United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-553)
EPA 440/4-90-012 (
September 1990
Rural Clean Water Program
-------
Rural Clean Water Program
Lessons learned from a voluntary
nonpoint source control experiment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Envirorwent-il Protection Agency
Region 5, Vlbrary (5FL-16)
230 S. Eearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicane, IL 60604
1990
Printed on recycled paper.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals and agencies involved in the RCWP have worked together to ensure
the accuracy of this description of the Rural Clean Water Program. We are especially
grateful for the valuable assistance of the RCWP projects themselves, the water quality
group at North Carolina State University, and the cooperating agencies at the U.S.
Department of AgricultureSoil Conservation Service, Economic Research Service, the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and Extension Service. This book
was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Dynamac Corp. and
JT&A, Inc. under Contract No. 68-W8-0038.
-------
The Nonpoint Source Problem
Water quality experts across the nation have provided convincing
evidence that nonpoint source pollution is the major cause of our remain-
ing water quality problems. These same professionals have shown that
runoff from rural lands contributes most of the nonpoint source pollution
nationwide. Runoff and leachate from agricultural land, for example, can
carry all kinds of pollutants nutrients, animal waste, pesticides, bacteria,
sediments. These materials can contaminate ground and surface water
supplies, impair recreational uses of surface waters, reduce water storage,
harm commercial and sport fisheries, and degrade the water's aesthetic
qualities.
Possible Solutions
Nonpoint source pollution can be managed, controlled, and often
prevented by changing some of the ways we use the land. Both section
319 of the Clean Water Act and the new Water Quality Initiative by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture actively encourage control and prevention of
nonpoint source pollution. Several nationwide programs (either completed
or ongoing) address nonpoint source controls: the Areawide Wastewater
Management Program under section 208 of the Clean Water Act, the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), the Clean Lakes Program,
and specifically targeted to agricultural nonpoint source problems the
Model Implementation Program (MIP) and the Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP).
These programs have approached nonpoint source pollution in various
ways; one of the most innovative has been the Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram, on which this handbook focuses. RCWP is a federal program
designed to use interagency cooperation, the existing federal/state/local
partnership, voluntary participation, and cost-sharing to control agricul-
turally generated nonpoint source pollution at the local level.
Charged with finding ways to prevent and/or reduce agricultural non-
point source pollution, the RCWP was set up as a 15-year experiment. Its
RCWP Project Locations
Legend:
General monitoring &
evaluation
^Comprehensive monitoring &
evaluation
What's Nonpoint Source
(NFS) Pollution ?
In simple terms, NPSs are not point
sources. Point sources are defined
under section 502(14) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA):
The term 'point source'means any
discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch, channel,
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete
fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding
operation, or vessel or other
floating craft, from which
pollutants are or may be
discharged. This term does not
include agricultural stormwater
discharges and return flows from
irrigated agriculture.
In practical terms, NFS pollution
does not result from a discharge at a
specific, single location (with the
exception of agricultural stormwater
discharges and irrigation return flows)
but generally results from land runoff,
precipitation, atmospheric deposition,
drainage, or seepage.
RCWP Objectives
(1) to improve water quality and
beneficial uses in the most cost-effective
manner possible, consistent with the
production of food and fiber,
(2) to help rural landowners and
farmers practice nonpoint source
pollution control, and
(3) to develop and test programs,
policies, and procedures designed to
control agricultural nonpoint source
pollution.
-------
National Water Quality
Evaluation Project
Begun in 1981, this project at North
Carolina State University (NCSU) has
been funded under RCWP for the
purposes of: providing technical
assistance to USDA, EPA and the
projects regarding monitoring and
evaluation; tracking and reviewing
project progress; evaluating the
effectiveness of best management
practices; and reporting the combined
experimental results of the RCWP
projects. Much of the information
contained in this report has been
generated by NCSU.
objectives are threefold: (1) to improve water quality and beneficial uses in
the most cost-effective manner possible, consistent with the production of
food and fiber, (2) to help rural landowners and farmers practice nonpoint
source pollution control, and (3) to develop and test programs, policies,
and procedures designed to control agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), in consult-
ation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National,
state, and local RCWP coordinating committees make the major decisions
affecting the program.
RCWP began in 1980, and with a total appropriation of $64 million has
funded 21 watershed projects in 22 states across the country. Five projects
located in Idaho, Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Vermont
were designated as comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (CM&E)
projects: they received additional federal funding to monitor and evaluate
project impacts on water quality. All projects, however, were required to
monitor water quality.
The contracting period for 16 RCWP projects ended in 1986; the pro-
gram is scheduled to terminate in 1995. These projects represent a wide
range of pollution problems and impaired water uses. Project locations are
shown in the accompanying map.
The following pages describe how the RCWP has worked so far, its suc-
cesses and its failures synthesized into lessons learned that can help
state and local managers put together their own management plans for
controlling agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
Lessons Learned from RCWP
Three major principles govern this experimental program:
1. Best management practices (BMPs) improve water quality.
2. A voluntary program with cost-sharing incentive can improve water
quality.
3. Federal, state, and local agencies can cooperate to implement a
water quality program effectively.
So, at the 10-year point in the program, have these principles held up?
What can the RCWP tell those who would base future programs on these
same concepts?
Best Management Practices: How Effective
for Water Quality?
BMPs, when properly implemented, have improved water quality in some
of the RCWP projects. Several specific results document this.
It is important to note that, although several of the findings listed here
may seem to be statements of the obvious, there is little documentation in
the scientific literature to support this intuitive knowledge with respect to
watersheds. For example, it is difficult to find scientific publications that
demonstrate the relationship between stream quality and nutrient manage-
ment. The findings reported here, because they are backed by adequate
-------
water quality data and sound statistical analyses, begin to fill the voids in
our understanding of how BMPs affect water quality in watersheds.
The RCWP BMPs (a complete list appears on page 18) are intended to
both improve and/or preserve water quality andsustain producer profits by
improving or maintaining the efficiency and conservation aspects of farm-
ing. Voluntary approaches to agricultural nonpoint source programs will not
succeed unless BMPs meet both the water quality and profitability objec-
tives.
Animal waste management dramatically improved water quality in
two projects: Snake Creek, Utah phosphorus concentration declined
90 percent; fecal coliform bacteria, 99 percent, as a result of using BMPs
in all 4 dairies and all 4 beef feedlots in the 700-acre project area.
Tillamook Bay, OregonWith approximately 60 percent of the animal
waste now under BMP control, the mean fecal coliform bacteria counts have
been reduced by 40 to 50 percent in Tillamook Bay, the targeted resource of
this 360,000-acre watershed project.
Keeping animals out of streams improves water quality: Taylor
Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin, Florida phosphorus levels in tributaries
to Lake Okeechobee were reduced by fencing streams to prevent dairy
cows from lounging in the water. In one tributary within this 110,000-acre
project area, phosphorus concentrations declined by more than 50 per-
cent despite an increase in the number of cows in the sub-watershed.
