1450 Linden Dr, 420 Agriculture Hall, Department of Rural Sociology, Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-262-6049 Fax: 608-262-6022
Email: pecabot@students.wisc.edu

Nonpoint pollution from P is often identified as originating on farm fields, but even at this scale, the actual source of P can be difficult to locate. This is because the biophysical attributes and the nutrient management of the field can affect the spatial pattern of P. This paper presents a technique for classifying fields relative to their strength as potential P sources. Soil P data were acquired from multiple dairy farms based on post-harvest field research in Fall 2000. Our goal was to address how is the strength of P sources are related to farms of varying acreages, herd sizes and animal densities. The results may improve various methods of measuring P migration potential, such as phosphorus indexing. These questions are relevant to the larger issue managing P at scales that are realistic for producers and beneficial to water quality.

Managing nonpoint source water pollution on Amish farms
Hoorman, J.J.
Corresponding author: James J. Hoorman
One Courthouse Square, Ste 40, Kenton, Ohio 43326-2399
Phone: 419-674-2297 Fax: 419-674-2268
Email: hoorman1@osu.edu

The Amish are a religious group who make a living on small diversified livestock farms. Nonpoint source pollution occurs on many Amish farms, causing environmental problems. Major problems include misapplication of manure, fertilizer and pesticides, over-grazing pastures, livestock in streams, stream bank erosion, and contaminated wells.

With three USDA-CSREES grants, the Ohio State University Extension is educating 240 Amish families on Best Management Practices (BMP»s) through on-farm visits, meetings, and monthly newsletters. Education techniques included soil sampling and manure testing resulting in 100 Amish nutrient management plans (1000soil samples, 6600 acres sampled). Twenty-three replicated manure test plots were conducted to utilize manure nutrients efficiently. Three calibration clinics resulted in 10 sprayers, 19 planters, and 7 manure spreaders being calibrated. Management Intensive Grazing (MIG) concepts were taught with 17 out of 18 dairy farmers (94%) using MIG in one community. This resulted in 10,000 feet of livestock exclusion from local streams and feed savings of $7500 per farm.

Well water testing on 191 Amish wells was conducted with 75 (39.3%) testing positive for total coliform bacteria and 17 (8.9%) positive for E.Coli.. Poorly maintained equipment, undrained well pits, and surface water were found contaminating drinking water. Chemical and biological stream monitoring was conducted on 6 streams at 14 sites with high phosphorous levels and low biological activity found in streams with livestock. Outcomes included a gain in knowledge, change in attitudes, and adoption of BMP»s (75% to 90%) to improve water quality in three Amish communities.

Keywords: nonpoint pollution, best management practices, water quality, nutrient management, Amish

Experience with nutrient management legislation in the Province of Ontario
Garland, G., R. Jackiw, S. Johnston, P. Joosse, M. Kingston, and P. Smith
Corresponding Author: Pamela Joosse, Ph.D.
Resources Management Branch, Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, 1 Stone Road West, Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2
Phone: 519-826-3853 Fax: 519.826.3259
Email: pamela.joosse@omafra.gov.on.ca

Land application of nutrients in the Province of Ontario prior to June 2001 was governed by an array of legislative and regulatory provisions, guidelines, voluntary best management practices and a patchwork of municipal by-laws. Consultations held by the Task Force on Intensive Agricultural Operations and contamination of the town of Walkerton's water supply with E. coli in early 2000, spurred the government's action on the Nutrient Management Act 2001.

The legislation sets out the following steps:

• develop standards for all land-applied materials containing nutrients relating to agriculture - including livestock manure, commercial fertilizer, municipal biosolids, septage and industrial pulp and paper sludge;
• make nutrient management plans mandatory;
• build on a registry system that keeps a record of applications of materials containing nutrients
• require certification of commercial applicators
• ban the land application of untreated septage over a five-year period
• establish and deliver the required education, training and certification programs
• put in place highly-trained provincial inspectors who are knowledgeable in agriculture and the environment to enforce the new standards
• implement a risk-based approach where different categories of operations would be regulated in different ways, focusing a greater level of attention and resources where the risk to the environment is greatest

The legislation builds on lessons learned in the Ontario context for nonpoint source water pollution. It is novel in that it links together agricultural and non-agricultural sources of nutrients, and integrates the role of agriculture and environment departments.

