Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program project boundaries and monitoring station locations.
Number 74 November 1995 ISSN 1062-9149
NWQEP NOTES EDITOR RECEIVES AWARD
The American Society of Agricultural Engineers presented a Blue Ribbon Award for an outstanding entry in the 1995 Educational Aids Competition to Judith A. Gale, Editor, for NWQEP NOTES, which she has edited since March 1991. The award was made in the category Publications: Periodicals, Newsletters, or Manuals.
Don Meals, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont
Deanna L. Osmond, NCSU Water Quality Group
Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program
project boundaries and monitoring station locations.
Project Synopsis
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring Program project (also known as the Lake Champlain Agricultural Watersheds Best Management Practice Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Project) is located in northcentral Vermont in an area of transition between the lowlands of the Champlain Valley and the foothills of the Green Mountains. Agricultural activity, primarily dairy farming, is the major land use in this area of Vermont.
The streams in the Lake Champlain Basin watersheds drain into the Missisquoi River, a major tributary of Lake Champlain. The designated uses of many of the streams in this region are impaired by agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants, including: nutrients (particularly phosphorus), fecal coliform bacteria, and organic matter. The source of most of the pollution is manure generated from area dairy farms, livestock activity within streams and riparian areas, and crop production. The Missisquoi River has the second largest discharge of water and contributes the greatest NPS load of phosphorus to Lake Champlain.
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds 319 National Monitoring Program project, which covers 7,576 acres, is designed to evaluate two treatments to control the pollutants generated by agricultural activities. Treatment #1 is a system of best management practices (BMPs) to exclude livestock from selected critical areas of streams and to protect streambanks. Individual BMPs for treatment #1 include watering systems, fencing, minimization of livestock crossing areas in streams, and strengthening of the necessary crossing areas. Treatment #2 involves intensive grazing management through rotation of the pastures.
The water quality monitoring is based on a three-way paired design: one control watershed and two treatment watersheds. The watersheds are being monitored for a two-year calibration period prior to BMP implementation. Implementation monitoring will occur for one year and post-treatment monitoring will extend for three years.
The project area is within the area of the Lake Champlain Basin Program (modeled after the Chesapeake Bay Program), which is directed toward the management of Lake Champlain and its watershed. Considerable effort on agricultural NPS control is associated with the program, including funding for pollution control and prevention demonstration projects. The state of Vermont's phosphorus management strategy also calls for targeted reductions of phosphorus loads from selected sub-basins in the Lake Champlain Basin.
Project Time Frame
Because of their size, the study streams are subject to very limited use for agricultural purposes (livestock watering) and recreation (swimming and fishing). No historical data exist to document support or non-support of these or other uses. Initial project data indicate that Vermont water quality (bacteriological) criteria for body contact recreation are consistently violated in project-area streams.
Early biological data for fish and macroinvertebrates indicate moderate to severe impact by nutrients and organic matter. The project watersheds were selected as representative of agricultural watersheds in the Lake Champlain Basin, in which state water quality criteria are often violated (Clausen and Meals, 1989; Meals, 1990; Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee, 1991), and in which nutrient concentrations and loads generally exceed average values reported from across the United States (Omernik, 1977) and in the Great Lakes Region (PLUARG, 1978).
The receiving waters for the streams -- the Missisquoi River and Lake Champlain -- have very high recreational use that is impaired by agricultural runoff (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1994). The Missisquoi River is the second largest tributary to Lake Champlain in terms of discharge and contributes the highest annual NPS phosphorus load to Lake Champlain among the major tributary watersheds. Lake Champlain currently fails to meet state water quality standards for phosphorus, primarily due to excessive NPS loads (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1994). About 66% of the NPS phosphorus load to Lake Champlain has been attributed to agricultural land (Budd and Meals, 1994).
Project Water Quality Objectives
The overall goal of the project is a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of two livestock and grazing management practices in reducing concentrations and loads of nutrients, bacteria, and sediment from small agricultural watersheds. Major water quality objectives are to: 1) document changes in sediment, nutrient, and bacteria concentrations and loads due to treatment at the watershed outlets and 2) evaluate response of stream biota to treatment.