Irrigation water management, sedimentation basins, and conser-
vation tillage reduce sediment and phosphorus: Rock Creek, Idaho
with 75 percent of the 28,000-acre irrigation tract under treatment,
suspended sediment has decreased significantly in five of six sub-basins,
with the sixth experiencing increases in the last two years. Total phos-
phorus loads have decreased at all three Rock Creek stations below the
treated sub-basins, but further analyses are required to sort out the rela-
tive impacts of BMPs and other variables, most notably natural stream-
bank erosion and weather.
Fences keep animals out of
streams, reducing direct input of
pollutants and protecting riparian
zones from physical damage.
-------
What's a Macropore?
Macropores are openings or
channels that develop naturally in soil if
it is not disturbed by tillage or
compaction. They promote rapid
infiltration of water and improve
drainage and aeration in the root zone.
Macropores develop readilyunder
no-till cropping systems and may help
reduce runoff. But they also may
provide an efficient path for
contaminants to reach ground water.
Nitrate and pesticides may be carried to ground water by macro-
pores even in relatively impermeable soils: Oakwood Lakes, South
Dakota: Conservation tillage is the BMP used to minimize pollutants
entering surface waterways. For similar rainfall events, no-till plots con-
sistently allow water to penetrate deeper and faster compared to mold-
board plowing. This difference is thought to be caused by the natural
formation of macropores, which mold-board plowing disrupts. Agricultural
chemicals may also penetrate more under no-till, but the increase has not
been statistically significant.
Terracing, designed to reduce sediment losses in surface runoff,
may adversely affect ground-water quality: the Conestoga Head-
waters project in Pennsylvania demonstrated a potential for conflict
when trying to restore the quality of ground water and surface water at the
same time. Ground-water nitrate data collected during non-recharge
periods at a 23-acre field site where terracing and nutrient management
practices were implemented indicated that terraces may have increased
nitrate concentrations.
Median nitrate levels rose by 1 to 4 mg/L for four of the six ground-water
sampling sites after the BMPs were in place. At one other site the median
nitrate level decreased by nearly 2 mg/L, while at the sixth site no change
was measured.
Although further analyses are needed, these results certainly
demonstrate that the effects on the entire water system must be con-
sidered when designing management systems.
Other findings: The findings described regarding the effectiveness of
BMPs are representative of the best-documented results from the RCWP,
but there are many other findings to be shared by each project and by the
Water Quality Evaluation Project at North Carolina State University. For
example, nutrient and pesticide management can be critical to the long-
term success of both the producer and those who are addressing water
quality problems. Similarly, water management and some form of conser-
vation tillage system are usually needed to address sedimentation
problems. While findings such as these are based upon experience rather
than on specific water quality data, they are important.
Voluntary + Cost-sharing: Does It Work?
Cost-sharing helps, but cannot guarantee participation: Attractive
cost-sharing and technical assistance incentives generally increase farmer
participation. The RCWP cost-share rate of 75 percent (a maximum of
$50,000 per farmer) was attractive in most projects, but not in all. For ex-
ample, cost-sharing at a 90 percent level failed in Minnesota, largely be-
cause farmers were asked to build expensive structural BMPs during a
depressed economic time. Lower-cost manure management might have
been more successful in gaining participants.
Pooling cost-share monies among several cooperators was used suc-
cessfully by the Nebraska project to fund construction of a water control
structure to prevent erosion and improve the timing of irrigation flows. The
project benefited many farmers and increased their interest in the RCWP.
No matter what the cost-sharing rate is, however, the BMP must be ac-
ceptable to the user or it won't work. The landowner and the farm operator
must be willing to adapt the BMP to their farm's unique situation, and to
-------
make every effort to use and maintain the BMP to accomplish the water
quality objectives for which it was designed.
Regulatory authority can be an incentive in voluntary programs:
The Oregon project reported that two large fines the Department of Environ-
mental Quality assessed dairy operations in other counties encouraged live-
stock producers to manage manure properly. This regulatory role increased
producer interest in the RCWP. Regulatory pressures also stimulated par-
ticipation in the Florida project.
Technical assistance and education are key to successful voluntary
programs: The information and education program in the Alabama RCWP
established five pre-project objectives for creating farmer and general public
awareness of the efforts, importance, and benefits of the project. Training
sessions, group meetings, letters, demonstrations, media coverage, and
personal contacts have been part of the educational program. These ac-
tivities paid off in a high level of participation.
Demonstration farms have been used in Nebraska as information and
education tools for RCWP activities. Two separate monthly newsletters
report integrated pest management (IPM) and RCWP information. Weekly
field scouting and a radio broadcast of insect activity support the IPM pro-
gram. Extension programs are gathering yield data to show the benefits of
fertilizer and pesticide management. The project's activities and progress
are also being videotaped.
The nutrient budgeting technique is the basis of a computer program
developed and used by Pennsylvania State University to assist the Pen-
nsylvania RCWP make nutrient management decisions for farm and field
application of manure. A model for the country, the program has been
demonstrated at several national water quality workshops and training
sessions.
Voluntary projects have a down side targeting is difficult: Some
of the worst polluters may refuse to participate, and many contracts may be
written with farms considered only minimal sources of pollution. Such inef-
fective targeting constrains improvements in water quality.
Problem ownership and favorable publicity can boost participa-
tion: Citizens and farmers need to understand that their actions
contribute to the problem: all share the responsibility. The South Dakota
RCWP, for example, has found that public meetings, media releases, on-
site demonstrations, and newsletters effectively communicate information
on the project to participating farmers and the general public. Well-
defined educational procedures make all area landowners aware of the
project's benefits. Efforts have focused on technical assistance for fer-
tilizer and pesticide management, including personal contact, soil sam-
pling information, and pest scouting, as well as overall presentations of
the project's accomplishments.
The Oregon, Utah, Florida, Iowa, and Vermont projects achieved a high
level of farmer participation because agricultural and water quality person-
nel worked together to design and publicize the program.
The Pennsylvania project promotes water quality and project objectives
through public meetings, mass media, experimental nutrient manage-
ment, no-till and fertilizer management field plots, and project newsletters.
BMPs and Cost-sharing
Best management practices are
systems of well-known resource
management practices employed to
reduce pollutant loading to surface and
ground waters. Among them are
systems to recycle animal waste,
control soil erosion, conserve water,
and reduce nutrient and pesticide
losses.
BMPs can benefit society more
than the individual landowner, and for
that reason federal cost-sharing is a
major component of the Rural Clean
Water Program.
Cost-shares encouraged farmers to
participate in the voluntary RCWP.
Through contractual agreements
between the farmer and USDA, the
government could pay up to 75 percent
of the cost of BMP implementation (with
a limit of $50,000 per participant).