Note: The final reading and passing of the bill will hopefully have occurred by the time of the annual meeting. Establishment of standards will also likely be underway by that point in time and be able to be discussed.

Soil management in U.S. corn production-implications for resource use and the environment
Lee A. Christensen
Corresponding author: Lee A. Christensen
USDA-ERS, 1800 M Street, NW, Rm 4048, Washington, DC 20036-5831
Phone: 202-694-5532 Fax: 202-694-5775
Email: leec@ers.usda.gov

Choices made by corn producers among soil and crop residue management practices are identified and sorted according to the producer's socioeconomic characteristics, farm financial characteristics and regional differences. Corn is a major component of farm income and is a significant user of cropland and agricultural chemicals. Some implications for farm profitability and for the environment, particularly runoff and leaching, of management choices made by corn farmers, are presented on a national and regional basis. Findings relate the adoption of soil management and crop residue management practices by corn farmers to their socioeconomic characteristics, such as age and education, farm size, and farm financial indicators such as farm income and asset levels.

The paper will identify the cropping systems and crop rotations used by corn producers in the major production regions; the Corn Belt, the Lake States, the Plains States, and the Southeast States. For example, the results will identify and compare differences in extent of continuous corn, and legume rotations, at regional and national levels. It will also identify the extent of adoption of engineered structures for soil and water conservation, and identify reasons behind regional differences in adoption. Also presented will be the extent of the various crop residue management systems (conservation tillage, reduced tillage, mulch tillage, no-till, and ridge till) on regional and national bases. It will also analyze differences in practices used on acreage classified as highly erodible land (HEL), and non-HEL.

Data are from the USDA's 1996 Agricultural Resource Management Study (ARMS), a national survey that measures both physical and economic variables. The ARMS is USDA's primary vehicle for data collection on issues about agricultural resource use and costs. It provides a national data set to better explain the linkages between socioeconomic factors and the adoption of corn management practices. Data from several versions of the ARMS survey will be used to identify the management practices used and the interrelationships between their adoption and the socioeconomic characteristics of the corn producer.

Information on the extent of adoption of the management systems, along with operator and farm characteristics of adopters and non-adopters of different crop residue management systems, suggests the implication of factors such as age and education of the farmers on system selection. Farm size is also examined by adoption classes, along with measures of farm diversity, such as cropping patterns and source of farm cash receipts. Also presented will be the apparent relationship of farm finance indicators on crop residue management systems, including gross cash income and level of farm assets.

Keywords: conservation practices, adoption, economic impacts, environmental impacts

10:50 – 11:10 am CBP watershed model: Tracking changes in significant NPS nutrient sources, Russell Mader, USSDA-NRCS, Chesapeake Bay Program Office

11:10 – 11:30 am Addressing barriers to the adoption of the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT) in Delaware, David Hansen, University of Delaware

11:30 – 11:50 am Land application of manure by animal feeding operations: Is more land needed? Marc Ribaudo, USDA-ERS

11:50 – 12:10 am Delivering manure management strategies locally in Michigan, Janice Swarta Wilford, Michigan Department of Agriculture

The Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) used to evaluate parcels of land offered for the Conservation Reserve Land is reviewed, as is the literature on ecosystem services from riparian areas. Using the EBI from the CRP as well as number of alternative formulations of the EBI, the EBIs are used in conjunction with NRI data from the Cache River watershed in Illinois to determine the extent to which the EBI's identify riparian lands providing significant ecosystem services. What is found is that the CRP EBI used for the 18th to through the 20th CRP signups does a poor job of identifying and scoring highly riparian lands. Alternative EBIs based on shifting the weights from HEL to wildlife and/or water quality do a much better job of identifying and scoring land that is high in riparian services while also capturing HEL. The implications on the cost-effectiveness of the CRP (EBI/$ or acre/$) are examined. Using alternative EBIs increases the cost-effectiveness of the CRP. Recommendations for weighting EBIs are discussed in light of the environmental goals of the CRP.

Keywords: riparian lands, CRP, environmental benefit index, cost-effectiveness, conservation policy

CBP watershed model: Tracking changes in significant NPS nutrient sources
Mader, Jr., R.L. and J. Griswold
Corresponding author: Russell L. Mader Jr.
USDA NRCS - Ches. Bay Program Office, 410 Severn Ave., Ste 109,
Annapolis, MD 21403
Phone: 410-267-5752 Fax: 410-267-5777
Email: rmader@chesapeakebay.net

The Chesapeake Bay watershed comprises 41 million acres of diverse and competing land uses, a steadily increasing population and a continually threatened estuarine system. It is through cooperation, a shared vision and goal setting that has allowed the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) to make significant reductions in delivered nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay since the Program began in 1983.