Nonpoint Source Control Strategy
The project is designed to test two treatments: 1) livestock exclusion/streambank protection, and 2) intensive grazing management. In the first treatment watershed, the focus will be selective exclusion of livestock from the streams, improvement or elimination of heavily used stream crossings, and re-vegetation of streambanks. This treatment will require fencing, watering systems, minimizing livestock crossing areas, and strengthening necessary crossing areas.
In the second treatment watershed, the focus will be intensive rotational grazing management to minimize the time spent by livestock in or near the stream course without complete exclusion.
During the two-year pre-treatment monitoring phase (currently in the second year), treatment needs are being assessed, specific plans and specifications developed, and agreements with landowners pursued. It is anticipated that the project will provide 100% cost support for cooperating landowners. In the treatment phase of the project, agricultural management activity - both routine and treatment implementation - will be monitored by farmer record-keeping and semi-annual interviews.
It is also anticipated that some work will be done as necessary on agricultural point sources, if and when such pollutant sources are identified.
Water Quality Monitoring Design
The project is based on a three-way paired watershed design, with one control watershed and a treatment watershed for each of the two treatments to be evaluated. The monitoring design calls for two years of pre-treatment calibration, one year of implementation, and three years of post-treatment monitoring.
Variables being measured include E. coli, fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus bacteria; macroinvertebrates; fish; total phosphorus; total Kjeldahl nitrogen; total suspended solids; dissolved oxygen; conductivity; and temperature. Explanatory variables include precipitation and discharge.
Automated sampling stations are located at three watershed outlets for continuous recording of streamflow, automatic flow-proportional sampling, and weekly composite samples for sediment and nutrients. The watersheds are as follows: WS3 is the control, WS1 is the rotational grazing treatment, and WS2 is the streambed protection treatment. Twice-weekly grab samples for bacteria are collected as are concurrent in-stream measurement of temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. Three precipitation gages have been installed. All monitoring systems operate year-round.
Macroinvertebrate communities at each site and a fourth background reference site are sampled annually using a kick net/timed effort technique. Methods and analysis follow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Protocol III). Fish are sampled twice a year by electroshocking and evaluated according to Rapid Bioassessment Protocols Protocol V.
Physical habitat assessments are also performed during each sampling run.
Lake Champlain Watersheds Section 319 National Monitoring
Program project boundaries and monitoring locations
Water Quality Data Management and Analysis
Primary data management is being conducted using an in-house spreadsheet system. The USEPA Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) software will be used to track and report data to USEPA as soon as a working version capable of handling three watersheds is available. Requisite data entry into STORET has been set up and reformatting of biological data for BIOS is under way.
Water quality data and basic plots and univariate statistics are compiled and reported for quarterly project advisory committee meetings. For annual reports, data are analyzed on a water-year basis. Data analysis includes both parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures in standard statistical software.
Information, Education, and Publicity
Pre-project activity included letters to all watershed agricultural landowners followed by meetings with farmers in each watershed. The purpose of the meetings was to assess landowner interest and acceptance of the project. In July, 1994, a station open-house was held to present the project, monitoring hardware, and early monitoring results. Two articles on the project have been published in the weekly county newspaper and a semi-annual project newsletter is planned.
Because the project is currently in the pre-treatment calibration phase, information and education efforts are being focused on laying the groundwork for treatment by presenting demonstrations and information concerning rotational grazing and livestock access control. Additional contact with farmers occurs through collection of land management data.
For Further Information Contact
Administration:
Richmond Hopkins
Vermont Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Division
Building 10 North 103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671
Tel: (802) 241-3770; Fax (802) 241-3287
Land Treatment and Water Quality Monitoring:
Don Meals
School of Natural Resources
University of Vermont
UVM-Aiken Center
Burlington, VT 05405
Tel: (802) 656-4057; Fax (802) 656-8683
Internet: dmeals@clover.uvm.edu
References
Budd, L. and D.W. Meals. 1994. Lake Champlain Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment. Technical Report No. 6, Lake Champlain Basin Program, Grand Isle, Vermont.
Clausen, J.C. and D.W. Meals. 1989. Water Quality Achievable with Agricultural Best Management Practices. J. Soil and Water Cons. 44:594-596.