-------
Who's in Charge?
The RCWP is administered by the
U.S. Department o1 Agriculture's
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS) in
consultation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Several USDA agencies
contribute in various ways:
So/7 Conservation Service (SCS)
coordinates technical assistance,
Economic Researcfi Service
(ERS) assists in the economic
evaluation of BMPs and project
impacts,
Extension Service (ES)
coordinates educational programs,
Foresf Service (FS) has technical
responsibility for forestry,
Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA) coordinates its programs
with the RCWP.
National, state, and local RCWP
coordinating committees make the
major decisions affecting the program.
The project has conducted more than 30 field tours for groups interested in
learning more about management practices and water quality monitoring.
In 1983, the Oregon project reported that part of the success of the Til-
lamook RCWP was due directly to the support of the dairy industry. Repre-
sented on the local coordinating committee, the dairy industry helped
convince local dairy operators of the need to reduce the bacterial load to
Tillamook Bay.
Federal, State and Local Agencies: Can
They Get the Job Done?
The simple answer is "yes," ... but not without local ownership of the
project. In fact, for federal programs such as the RCWP to solve state and
local problems using voluntary measures, agencies must cooperate and
coordinate their various capabilities at all levels to synthesize a team ap-
proach to meeting common water quality and conservation objectives.
The importance of local support for the project cannot be overstated. If
landowners are not willing to participate, all of the interagency coordina-
tion will be for naught. Voluntary nonpoint source programs are akin to a
buyer's market where the agencies are the merchants. A consistent sales
pitch, a good price, and reliable and effective service are required to sell
voluntary implementation. Under these conditions, agencies have no
choice but to plan together and work together.
Other Lessons Learned
Select projects for their likelihood of success and visibility: Highest
priority should be given projects most likely to succeed in restoring, protect-
ing, or maintaining the use of a valued water resource. A priority project will
have a clearly documented water quality problem or the threat of a problem
as well as a feasible means to remediate or protect the water resource.
The project must be backed by substantial local support, financial sup-
port, adequate staff, expert technical assistance, local agency coopera-
tion, and an effective information and education program. Some regulatory
authority is also helpful.
Visible success helps to change the attitude and behavior of the public
toward waste management, conservation, and pollution control. Since all
pollution cannot be controlled by expensive, government-financed
projects, the success of nonpoint source pollution management depends
on demonstrations of success.
A clear statement of goals and objectives is necessary to keep im-
plementation on target: Programs operating without such a statement of
purpose may waste money. Projects may be working, but in the absence of
specific goals directed at improving water quality, they probably won't result
in water quality benefits.
» Target implementation to meet water quality needs: Land treatment
should be targeted to critical areas where BMPs are likely to most improve
and protect the water resource. The pollutants and their major sources
must be the primary focus in identifying critical areas.
-------
To control turbidity problems, the Illinois project targeted natric soils with
2 percent slope, fine particle size and high erodibility, and non-natric soils
with 5 percent slope, high erodibility, and proximity to the stream system.
The Louisiana RCWP addressed turbidity, sedimentation, and pesticide
problems by targeting cropland adjacent to the water body. Cotton growing
on silty soils had highest priority because the fields are close to water-
bodies, intensively cultivated, and require pesticides and nutrients. This
project also offered high cost-share rates (90 percent) to farmers located
adjacent to Bayou Bonne Idee to increase participation in the critical area.
In addressing eutrophication problems in St. Albans Bay, the Vermont
RCWP targeted areas nearest major water courses or the bay where major
nonpoint sources of phosphorus were present. The project has also used
SCS computer models to estimate the total phosphorus and sediment
loads from alternative management scenarios. The portion of the total load
that needs to be controlled by agricultural BMPs is designated as critical,
and progress is then evaluated in terms of the amount of critical load
treated with BMPs.
Water quality problems in the Oregon RCWP result from high fecal
coliform levels and sediment loading to Tillamook Bay. This project tar-
geted land with high priority dairies. Priority levels were based on a point
system that considers distance to open water course, manure manage-
ment practices, number of animals, and location.
A project's timeframe should include a pre-implementation assess-
ment period: In addition to identifying the water use impairments, the as-
sessment should (1) identify and quantify all pollutants and their major
sources; (2) ascertain the surface and ground-water hydrologic regimes;
(3) identify, quantify, and target critical areas; (4) establish a list of suitable
BMPs; and (5) determine the benefits from improving or maintaining the
water quality. Such an assessment will help ensure that project funds are
used efficiently.
Some RCWP projects with insufficient assessment information had to
redefine their original critical area two to three years after the program
began. Minnesota, for example, changed its focus from surface water to
Testing the soil is key to its nutrient
management.
Targeting Criteria
Criteria to use in ranking critical
area treatment needs:
(1) the magnitude of the pollutant
source;
(2) distance to the water resource;
(3) location, type, and severity of
the water resource impairment or threat;
(4) the type of pollutant;
(5) present conservation status; and
(6) on-site evaluation.
-------
Plan of Work
Each project was required to have a
plan of work that indicated project
goals, methods for achieving them,
BMPs selected for cost-sharing, and a
water quality monitoring program.
ground water; Massachusetts lacked thorough documentation of pollutant
sources.
Two years into the project, the Kansas RCWP determined that the water
use was not impaired and decided not to continue.
Water quality and land treatment monitoring must be integral to the
project it cannot be an afterthought. A project's progressand success
can be tracked only by systematically comparing water quality data
against prior data, including data collected before the project began.
Knowledge of the watershed's hydrology is a critical factor in estimating how
long it will take (i.e., lag time) before the expected water quality impacts will
be detected. A trend monitoring program requires clearly stated objectives,
appropriate experimental design, careful and consistent data collection, and
data analysis that accounts for natural variability in water quality. One useful
approach may be to monitor a control watershed, where no land treatments
are implemented, to document effects of year-to-year variations in weather.
Some specific findings related to monitoring are:
Q The monitoring strategy must be appropriate for the water
quality problem, the water resource type, and the project objec-
tives. The most common monitoring strategy at the start of
RCWP was to compare water quality data from pre- and post-
BMP implementation periods. Some projects use a trend-
analysis approach to associate improving trends in water
quality over time with BMP implementation.
Analysis of the Oregon, Florida, Idaho, and Utah water
quality data has shown that a pre-BMP water quality data base
of at least two- to three-years' duration facilitates documenting
the effects of BMPs on water quality.
Two to three years of post-BMP implementation data are also
needed to evaluate the significance of any water quality
change. For example, dry and wet cycles can complicate data
interpretation and affect the significance of statistical results.
Consistent, rigorous monitoring protocols are essential to detect
changes in water quality.