According to the CBP Watershed Model, the estimated 2000 delivered load to the Bay from all sources is 284 million pounds of nitrogen and 19 million pounds of phosphorus. This is a 53 million pound nitrogen and 8 million pound phosphorus average annual decrease from the 1985 base year and includes the reductions necessary to offset the growth in load produced by changes in population, urban development and agriculture operations during the same time period.

The ability to view "real time" nutrient reduction progress enables the Bay Program partners to evaluate the success of on-going programs, to identify significant sources of nutrients, to focus resources and programs, and to provide accountability. In addition the process provides the feedback necessary to alter or change programs in midstream in order to make them more efficient and effective with minimal loss in time or funds.

The purpose of this presentation is to present a general picture of how the CBP Watershed Model is used for evaluating success, including the input data used and the output information generated.

Keywords: Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay, nonpoint source pollution, modeling, NPS

Addressing barriers to the adoption of the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test (PSNT) in Delaware
Hansen, D.J. and G.D. Binford
Corresponding author: David J Hansen
University of Delaware, Research and Education Center, 16684 County Seat Highway, Georgetown, DE 19947
Phone: 302-856-7303 Fax: 302-856-1845
Email: djhansen@udel.edu

High levels of nitrogen (N), in the form of nitrate (NO3-), are an important water quality problem in Delaware. Although urban sources contribute locally important amounts of N, agriculture is widely considered the primary source of N in ground and surface waters in this area. Technologies and practices that result in more efficient N use in agriculture can play a critical role in improving water quality, as well as improving the profitability of farming operations. One of these technologies is the Pre-Sidedress Soil Nitrate Test (PSNT). The PSNT is a soil test that is performed when corn plants are approximately one foot tall. During the past 15 years, extensive research in many States has shown that this test is a valuable tool for improving N management in corn production. However, the PSNT is currently used by only a small percentage of corn producers. This lack of use is often due to the perception of inaccurate results when using the test. This study focused on illustrating the effects of sampling time, sampling depth, and natural or management-induced variability in fields, on PSNT results. Data collected from this study will help quantify the impact of incorrect use of the PSNT, and will be an important educational tool for producers considering the use of this technology to improve their N management.

Keywords: nitrogen, soil testing, manure

Land application of manure by animal feeding operations: Is more land needed?
Agapoff, J., M. Ribaudo, and N. Gollehon
Corresponding author: Jean Agapoff
USDA-ERS, 1800 M St NW, Rm 4039, Washington, DC 20036-5831
Phone: 202-694-5546 Fax: 202-694-5775
Email: jagapoff@ers.usda.gov

Animal waste has become a major focal point of conservation efforts. A shift in the industry over the past decade towards fewer, larger operations has resulted in concerns over the utilization and disposal of animal waste. Policymakers are currently considering alternative mechanisms to link livestock operations with available cropland to increase the nutrient contributions of manure to crop yield, thus reducing damages from residual nutrients. Land application of manure, a preferred disposal method, may be difficult and costly to implement on larger operations because of the extra land required.

Using data from the 1998 Agricultural Resource Management Study hog survey we found that on average, all confined hog operations would need to increase the land receiving manure to meet the needs of a nitrogen-based nutrient management plan. Smaller operations tended to have adequate land on the operation to meet the needs of an N-based plan, except for those in the Mid-Atlantic region. Larger operations had inadequate land for N-based plans except in the eastern Corn Belt. All large operations would need to find substantial amounts of additional land to meet the needs of a P-based plan. The use of phytase would reduce the amount of land needed for application, but the use of additional land beyond the farm would still be acquired by the largest operations. Data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture identified counties where additional land would be difficult to find for land application of animal waste.