Meals, D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program Comprehensive Final Report. Vermont Water Resources Research Center, Univ. of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Omernik, J.M. 1977. Nonpoint Source Stream Nutrient Level Relationship: A Nationwide Study. EPA-600/3-77-105. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
PLUARG. 1978. Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System. Final Report to the International Joint Commission from the International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 1994. State of Vermont 1994 Water Quality Assessment, 305(b) Report. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division, Waterbury, VT.
Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee. 1991. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program Final Report, 1980-1990. Vermont Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
The following article is based on one of a series of technical fact sheets designed to share the lessons learned from the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) about nonpoint source pollution control projects with natural resource professionals. Each fact sheet includes examples from the RCWP projects to illustrate key points. Copies of the fact sheet series, WQ-89, are available free (while they last). Contact: Publications Coordinator, NCSU Water Quality Group, 615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27605-1126, Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919-515-7448, email: wq_puborder@ncsu.edu.
Critical Areas in Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Projects:
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience
NCSU Water Quality Group
A primary objective of a nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control watershed project is to protect or restore the designated use of a water resource by reducing pollutant delivery to the water resource. Because nonpoint sources of pollution are usually widespread, intermittent, and undefined, mitigating a water quality problem, or potential problem, caused by NPS pollution is often difficult. The task is further complicated when sufficient time and funding are not available to implement all the recommended best management practices (BMPs). For this reason, a land treatment strategy should be developed to guide the selection and implementation of BMPs. While strategies can vary widely depending on hydrologic, sociologic, and agronomic factors, a key component of the most effective strategies is identification and appropriate treatment of NPS areas contributing disproportionately to the water quality problem. Concentrating land treatment efforts on these critical areas, or sources, helps ensure that available resources are appropriated as efficiently as possible.
The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) was a 15-year federally sponsored NPS pollution control program designed to address agricultural NPS pollution problems in watersheds across the country (Gale et al., 1993). Twenty-one experimental projects, representing a wide range of pollution problems, were funded through the RCWP. Each project involved both land treatment and water quality monitoring. Landowner participation was voluntary, with cost share funds and technical assistance offered as incentives for implementation of BMPs designed to reduce NPS pollution.
All RCWP projects were required to identify and treat critical areas. However, since explicit guidance was not provided, project critical area criteria varied widely from simply all land within a set distance from a water resource to a complex set of factors applied to individual farms. The experiences of the 21 RCWP projects provide the basis for the following discussion of critical areas.
All nonpoint sources of pollution are not equal. Many nonpoint sources of pollution are insignificant, while other sources contribute substantially to water resource impairment. Topographic, hydrologic, and agronomic factors often combine to make some nonpoint sources more detrimental to the beneficial use of water resources than others. Therefore, a method or strategy to identify and prioritize for treatment NPS areas that are more detrimental than others is desirable. Identifying and treating in order of priority the sources that most adversely affect the water resource helps speed up the restoration process and may save time and money by achieving the same pollutant reduction by treating fewer sources.
Important Factors in Identifying and Defining Critical
Areas
Defining critical NPS areas involves identifying the major pollutant sources and
assessing the
hydrologic transport system from the source to the water resource. The purpose of
this
assessment is to estimate how much of each pollutant of concern will actually affect
the water
resource. For example, if a pollutant source is on a small intermittent tributary that
is slow
moving and drains through a large wetland and several miles of stream before
emptying into a
lake, then the pollutant source may not be as critical as a similar source on a perennial
stream
within a mile of the lake. The difference in the efficiency of the hydrologic transport
system
makes the delivery of pollutants to the lake from one source much more likely than
from the
other. Therefore, although both pollutant sources should be treated, the source closer
to the lake
should be considered a higher priority.
The transport mechanisms by which pollutants are carried to a water resource help identify critical pollutant sources. Pollutants that are sorbed to sediment or organic matter are much less likely to be delivered to the water resource (because of settling or filtering en route) than are pollutants in the dissolved phase, such as nitrate.
Another factor in determining critical sources is the magnitude of the source. A
source area that
contributes large amounts of pollutants to a waterway often has a significant impact
on a water
resource, regardless of the efficiency of the hydrologic system. A few sources of
large amounts
of pollutants can overload the filtering capability of natural waterways or, for ground
water,
overlying soils, thereby creating chronic water quality problems. Thus, the
magnitude of the
source as well as the hydrologic transport system must be considered in determining
whether the
source is critical.