Q The most effective monitoring design for documenting BMP im-
pacts on surface water quality is the paired watershed ap-
proach. In this design, two watersheds or fields with generally
similar physical characteristics, and ideally, land use, are
monitored for two to three years, with similar practices being
used on both with respect to the treatment being tested. Follow-
ing this initial calibration period one of the watersheds receives
treatment (the other does not); then monitoring continues in
both watersheds for two to three years after treatment becomes
established. This controlled experiment accounts for weather
and other factors that can obscure the water quality's response
to the treatment.
The Vermont RCWP used a paired watershed study to
demonstrate the effects of spreading manure in winter, showing
that more phosphorus but less sediment appeared in the
runoff from the treated watershed.
rj Nested monitoring wells (groups of two or more wells at the
same location screened at different depths) are valuable for
8
-------
Electrofishing is a technique used to
obtain a direct measure of fishery quality.
documenting changes in ground-water qualiity and response to
geologic stratigraphy.
Q Consistency and uniformity in data collection, analysis, and
reporting over the project timeframe are essential for detecting
water quality trends and associating them with working BMPs.
All monitoring programs should include an effective and reliable
quality assurance/quality control plan.
Q Location of the water quality monitoring stations must comple-
ment BMP implementation if BMPs are to be associated with
changes in water quality.
The Michigan, Vermont, Idaho, Utah, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
and Florida RCWPs have found that monitoring sub-basins
within the overall project area is a more effective strategy than
monitoring only at the watershed outlet. Water quality changes
are more likely to appear at the sub-basin level closer to land
treatment areas where the effects of external factors, other pol-
lution sources, complex hydrology, and scattered BMP im-
plementation are minimized. It is still important to locate
monitoring stations at the watershed outlet to document chan-
ges occurring at the watershed level and in the resource with
the original water quality impairment, such as a lake.
Q Monitoring of biological and habitat indicators are also ap-
propriate for nonpoint source control projects.
Five projects (Idaho, Illinois, Nebraska, South Dakota, and
Vermont) have extensively monitored biological and habitat
variables to assess water quality. Idaho has measured improve-
ments in stream habitat and aquatic life, as well as increased
trout numbers and size in Rock Creek since the RCWP began.
These results have been used to stimulate public interest in the
project.
-------
Critical Areas
One of the Great Lakes
Demonstration Program projects, the
Black Creek project in Indiana
developed a procedure tor targeting
implementation to critical areas
those areas that contribute most to the
water quality problem. TheRCWP
adopted this valuable lesson to
increase the water quality benefit per
dollar spent.
Wooded and grassed areas
adjacent to watercourses
protect water quality.
Nebraska will monitor after treatment to compare with pre-
treatment data. South Dakota has measured fish, algae, and
zooplankton populations to establish water quality indicators. In
the Vermont RCWP, preliminary analysis of biological data sup-
ports conclusions different from those developed through
analysis of chemical data. The apparently conflicting results are
somewhat confusing, but should not be interpreted as proof that
either approach is better. The relationship between chemical
and biological monitoring is a research issue beyond the scope
of the RCWP.
A data analysis strategy for linking water quality to the land use
record should be planned early in the project. The strategy
should address the stated water quality goals and objectives
directly, rigorously, and specifically. Land treatment monitoring
should track BMP implementation quantitatively, by area
covered and including cost-shared and non-cost-shared prac-
tices.
Flexibility may help encourage participation. Where the objective is to
improve or protect water quality, BMP contracting rules should be structured
to maximize the potential for controlling pollution in critical areas. For ex-
ample, partial farm plans that address a substantial portion of the water
quality problem may be preferable to playing a waiting game for complete
farm plans. Another possibility is phased implementation to compensate for
farm economics, producer uncertainty, or other impediments to pollution
control.
Modeling techniques can be used to rank pollutant sources and es-
timate the land treatment needed to restore or protect water use. Water
quality models (AGNPS and CREAMS) have been found useful for planning
and evaluating activities such as identifying critical areas and selecting land
treatment strategies (South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Vermont). Modeling
-------
should be used at the beginning of a project to rank farms, set treatment
priorities, and help determine implementation strategies.
The Vermont project used models in assessing sources of agricultural
nonpoint source phosphorus and sediment, critical and total pollutant
loads, and potential changes over time. For example, that process iden-
tified a wastewater treatment plant in the project area as a significant
source of phosphorus to St. Albans Bay. Vermont also used the models to
match needs with BMPs.
Nutrient and water budgeting techniques can be used to quantify
pollutants and their sources. It is important to note that nonpoint source
models should not be relied upon to demonstrate water quality results. Non-
point source models are used in the RCWP to estimate the impact of BMPs
on pollutant generation and export, but not to demonstrate the project's ef-
fect on water quality. In addition to its modeling activities, the Vermont
project estimated annual nutrient and water budgets to determine the rela-
tive contributions of point and nonpoint sources.
Nutrient budgeting is being used extensively in Florida to meet the legal
requirement that nutrients be balanced at the farm level. The intent of the
regulation is to recycle all nutrients produced on livestock operations
through nutrient budgeting. The Florida RCWP has helped reduce phos-
phorus in effluent from dairies and beef cattle operations.
South Dakota is completing a water and nutrient budget study for a lake
system to assess sources and sinks in this system. These data will be
used to model how changes in agricultural practices may affect water
quality. South Dakota's experience with the NTRM ground-water model
indicates that traditional infiltration theories do not adequately explain the
movement of solutions.
Computers are used more and more
each day for nutrient and water
budgeting, farm planning, pollutant
transport modeling, and tracking
business operations.
11
-------
Ideal RCWP Project
Elements
Ideally, a RCWP project went through
the following steps:
Coordination between local and State
levels.
An assessment of the water quality
problem, including impaired uses and
economic damage. The relative
contribution of point and nonpoint
sources were determined,
emphasizing the agricultural portion of
the nonpoint sources.
Location of major agricultural
nonpoint sources in the project area.
The feasibility of eliminating the water
quality problem by controlling these
sources was estimated.
Establishment of project goals and
objectives.
Development of water quality
monitoring plan.
Development of a plan to implement
best management practices (BMPs)
and to monitor their effectiveness.
The plan included delineating the
critical areas most needing pollution
control to eliminate the water quality
problem.
Project application and approval.
Initial contacts with farmers to explain
the RCWP and seek their voluntary
participation. Information and
education activities accompanied this
step.
Development of conservation plans
for individual farms.
Establishment of contracts (3-10
years) with farmers, including cost
sharing.
Farmer implementation of BMPs.
Ongoing monitoring of water quality
and BMPs. This included operation
and maintenance of BMPs over the
life of the practices and/or the
contracts, and a continuing
information and education program.
Annual project evaluations and
reporting.
Conclusions
Though the RCWP projects have had varying degrees of success in com-
batting nonpoint source pollution, overall, the Rural Clean Water Program
should be considered a success. As an experimental program designed to
test methods for preventing and controlling nonpoint source pollution in
rural areas, RCWP has accomplished that charge and recorded and pub-
lished its findings.