Keywords: swine, manure, nitrogen, phosphorus, phytase, nutrient management plan, excess nutrients, animal feeding operation, application rate

Delivering manure management strategies locally in Michigan
Wilford, J.S.
Corresponding author: Janice Swartz Wilford
Manager, MI Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Environmental Stewardship Division, PO Box 30017, Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: 517-241-4730 Fax: 517-335-3329
Email: wilfordJ9@michigan.gov
website: www.michigan.gov

The Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) is piloting a program of Conservation District Environmental Assurance Specialists, through a grant to several conservation districts to support the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). This innovative approach to local delivery of manure management strategies in Michigan addresses nonpoint source pollution on livestock operations. Although the Specialist is trained in the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) process, the main focus is to assist private industry and local producers in CNMP preparation, with specific emphasis on conservation practices and treatment areas.

MAEAP was designed by a coalition of agricultural, conservation and environmental representatives to assist producers in developing farm-specific pollution prevention practices. MAEAP uses a comprehensive, education-based approach to help producers develop and adopt site-specific pollution prevention practices on farms, to use consistent record keeping systems, and to conserve our state’s valuable natural resources of soil and water.

We will discuss methods used to establish this partnership arrangement, priorities used to identify target conservation districts and overall MAEAP program success and challenges. The presentation includes future plans to expand from livestock to farmstead and cropping systems, using local partners to meet common goals.

Keywords: nonpoint source pollution, manure management, nutrient management, CNMP, conservation practices

Measuring Conservation Progress
Moderators: Leonard Jordan, NRCS, Georgia and Gary Kobylski, NRCS, Wisconsin

10:50 – 11:10 am Environmental services that voters want from agriculture and that urban-edge farmland owners are willing to provide, J. Dixon Esseks, University of Nebraska

11:10 – 11:30 am The Minnesota Citizen Stream Monitoring Program: Progress report and update on the relationship between stream transparency measurements and other watershed and water quality variables, Bill Thompson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

11:30 – 11:50 am Using TRANSECT for analyzing cropland use and tillage trends, Mark Evans, Purdue University

11:50 – 12:10 am A simple approach to accountability and reporting progress, James Dunaway, USDA-NRCS/IN, Department of Environmental Management

A pre-Clean Water Act (pre-CWA) Scenario is setup to compare the 1996 Progress Scenario to address the importance of the Clean Water Act to the Chesapeake Bay. The 1996 Progress Scenario is based on the point and nonpoint load with the nutrient management practice in year 1996. The landuse, population, and point source flow used in the pre-CWA Scenario is based on 1996. However, the concentrations of nutrient in point sources are assumed to be before the Clean Water Act. The nonpoint source loads are assumed without BMP application before the Clean Water Act. The HSPF software is used to estimate loads from the watershed to the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Model is used to simulate the response of water quality of the Bay to loads. Both models were run using 1985-1994 hydrology under their corresponding BMP conditions.

The model shows that the water quality in the Bay would be much worse in 1996 if without Clean Water Act. The following are some examples. In the pre-CWA scenario, the surface chlorophyll concentration in spring and summer is more than 2 times of the 1996 Progress Scenario, with as high as more than 100 ug/L in some model cells, consistent with the observations in the early 1970's. Lower DO (DO <=5 mg/L) areas are wider and DO is lower in the pre-CWA Scenario, such as along the deep channel of the upper Bay and Baltimore Harbor. The greatest decreases in DO is in the upper Potomac and upper Patuxent Rivers, with DO 30-40% lower in the pre-CWA Scenario, which is due to high TN, TP and TOC loads from wastewater treatment plants. The Clean Water Act protects the Chesapeake Bay from degradation, although more efforts in the implementation of the Clean Water Act are needed.

Keywords: water quality model, Clean Water Act, CWA, Chesapeake Bay, nutrient management, dissolved oxygen, pre-Clean Water Scenario

Environmental services that voters want from agriculture and that urban-edge farmland owners are willing to provide
Kraft, S.E. and J.D. Esseks
Corresponding author: J Dixon Esseks
Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska, 7911 Colby St,
Lincoln, NE 68505
Email: jesseks@msn.com

A strong federal role is needed in financing agricultural operations in this county. Whether for grants to supplement low commodity prices or cost-sharing to pay for practices required for environmental health, the federal government is asked to appropriate billions of dollars each year. The needed flow of tax dollars is more likely to be sustained if agriculture provides services that the public values.

One important set of services is environmental, such as conducting farm operations in ways that minimize pollution and that provide positive amenities like scenic landscape. Since most voters live in urban and suburban communities, and urban-edge agriculture is the sector physically closest to that majority, it would be of great help politically if farming within and adjacent to metro counties supplied services that those voters wanted.