Finally, the type of pollutant must be considered in critical area selection. Examples
of pollutants
include: fine sediment that causes turbidity, larger sediment that causes reduced reservoir
-storage capacity, phosphorus that causes eutrophication, and microbial pathogens or
pesticides
that cause health risks. Identifying the primary pollutants facilitates focusing of land treatment
on
the critical sources causing the water quality impairment. For instance, a single pollutant may
be
the primary cause of the impairment; in which case it would not be necessary to treat source
areas of other pollutants. When bacteria are causing the impairment, critical areas need include
only those areas in which bacteria is a problem, such as in and around animal operations.
Critical areas are also determined by the type of water resource that is impaired.
Critical areas
for ground water versus surface water problems may differ because the pollutants
causing the
impairment, sources of pollutants delivered to the water resource, and hydrology of
the recharge
area or watershed are different.
In the Minnesota RCWP project, the ground water recharge (critical) area was significantly different from the surface watershed and critical areas. The surface water resource, Garvin Brook, was a trout stream impaired by high sediment and nutrient loads. The surface watershed critical area was determined by distance to flowing water, sinkholes, and abandoned wells, then refined using the Agricultural Non-Point-Source Pollution Model (AGNPS) (Young et al., 1987). The impaired ground water resource was a shallow aquifer. The recharge area for the aquifer extended outside the Garvin Brook watershed. Thus, source areas critical to one type of water resource may not be critical to another.
In general, the more severe the water quality problem, the greater the pollutant
reduction and
extent of land treatment required to reverse the problem. Also, the type of problem
affects critical
area selection. If peak concentrations or standard violations are the problem, critical
areas may
be determined by the maximum pollutant delivery rate. For example, surface
drinking water
supply impairments are often caused by peak pollutant concentrations. Conversely,
critical area
selection that minimizes pollutant accumulation can be important for addressing loss
of reservoirstorage capacity or destruction of benthic habitat.
Methods Used to Identify Critical Areas
Developing a set of scientific criteria facilitates systematic assessment of the factors involved in critical area identification. The ideal criteria incorporate the efficiency of the hydrologic system in pollutant transport, magnitude of the source, and type of pollutant into guidelines that can be applied throughout the watershed. However, due to the complexity of the task, criteria are often simplified to the point that they are of little value. One simple criterion used in the RCWP was to define as critical all cropland within one-quarter mile of the water resource. This criterion ignored land use activities and potential pollutant loading from sources along tributaries. Another simple criterion, identifying the entire watershed as critical, is usually not efficient unless the project area is small and major pollutant sources are uniformly widespread. Pollutant transport, source magnitude, and pollutant type should each be addressed by the simplest set of criteria.
Critical area criteria for watersheds with animal waste problems are particularly complex because these watersheds often include two or more pollutants and various types of sources, such as land application of animal waste, untreated feedlots, and livestock lounging in streams. The presence of an untreated feedlot combined with its distance from a watercourse was the criterion used most often to identify a critical pollutant source in the RCWP projects. Obviously, this criterion is important because untreated feedlots are sources of large quantities of nutrients and bacteria, and, if untreated feedlots are near waterways, the probability of pollutant loading to the drainage system is high.
For watersheds in which eroding cropland contributes significant quantities of sediment-attached phosphorus in runoff, the distance to the nearest waterway is also important. Other important criteria include cropping system, soil erodibility, land slope, waste application rate, soil fertility, and current management practice. Cropland receiving excess fertilizer may also be critical, depending on location. When nitrogen loading is a major problem, losses are usually not directly related to soil erodibility or sediment movement, but are more closely related to manure or fertilizer application rate and timing, soil type and texture, and area hydrology.
Critical area criteria should be applied consistently throughout the project watershed. Applying all the criteria to the whole area ensures not only that major pollutant sources receive priority for treatment, but also that landowners whose farms do not meet the criteria do not feel excluded from the program for non-scientific reasons.