Annually, each project reports its activities and accomplishments, with
program-wide analyses by various agencies and organizations. Many
RCWP recommendations are now being applied by federal, state, and
local agencies and groups in their nonpoint source programs and projects.
But the book is far from closed on RCWP; more water quality effects and
valuable conclusions and recommendations are expected.
Perhaps the most important finding of this program, however, is that
farmers themselves are key to the success of each RCWP project. Agen-
cies can evaluate and plan and coordinate forever but only a high level
of farmer participation will ensure the success of a project. And while cost-
sharing is effective, it is not the overriding reason farmers participate in
projects.
Farmers participate because they see a reason to: it may be to avoid
regulation (or comply with it), or because other farmers are doing so, or for
economic or environmental reasons. But even though that participation
may be tempered with reluctance, a farmer will not participate blindly,
without knowing why.
Education, therefore, is the cornerstone of a voluntary program. A
project's initial work plan must include a carefully thought out component
for communicating with the user, the rural community. Opportunities to
publicize such a project are myriad radio and TV talk shows, local
newspaper articles, printed materials and handouts, appearances before
community groups (including Farm Bureau and 4-H). Cost-sharing needs
to be explained, as do the types of technical assistance project personnel
will offer.
Most important, however, is the one-on-one contact between project
personnel and farmers, particularly those who operate targeted properties.
On-site discussions between project personnel and operators can do more
to encourage participation than any other tactic. Cost-sharing and techni-
cal assistance provide incentive, but people make the project work.
The farmer who helps develop the local program and contributes to
planning the project will be its most enthusiastic supporter and participant.
Of all the lessons learned by the Rural Clean Water Program, this is the
clearest: the user, guided by technical expertise from the agencies, must
be the driving force behind a successful project.
As the RCWP completes its mission, states are formulating their own
nonpoint source management programs as mandated by section 319 of
the Clean Water Act. The progression is clear: the guidelines for a planned,
sound approach to nonpoint source management are discernible in the
RCWP, which has encouraged change and new ideas in the nation's ap-
proach to nonpoint source pollution.
Among the technologies emerging from RCWP are innovative designs
for animal waste and conservation tillage systems, vegetative filter strips,
and high intensity water control practices. Many practices have been
12
-------
designed to meet the needs of specific sites, resulting in more than a
dozen effective BMPs that integrate well into today's agriculture. RCWP
projects also introduced event-based, long-term water quality monitoring
and low-cost biomonitoring methodsto nonpoint source control.
In refining monitoring systems and evaluation methods, the RCWP has
established a scientific approach for judging BMP effectiveness. Indeed,
the data so acquired have enhanced our understanding of nonpoint source
pollution and the means by which it can be controlled.
And RCWP projects were among the first to directly correlate agricul-
tural nonpoint source control practices with specific objectives to improve
water quality in lakes and streams.
The entire RCWP experiencethe engineering designs, the projects,
the resultsforms the cornerstone for future nonpoint source manage-
ment programs.
Selected Project Profiles
EPA Region I
St. Albans Bay, Vermont: Annual attendance at St. Albans Bay Park
dropped from 27,500 in 1960 to 3,500 in 1978 as recreational use of this
bay on Lake Champlain became increasingly impaired due to eutrophica-
tion. Treatment of dairy operations has resulted in some measured reduc-
tions in phosphorus loadings. The project has been a leader in developing
analytic approaches for assessing BMP effectiveness and the water
quality impacts of the RCWP.
EPA Region III
Appoquinimink River, Delaware: Recreational uses of the small
lakes and rivers in this basin have been constrained by eutrophication
and bacterial contamination caused primarily by runoff from cropland and
animal operations. Conservation tillage has become widely accepted and
implemented as a result of the RCWP and significantly reduced sedi-
ment and phosphorus loading.
Conestoga Headwaters, Pennsylvania: Nitrates and phosphorus
from agricultural sources have affected both the ground water used as
domestic water supplies for about 175,000 people and the resources of
the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrient management that addresses both manure
and commercial fertilizer was implemented on 180 farms from 1986 to
1988 though a nutrient management office operated by the Cooperative
Extension Service. In this project cost-sharing was not accepted by most
farmers because it required signing a government contract. Many of
these farmers did respond to extra educational and technical assistance
in implementing nutrient management.
13
-------
Shaded feeding areas provide
an alternative to cooling off in
the stream, keeping cattle
away from streams.
EPA Region IV
Lake Tholocco, Alabama: This recreational lake, used by more than
100,000 people each year, was frequently closed to contact recreation in
1979 because of bacterial contamination from animal waste. Aggressive
promotion at the local level combined with good farm planning has
resulted in the treatment of 8 of 20 swine operations, despite a depressed
economy in the area.
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida: This watershed contributed
about 30 percent of the phosphorus loading in only 4 percent of the inflow
to the highly-valued, but eutrophic, Lake Okeechobee. This large, shallow
lake provides water for 5 towns, and supports a $6 million commercial
fishery and a sport fishing industry worth another $20 million annually. Im-
plementation of BMPs on the many dairy and cattle farms in the 110,000-
acre project area has been extremely active, because of technical
assistance and cost-sharing (including supplemental state funds) in the
presence of regulatory pressures. Final project analyses probably will be
able to document that RCWP implementation reduced phosphorus load-
ing.
Lower Kissimmee River, Florida: This river basin delivers 20 percent
of the total phosphorus and 25 percent of the total nitrogen to Lake
Okeechobee. Phosphorus sources are nutrient runoff (manure and fer-
tilizer) from pastures and direct manure deposits by cattle in streams and
ditches. Based upon what was learned in the Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough
project, this new RCWP began in 1987 with a "nutrient mass balance" ap-
proach to dairy farm management. In essence, on large dairy farms all
nutrients are to be recycled.
-------
Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee/Kentucky: In 1974, 850,000 visitors came
to enjoy the fishing, boating and waterfowl hunting offered by this lake, a
creation of the New Madrid earthquake of 1811. Sediment and nutrients
from cropland have caused a severe eutrophication problem, impairing all
recreational uses of the lake, but effective interagency and interstate
cooperation has led to a high level of problem awareness and BMP im-
plementation in this 154,000-acre watershed.
EPA Region V
Highland Silver Lake, Illinois: This public water supply for 8,500 resi-
dents also serves as a recreational lake, but both uses are impaired by
high turbidity levels, sedimentation, and eutrophication caused largely by
runoff from cropland and animal operations. The project has documented
that traditional soil erosion BMPs may reduce total sediment loading to
the lake, although they may not significantly reduce in-lake turbidity
produced by natric soils.
Garvin Brook, Minnesota: The ground-water supply for nearly 2,500
people is contaminated by nitrates and pesticides, and the stream used
for recreation by about 25,000 people is affected by bacteria and sedi-
ment in this karst (irregular limestone formations) region. Originally a sur-
face water project, this effort was expanded to address ground-water
problems after analyses showed that nitrate levels exceeded the drinking
water standard in about 20 percent of the 80 wells sampled. Distinct criti-
cal areas were developed for addressing the surface and subsurface
water quality problems.