The paper reports on two sets of coordinated surveys in 2001 that tested for the extent of congruence between these types of voter preferences and agricultural landowners’ willingness to satisfy them. Commissioned by the American Farmland Trust, one set consisted of telephone interviews with 2,216 registered voters nationwide. The second was surveying random samples of 300-plus owners of urban-edge agricultural land in each of five states: California, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York. We looked especially for correspondence between voter concern about, and owner interest in providing, (1) protection of surface and groundwater from pollution from agricultural chemicals and livestock waste, (2) recreational opportunities (hunting, hiking, agro-tourism), and (3) wildlife habitat. Happily, very considerable congruence was found.

Keywords: agriculture, constituency, cost-sharing, government, public opinion, survey, technical assistance

The Minnesota Citizen Stream Monitoring Program: Progress report and update on the relationship between stream transparency measurements and other watershed and water quality variables
Thompson, B., L. Ganske., and L. Sovell
Corresponding author: Bill Thompson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 18 WoodLake Dr SE, Rochester, MN 55904
Phone: 507-281-7764 Fax: 507-280-5515
Email: bill.thompson@pca.state.mn.us

In Minnesota, citizens and watershed improvement projects are using a relatively new state program to help track changes in the quality of streams, rivers and drainage systems. Patterned after the “secchi disk” program for lakes, the Citizen Stream Monitoring Program (CSMP) has grown steadily in the three years since it inception. The key water quality indicator in the CSMP is transparency, which is measured using a 60-cm long transparency tube. Measured transparencies have ranged from less than

1 cm to greater than 60 cm. Average transparencies are variable, and involve factors such as drainage area above the point of monitoring, watershed characteristics, and ecoregion. This simple tool can help provide a sustainable water-monitoring component to assist people involved with upland soil conservation and land management activities, in urban, rural, or mixed watersheds.

Information will be presented regarding the growing network of individual volunteers as well as groups of volunteers associated with organized watershed improvement projects. Their work has already produced useful information on the regional nature of stream water quality across Minnesota. Examples of watershed projects where CSMP work has been used effectively to shape watershed management activities will be reported.

The relationships between transparency and instream turbidity, total suspended solids, and stream stage and precipitation will be covered. The initial use of transparency as a surrogate for total suspended solids in load estimates will be addressed.

Using TRANSECT for analyzing cropland use and tillage trends
Doremire, H., K. Eck, B. Gauck, P. Hess, J. Krejci, J. Lake, G. Matzat, and K. Wininger
Corresponding author: Mark G. Evans
1007 Mill Pond Lane, Ste B, Greencastle, IN 46135
Phone: 765-653-5716 156 Fax: 765-653-9455
Email: mevans@purdue.edu

No-till revolutionized the industry of agricultural production during the 1990s. Less than 10 percent of all Indiana cropland was managed in a no-till system in 1990. Initially, corn was considered the better-adapted crop for no-till. In 1990, the percentage of Indiana crops managed in a no-till system were nine and eight percent for corn and soybean, respectively. By 1992, the curves for corn and soybean no-till adoption were diverging. Soybean was better adapted to the no-till environment than the corn hybrids of that time. Management skills for no-till corn were realized to be more demanding than for no-till soybean. The no-till drill facilitated a no-till soybean production boom. By 1995, Indiana became the first corn-belt state to produce more than half of its soybean acres on no-till managed fields.

Adoption trends of no-till crop production, crop residue cover and soil loss are developed from data obtained as a result of spring surveys of Indiana cropland. In an "average sized" Indiana County, a sample size of 450 crop fields produces a 95 percent level of confidence. During the years 1990, 1993, 1996-1998, and 2000, the quantity of counties conducting the survey produced valid statewide results. Values reported are based on weighted averages to reflect differences in cropland acreage between counties. A total of 38,164 fields statewide were observed in 2000. Developed at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN; the TRANSECT computer program is used to record and manage data.

Keywords: tillage, land use, no-till, watershed, cropland, trends, transect, conservation, strip-till, reduced-till

A simple approach to accountability and reporting progress
Dunaway, J.
Corresponding author: James Dunaway
IDEM Watershed Management Section, 100 N Senate Ave, PO Box 6015,
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Phone: 317-233-8490 Fax: 317-232-8406
Email: JDUNAWAY@dem.state.in.us

The demand for accountability and progress reporting within environmental programs has steadily increased. As environmental professionals, we are faced with the conundrum of showing immediate results while working with a medium that is often slow to show changes. In addition, our goals, although worthy and on target, are often very difficult to report on in terms of intermediate progress. The Watershed Management Section (WMS) of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management faces this challenge. Our goal is the restoration of impaired waterbodies. Whether or not we achieve this goal is determined through the Clean Water Act Section 305(b) report and the Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. However, it is difficult to report meaningful progress toward this goal on a biannual or annual basis because these reports and lists are based on a five-year rotating basin monitoring strategy. Therefore, the WMS began using a simple approach to estimate and track pollutant load reductions for funded grant projects as an intermediate measure of progress and accountability. Restoration of impaired waterbodies is still the goal of the WMS; however, this simple approach provides a way to account and report progress of the program in the time frame mandated.

To facilitate this simple approach, the WMS worked with Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Environmental Protection Agency to build a simple tool for estimating pollutant load reductions. The WMS began using this approach and tool in 1999. Results to date will be presented in ways that illustrate how to communicate progress to taxpayers, policymakers, landowners/managers.

10:50 – 11:10 am Community capacity to conduct drought contingency planning in the Province of Ontario, Canada, Jennifer Durley, University of Guelph

11:10 – 11:30 am Great Lakes environmental indicators, Roger D. Nanney, USDA-NRCS/EPA

11:30 – 11:50 am Comparison of perceived agricultural chemical risk in two Central Ohio watersheds, Mark Tucker, Ohio State University

11:50 – 12:10 am Is your SWCD an agent of change or a millstone? Stephan Lovejoy, Purdue University

In the year 1999 alone, over 145,000 people nationally were reached by a groundwater education program called Home*A*Syst (HAS). The national HAS program began in the 1980’s and Michigan joined in the efforts in the early 1990’s. To date, there has not been a comprehensive study of the HAS program in Michigan. This study focuses on what types of changes people are or are not making because of the HAS intervention. In addition, who is the audience attending the programs and is the message consistent.

Indications from this study suggest that those who already have a propensity towards groundwater quality education are those that are attending the Home*A*Syst programs. As well, a change in behavior was statistically noted on several questions which seems to indicate that the Michigan Home*A*Syst program is providing education to Michigan residents.

The majority of the posttest respondents indicated that they have a better understanding of pesticide and fertilizer usage, storage, and disposal, effects of behavior on groundwater quality, and seem more empowered when it comes to improving groundwater quality or preventing groundwater pollution.

Keywords: groundwater quality, environmental quantitative research, Michigan groundwater environment

Community capacity to conduct drought contingency planning in the Province of Ontario, Canada
Durley, J.L., R. de Loë
Corresponding author: Jennifer L. Durley
University of Guelph, Department of Geography, Rural Water Management Group, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 Canada
Phone: 519-824-4120
Email: jdurley@uoguelph.ca

Responsibilities for water management in the Province of Ontario, Canada, are shared among the federal, provincial, and local levels of government. The local level (which includes municipalities and conservation authorities) has been assigned significantly more responsibilities in recent years. For example, the provincial government's Ontario Low Water Response plan (OLWR) assigns key responsibilities to municipalities and CAs. However, not all local level agencies are capable of taking on these greater responsibilities. This certainly is true in the case of drought contingency planning. This paper reports findings from a study that used the community capacity literature to evaluate the role of the local level in drought contingency planning in Ontario. Two watersheds were examined. The Big Creek watershed is dominated by agriculture, while the Upper Credit watershed faces great pressure from urban development. Both watersheds are dependent upon groundwater and have experienced reduced water supply during recent drought conditions. Based on an investigation into the roles, responsibilities and communication patterns between and among government agencies and non-government organizations in each watershed, it was concluded that watershed communities could have the capacity to create and implement a drought contingency plan, but they require considerable assistance from the provincial government. For example, the province provides overall direction and emergency support to watershed communities during drought. In addition, the province is responsible for monitoring and enforcing water takings through its Permit to Take Water Program to ensure water conservation at each stage of a drought.