Scouting insects and insect damage
allows farmers to match pesticide
use to need through Integrated Pest
Management.
15
-------
Timed irrigation uses water
efficiently and manages the
water supply.
EPA Region VII
Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa: Recreational uses of this 215-acre man-
made lake were impaired by eutrophication and a 19 percent loss of lake
volume resulting from sediment deposition between 1971 and 1980. The
project achieved a high rate of BMP implementation, primarily terraces,
because water quality objectives were clear, farmers recognized the need
to control erosion to save the lake, and the practices were attractive to the
farmers.
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska: The trout fishery in Long Pine Creek is
impaired by high sediment loadings derived from streambank erosion and
irrigation discharge. Agricultural, domestic, and municipal uses of the
ground-water supply are impaired by high nitrate (5-10 percent of
sampled wells exceed the drinking water standard) and pesticide levels
resulting from fertilizer and pesticide usage. Irrigation water management
that includes tailwater recovery is being emphasized to help control the
sediment problem. Fertilizer and pesticide management are being imple-
mented through an Extension Service-sponsored producer association.
The association promotes deep soil sampling to use nitrogen deep in the
soil profile and pest scouting to tailor pesticide use to need.
EPA Region VIII
Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett, South Dakota: This area, which overlies a
portion of an aquifer used as a source of water for a third of the state's
population, experiences nitrate concentrations exceeding 10 mg/L in 25
percent of the wells sampled. Nutrients and fecal conforms are delivered
to the area's lakes from cropland and feedlots, limiting the recreational
use for many citizens in eastern South Dakota. Conservation tillage has
been used on 70 percent of the targeted area, and fertilizer and pesticide
management on 60 percent. A limited number of animal waste systems
have been installed.
16
-------
Snake Creek, Utah: Snake Creek is a minor tributary to Deer Creek
Reservoir, a heavily used recreational resource and water supply for
about 500,000 people. Eutrophication and bacterial problems in the reser-
voir are caused only partly by nutrient and bacterial loadings from Snake
Creek. Successful treatment of all eight animal operations in the 700-acre
project area has reduced both average phosphorus concentration and
fecal coliform levels by about 90 percent. The success of the RCWP has
led to spin-off implementation in other parts of the watershed, resulting in
measured water quality improvements in Deer Creek Reservoir.
EPA Region X
Rock Creek, Idaho: Fishing and contact recreation in Rock Creek
were impaired by sediment, bacteria, and other pollutants discharged into
the creek from irrigation ditches. Early installation of sediment retention
structures and irrigation management systems, followed by a gradual shift
to conservation tillage, has resulted in measured decreases in suspended
sediment levels and a steady increase in rainbow and brown trout popula-
tions.
Tillamook Bay, Oregon: This 11,000-acre bay supports a $1.5 million
shellfishing industry and recreation at a level of about 70,000 user-days.
Bacterial contamination from over 100 dairies has caused frequent
closure of the shellfishing beds and health risks for recreational users.
With about 60 percent of the animal waste under proper management, the
mean fecal coliform concentration has been reduced by 40 to 50 percent.
17
-------
RCWP Best Management
Practices
BMP 1 Permanent Vegetative Cover
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
Fencing
Grasses and legumes in rotation
Pasture and hayland management
Pasture and hayland planting
Proper grazing use
Range seeding
Planned grazing systems
BMP 2 Animal Waste Management System
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Waste management system
Waste storage structure
Critical area planting
Dike
Waste treatment lagoon
Diversion
Fencing
Filter Strips
Grassed waterway or outlet
Waste storage pond
Irrigation system, sprinkler
Irrigation system, surface, and subsurface
Subsurface drain
Subsurface drain, field ditch
Surface drain, main or lateral
Waste utilization
BMP 3 Stripcropping Systems
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
Obstruction removal
Stripcropping, contour
Stripcropping, field
Stripcropping, wind
18
-------
BMP 4 Terrace System
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Obstruction removal
Terrace
Subsurface drain
Underground outlet
BMP 5 Diversion System
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Dike
Diversion
Obstruction removal
Subsurface drain
Underground outlet
BMP 6 Grazing Land Protection System
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Pond
Fencing
Pipeline
Pond sealing or lining
Spring trails and waterways
Stock trails and waterways
Trough or tank
Well
BMP 7 Waterway System
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Fencing
Grassed waterway or outlet
Lined waterway or outlet
Subsurface drain
BMP 8 Cropland Protective System
Lifespan: recommended by county and state ASC (Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation) committees and approved by
Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years
Components:
Conservation cropping system
Cover and green manure crop
Field windbreaks
19
-------
BMP 9 Conservation Tillage Systems
Lifespan: recommended by county and state ASC (Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation) committees and approved by
Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years
Components:
Conservation cropping system
Conservation tillage system
Contour farming
Crop reside use
Land smoothing
Stubble mulching
BMP 10 Stream Protection System
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Channel vegetation
Fencing
Filter strip
Streambank protection
Tree planting
BMP 11 Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas
Lifespan: minimum of 5 years
Components:
Critical area planting
Fencing
Field Borders
Filter strip
Livestock strip
Livestock exclusion
Mulching
Sinkhole treatment
Spoilbank spreading
Tree planting
Well plugging
BMP 12 Sediment Retention, Erosion, or
Water Control Structures
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Sediment basin
Dike
Fencing
Grade stabilization structure
Structure for water control
Water and sediment control basin
20
-------
BMP 13 Improving an Irrigation and/or
Water Management System
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Irrigation water conveyance
Pipeline
Irrigation system, drip
Irrigation system, sprinkler
Irrigation system, surface and subsurface
Irrigation system, tailwater recovery
Irrigation water management
Irrigation land leveling
Structure for water control
BMP 14 Tree Planting
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Components:
Cover and green manure crop
Fencing
Proper woodland grazing
Tree Planting
BMP 15 Fertilizer Management
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and approved by the
Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years.
Components:
Fertilizer management
Waste utilization
BMP 16 Pesticide Management
Lifespan: recommended by COC and STC and approved by the
Administrator, ASCS, if less than 5 years.
Component:
Pesticide management
BMP 17 Woodland and Access Road Stabilization
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Component:
Woodland access road stabilization
BMP 18 Water Quality Improvement through
Woodland Improvement
Lifespan: minimum of 10 years
Component:
Woodland improvement
21
-------
How to Learn More About
RCWP
The following names and institutions can provide more information about
the Rural Clean Water Program.