Keywords: drought contingency planning, community capacity, local governance, water conservation

Great Lakes environmental indicators
Nanney, R.D.
Corresponding author: Roger D. Nanney
US-EPA, G-17J, 77 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-353-7979 Fax: 312-353-2018
Email: nanney.roger@epa.gov

The State Of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) is part of USEPA and Environment Canada’s reporting commitment under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The two agencies are using the process to develop a suite of indicators that describe the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The indicators are designed to give resource managers a means of assessing general ecosystem health as well as measuring progress toward restoration. At SOLEC 2000 among the indicators presented were sustainable agricultural indicator developed by Roger Nanney of the US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service and Peter Roberts of Canada's Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. This indicator was designed to assess the number of environmental and conservation farm plans. It is still not possible to link development and implementation of farm conservation plans directly to water quality improvements. More work needs to be done to collect and analyze data in watersheds where plans have been implemented. At the same time, we also need to ensure that plans that have been drafted are implemented to the fullest extent. When we have confirmation that both actions are occurring, this will be a powerful land-use indicator for the process of cleaning up the Great Lakes.

Keywords: Great Lakes, indicators, water quality, ecosystem, sustainable, Canada, Ontario, agriculture, farm plans, SOLEC

Comparison of perceived agricultural chemical risk in two Central Ohio watersheds
Tucker, M., T.L. Napier and C. Henry
Corresponding author: Mark Tucker
Ohio State University, 203 Agricultural Administration Bldg, 2120 Fyffe Rd,
Columbus, OH 43210
Phone: 614-292-4624 Fax: 614-292-7007
Email: Tucker.9@osu.edu

Farmers’ use of agricultural chemicals has come under increasing public scrutiny in recent years in connection with consumer and expert concerns about possible negative effects on water quality and the environment. Because decisions about agricultural chemical use are made by individual farm managers, policy makers and change agents wishing to influence such decisions need an understanding of farmers’ perceptions of agricultural chemicals, including perceived levels of risk. The current study measures and compares perceptions of agricultural chemical risk for 105 farmers in the Darby Creek watershed and 113 farmers in the Upper Scioto River watershed in central Ohio. While the two watersheds are similar in topography and agricultural commodities produced, they differ considerably in the amount of government effort and resources devoted to encouraging conservation behaviors. One of the goals of the project was to assess whether differences in the amount of educational programming in the two watersheds would result in differential assessments of perceived risk. Descriptive findings are reported on farmers’ current tillage practices, use of conservation information sources, levels of perceived agricultural chemical risk and selected socio-demographic variables. A theoretical model is developed from risk-analysis and diffusion theories and used to identify predictors of perceived risk. A multiple regression model is developed for each watershed to test the utility of the theoretical framework. Findings provide insights into the factors that influence farmers’ perceptions of risk and implications on the role of risk in farm decision-making. The paper also provides guidelines for use in planning future educational programming in the two watersheds.

Keywords: risk perception, watershed, agricultural chemicals, water quality, conservation, educational programs, farm decision-making

Is your SWCD an agent of change or a millstone?
Lovejoy, S.
Corresponding author: Stephen Lovejoy
Purdue University, 1145 Krannert, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1145
Phone: 765-494-4245 Fax: 765-494-9176
Email: lovejoy@purdue.edu

A great deal of the social science research on conservation behavior over the past decade has illustrated the pivotal role played by locally based organizations, especially SWCDs. However, that same research suggests that SWCDs that are not progressive, do not have committed supervisors, do not understand their role in conservation or cannot foster enthusiasm among local land users tend to have much greater unmet conservation needs and a lower probability of improving the situation.

This paper will discuss what SWCD’s can do to revitalize themselves and make a greater contribution to conservation in their county and state. The solutions begin with an assessment of the organizational strengths and weaknesses (e.g. leadership, volunteer recruitment and retention, resources). Questions like, “Why do you want to survive as an organization?” or “Would it be noticed if you folded up your tent and went away?” must be asked and answered.

Success also depends upon instituting a process of strategic planning and goal setting. This forces us to look at the future and where we are headed. If you don’t know where you are headed, how will you know if you get there? Only then can we begin to construct metrics to measure our progress or lack thereof.

While most conservationists agree that an engaged vital local organization, like a SWCD, is important to achieving our environmental goals, many do not understand that there are organizational imperatives for success and that there are remedial steps that can be taken if your organization is not as effective as you would like.

Keywords: SWCD, planning, local, strategies, change leadership, volunteers, training, goals, objectives