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University
615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27605-1126
919/737-3723
ASCS Conservation and Environmental Protection Division
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th & Independence Avenue
4714 South Building
Washington, DC 20250
202/447-6221
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202/382-7100
SCS Land Treatment Division
U.S. Department of Agriculture
14th & Independence Avenue
6138 South Building
Washington, DC 20250
202/382-1870
Richard Magleby
USDA-Economic Research Service
1301 New York Avenue, NW
RTD / Suite 534
Washington, DC 20005
202/786-1435
(ID, IL, VT, SD and PA economic evaluations)
National Agriculture Library
Rural Information Center
Room 304
Beltsville, MD 20705
301/344-2547
22
-------
Rural Clean Water Program
Contacts
Names are current as of September 1990, but because of turnover, some
individuals listed here may no longer be associated with the project
Lake Tholocco, Alabama
Water Quality Monitoring
Victor Payne
USDA-SCS
P.O. Box 311
Auburn, AL 36830
Tel. (205)821-8070
Land Treatment
Michael C. Harris
District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
984 CE. Andrews Ave.
Ozark.AL 36360
Tel. (205) 774-4749
Information & Education
James Estes
CES
P.O. Box 390
Ozark.AL 36360
Tel. (205) 774-2329
Appoquinimink River, Delaware
Water Quality Monitoring
Thomas E. Russell
Water Resources Agency
2701 Capitol Trail/County Engineer. Bldg.
Newark, DE 19711
Tel. (302)731-7670
Bill Ritter
College of Agricultural Science
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Townsend Hall
Newark, DE 19717-1303
Tel. (302)451-2468
Land Treatment
Jack Lakatosh
USDA-SCS
6 Peoples Plaza
Newark, DE 19702
Tel. (302) 834-3560
Corinthia Carty
USDA-ASCS
4 Peoples Plaza
Newark, DE 19702
Tel. (302) 368-4778
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin &
Kissimmee River, Florida
Water Quality Monitoring
Gary Ritter/Greg Sawka/Boyd Gunsalus
South Florida Water Mgmnt. Dist.
1000 NE 40th Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34973
Tel. (813)763-3776
Land Treatment
Steve Mozley
USDA-SCS
611SWParkSt.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
Tel. (813)763-3619
JoeAlbers
South Florida Water Mgmnt. Dist.
1000 NE 40th Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34973
Tel. (813)763-9388
Diane N. Conway
USDA-ASCS
609 SW Park St.
Okeechobee, FL 349782
Tel. (813) 763-3345
Information & Education
Vickie Hoge
CES
501 NW Fifth Ave.
Okeechobee, FL 34972
Tel. (813) 763-6469
23
-------
Rock Creek, Idaho
Water Quality Monitoring
Terry Maret
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
450 West State Street
Boise, Idaho 83720
Tel. (208) 334-5860
Land Treatment
Rich Yankey
USDA-SCS
634AddisonAve,W.
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Tel. (208) 733-5380
Dave Detuillio
USDA-SCS
3232 Elder St.
Boise, ID 83705-4711
Tel. (208)334-1053
Jim Mclaughlin
USDA-ASCS
671 Filer St.
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Tel. (208)733-6132
Jean Greear
USDA-ASCS
3220 Elder St.
Boise, ID 83705
Tel. (208)334-1486
Information & Education
Gayle Stover
Information and Education Specialist
Rock Creek RCWP
USDA-SCS
212 Deere St.
Twin Falls, ID 83301
Tel. (208) 733-5380
Highland Silver Lake, Illinois
Water Quality Monitoring
Robert L. Hite
Environmental Protection Specialist
Div. Water Pollution Control
Planning Section IEPA
2209 W. Main St
Marion, IL 62959
Tel. (618)997-4371
Land Treatment
Sandy And res
Southwest IL Metro-area Planning
203 West Main
Collinsville, IL 62234
Tel. (618)344-4250
Wayne Kinney
USDA-SCS
Rte. 1, Box 35
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Tel (618) 656-4710
Paul O'Grady
USDA-ASCS
P.O. Box 246
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Tel. (618)656-7300
Information & Education
Ron Cornwell
CES
Box427/900Hillsboro
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Tel. (618)656-8400
Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa
Water Quality Monitoring
Ubbo Agena/Bill Bryant
Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Bldg
East 9th & Grand Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
Tel. (515)281-6402
Land Treatment
Merle Lawyer
USDA-SCS
1112 Momingview Dr./ RR#4
Harlan, IA 51537
Tel. (712)755-2417
RoseCoenen
USDA-ASCS
1110 Momingview Dr.
P.O. Box 106
Harlan, IA 51537
Tel. (712)755-5116
Information & Education
Duane R.Feltz
Shelby County Extension Service
1105 8th Street
Harlan, IA 51537
Tel. (712)755-3104
24
-------
Bayou Bonne Idee, Louisiana
Water Quality Monitoring
Kent Milton
USDA-SCS
3737 Government St.
Alexandria, LA 71302
Tel. (318)473-7808
Jan Boydstun
Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. BOX44274
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Tel. (504) 342-6363
Land Treatment
Bennett Landreneau
Harry Hawthorne
J. B. LeRay
USDA-SCS
3737 Government St.
Alexandria, LA 71302
Tel. (318)473-7759
Double Pipe Creek, Maryland
Water Quality Monitoring
John McCoy
Water Management Administration
Maryland Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Hwy.
Baltimore, MD 21224
Tel. (301)631-3575
Land Treatment
Elizabeth Schaeffer
Carroll County ASCS
1004 Littlestown Pike
Suite C
Westminster, MD 21157
Tel. (301)848-2780
John Sanders
Doug Valentine
USDA-SCS
1004 Littlestown Pike, Suite B-1
Westminster, MD 21157
Tel. (301)848-6696
Information & Education
Dave Green
Carroll County CES
700 Agriculture Center
Westminster, MD 21157
Tel. (301)848-4611
Sussie Stonesifer
USDA-ASCS
1004 Littlestown Pike
Westminster, MD 21157
Tel. (301)848-2780
Westport River Watershed, Massachusetts
Water Quality Monitoring
Larry Gil (advisory role)
Div. Envtl. Quality Engineering
Water Pollution Control
Westboro Technical Services Branch
Lyman School
Westboro, MA 02790
Tel. (508) 792-7470
Land Treatment
Mark DeBrock
District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
21 Spring St.
Taunton, MA 02780
Tel. (508) 824-6668
25
-------
Saline Valley, Michigan
Water Quality Monitoring
Thomas Johengen
Dept. of Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Ml 48109
Tel. (313)747-2728
Land Treatment
Robert Payne
USDA-ASCS
1405 S. Harrison Rd, Room 1116
Fort Lansing, Ml 48823
Tel. (517)337-6671
Gary Rinkenberger
USDA-SCS
Dennis Rice, Washtenaw Cons. District
6101 Jackson Rd.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48103-9598
Tel. (313) 761-6722
Garvin Brook, Minnesota
Water Quality Monitoring
David Wall
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
Tel. (612)296-7360
Land Treatment
Mark Kunz
District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
Box 38
Le wist on, MN 55952
Tel. (507)523-2171
Information & Education
Neil Broadwater/Charles Radatz
Winona County CES
County Office Building
202 West 3rd Street
Winona, MN 55987
Tel. (507) 457-6440
Long Pine Creek, Nebraska
Water Quality Monitoring
Mike Callam - Surface Water
Marty Link - Ground Water
Nebraska Dept. of Envtl. Control
301 Centennial Mall Soiith/P.O. Box 94877
State House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-4877
Tel. (402) 471-4700 (Callam)
Tel. (402) 471-4230 (Link)
Land Treatment
Gayle Siefken/Jerry Hardy/Diego Ayala
Soil Conservationists
USDA-SCS
Ainsworth Field Office
Ainsworth, NE 69210
Tel. (402) 387-2242
Robert Hilske
Middle Niobrara Nat. Res. Dist.
526 East First St.
Valentine, NE 69201
Tel. (402) 376-3241
Ray Stenka
USDA-ASCS
Ainsworth Field Office, R.R.2
Ainsworth, NE 69210
Tel. (402) 387-2242
Information & Education
Bud Stolzenburg/Dennis Bauer
Extension Agents
Long Pine Creek RCWP
BKR Cooperative Extension Service
Brown County Courthouse
Ainsworth, NE 69210
Tel. (402)387-2213
26
-------
Tillamook Bay, Oregon
Water Quality Monitoring
Andy Schaedel
Oregon Dept. of Environmental
Quality
811SW6thAve.
Portland, OR 97204-1309
Tel. (503) 229-5983
Land Treatment
Elizabeth L. Lissman
USDA-ASCS
Rm. 1524, Federal Bldg.
1220 SW Third
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 326-2741
Bob Pederson
USDA-SCS
2204 4th Street, Suite B
Tillamook, OR 97141
Tel. (503) 842-2848
Conestoga Headwaters, Pennsylvania
Water Quality Monitoring
Patricia Lietman
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
P.O.-Box 1107
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Tel. (717)782-3831
Mary Jo Brown
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environ. Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Mgmnt.
One Ararat Blvd
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tel (717) 657-4590
Land Treatment
Warren Archibald, Lancaster SCS
Room 4, Farm & Home Ctr.,
1383 Arcadia Road
Lancaster, PA 17601
Tel. (717)299-1563
Administration
Ray Brubaker
Lancaster ASCS
Room 3, Farm & Home Ctr.
Lancaster, PA 17601
Tel. (717)397-6235
Information & Education
Leon Ressler/Jeff Stolzfuss
Pennsylvania State University
Nutrient Management Office
745-D East Main Street
New Holland, PA 17557
Tel. (717)354-8116
Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett, South Dakota
Water Quality Monitoring
Jeanne Goodman
Office of Water Quality
S. Dakota Dept. of Water & Nat.
Resources, Joe Foss Bldg, Rm. 217
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-3181
Tel. (605) 773-3296
Dave German/John Bischoff
Water Resource Institute
South Dakota State University, Box 2120
Brookings, SD 57007
Tel. (605) 688-5611 (German)
Tel. (605) 688-5672 (Bischoff)
Land Treatment
Michael Kuck
USDA-SCS
107 22nd St.
Brookings, SD 57006
Tel. (605) 692-2344
Dwayne Breyer
USDA-SCS
200 4th Street, SW, Room 203
Huron, SD 57350
Tel. (605)353-1783
Ronald Larson
USDA-ASCS
200 4th Street, SW, Room 208
Huron, SD 57350
Tel. (605)353-1878
Information & Education
Al Bender
Water Resource Institute
South Dakota State University, Box 2120
Brookings, SD 57007
Tel. (605)688-4910
27
-------
Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee/Kentucky
Water Quality Monitoring
Andrew Barrass
Tenn. Dept. of Natural Resources
150 9th Ave. N., TERRABldg.
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
Tel. (615)741-0638
Land Treatment
Louis Godbey
USDA-SCS
U.S. Court House, 801 Broadway
675 Kefauver Fed. Bldg.
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel. (615)736-7112
William Hancock
Chief of Conservation Program
579 Federal Bldg.
801 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel. (615)736-5551
Snake Creek Project, Utah
Water Quality Monitoring
Ray Loveless
Utah Mountain Land Association of
Governments
2545 N. Canyon Rd.
Provo, UT 84604
Tel. (801)377-2262
Land Treatment
Chairman
Local Coordinating Committee
Snake Creek RCWP
Wasatch County ASCS Office
P.O. Box 6
Heber City, UT 84032
Provo Tel. (801) 377-5296
Jack Young
Conservation Technician
USDA-SCS
P.O. Box 87
Heber City, UT 84032
Tel. (801)654-0242
Bryant Brady
District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
P.O. Box 87
Heber City, UT 84032
Tel. (801)377-5580
St. Albans Bay, Vermont
Water Quality Monitoring
Jack Clausen
Don Meals
University of Vermont
Aiken Center
Burlington, VT 05405
Tel. (802) 656-4057
Land Treatment
USDA-SCS
69 Union Street
Winooski, VT 05404
Tel. (802)951-6795
Jan Jamrog
USDA-ASCS
346 Shelburne Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Tel. (802)951-6715
Information & Education
Bill Jokela
Univ. of Vermont - CES
Hills Bldg.
Burlington, VT 05405-0082
Tel. (802) 656-0480
28
-------
Nansemond-Chuckatuck, Virginia
Water Quality Monitoring
John M. Carlock
Chief Physical Planner
SE VA Planning Dist. Comm.
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
Tel. (804) 420-8300
Information & Education
Charlie Perkins
Virginia Coop. Ext. Service
P.O. Box 364
Windsor, VA 23487
Tel. (804)242-6195
Land Treatment
Don Davis/Jim Wright
USDA-SCS
B-19,1548 Holland Rd.
Suffolk, VA 23434
Tel. (804) 539-9270
Lower Manitowoc River Watershed, Wisconsin
Water Quality Monitoring
Roger Bannerman
Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
Tel. (608) 266-9278
Tim Rasman
Dept. of Natural Resources
1125 Military Ave.
Green Bay, Wl 54307
Tel. (414)497-4040
Land Treatment
Robert L. Wenzel, Chairman
Thomas Ward
Manitowoc Soil & Water Cons. Dist.
1701 Michigan Ave.
Manitowoc, Wl 54220
Tel. (414)682-2887
George Gottier
USDA-SCS
1701 Michigan Ave.
Manitowoc, Wl 54220
Tel. (414)683-4183
Information & Education
UWEX-Manitowoc County Office
1701 Michigan Ave.
Manitowoc, Wl 54220
Tel. (414)683-4167
29
-------
U.S. Env-*r "!_.:nt .1 P~v~eotion Agency
Hog:on t,, Mjiiry 15FL-]
------- |