Identifying critical pollutant sources is sometimes simply a matter of observation. In the Utah RCWP project, a small critical area was defined within a large watershed based on the observation that animal holding corrals were located directly in or close to drainage ways and, therefore, obviously constituted high priority for treatment. Critical pollutant source areas are not always so obvious. In several RCWP projects, methods for applying criteria to animal waste problems were developed. In Oregon and Vermont, rating systems based on manure management practices and distance from a watercourse were used to prioritize farms for treatment. The Vermont project identified critical areas based on phosphorus load (considered treatable with BMPs) per farm.
For watersheds with complex hydrology and many different types of pollutant sources, sophisticated computer models may be needed to accurately identify critical areas. The Florida RCWP project used pre-project monitoring and the Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems (CREAMS) model (Knisel, 1980) to identify critical sources of phosphorus. This method identified as critical all dairy operations in the project area, all fertilized and extensively ditched beef cattle pastures, and all agricultural land within one-quarter mile of major streams, ditches, and channels (Stanley and Gunsalus, 1991). Other RCWP projects (Minnesota, Vermont, Illinois, Wisconsin) used computer models to evaluate how well pollutant sources had been targeted, or to adjust critical areas.
Distributed parameter water quality models, such as AGNPS, are generally the most accurate tools for identifying critical areas short of actually monitoring the sources. However, considerable expertise and significant amounts of time and effort are required to assemble the necessary model input and to interpret the output. The initial expense is often worthwhile, considering the time and money required to design, cost share, and implement BMPs.
Spatial analysis using land use survey and hydrologic data in a geographic information system is often useful as an initial estimate of critical areas and, when available, can reduce the number of source areas requiring further evaluation.
Water quality monitoring is useful for identifying sub-watersheds, tributaries, or land areas contributing significant amounts of pollutants. The Florida and Nebraska RCWP projects used monitoring to document major sources of sediment and nutrients, which facilitated prioritization of critical sub-watersheds. Monitoring to confirm critical areas can be relatively simple, such as collecting grab samples at a few key locations over several months.
Summary
Proper identification, prioritization, and treatment of critical areas will significantly improve the chances of mitigating a water quality impairment in a NPS pollution control project. The Idaho, Florida, and Utah RCWP projects documented 40 to 90% reductions in pollutant concentrations by identifying and treating critical areas using the methods outlined above.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, T.J. Hoban, and R.C. Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water Program. NCSU Water Quality Group, Bio. & Ag. Eng. Dept., NC State Univ., Raleigh, NC, EPA-841- R-93-005, 559p.
Knisel, W.G., ed. 1980. CREAMS: A Field-scale Model for Chemical, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Managements Systems. Conservation Research Report 26. Dept. Agric. Science and Education Administration, Washington, D.C. 640p.
Stanley, J.W. and B. Gunsalus. 1991. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Project, Rural Clean Water Program Okeechobee, Florida Ten-year Report 1981-1990. Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough, Florida RCWP local coordinating committee, Okeechobee, FL. 231p.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1987. AGNPS,
Agricultural
Non-Point-Source Pollution Model: A Watershed Analysis Tool. Conservation
Research Report
35. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Washington, D.C. 77p.
Juo, A.S.R. and R.D. Freed (eds). 1995. Agriculture and Environment: Bridging Food Production and Environmental Protection in Developing Countries. American Soc. of Agronomy, Crop Science Soc. of America, and Soil Science Soc. of America, Madison, WI. ASA Special Publication No. 60. 275p.
This publication is a collection of papers presented at the 1993 Joint Annual Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America in Cincinnati, Ohio. The purpose of the book is to enhance understanding of issues related to agriculture and environment both within and outside the agronomy community.
One of the papers is by Deanna Osmond, Water Quality Extension Specialist, NCSU Water Quality Group. Reprints of her paper, entitled The Rural Clean Water Program: A voluntary, experimental nonpoint source pollution control program and its relevance to developing nations, are available by contacting Publications Coordinator, NCSU Water Quality Group, 615 Oberlin Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27605-1126, Tel: 919-515-3723, Fax: 919- 515-7448, email: wq_puborder@ncsu.edu (please refer to WQ-92 when requesting the reprint).
The book may be ordered from the ASA Headquarters Office (Attn: Marketing), 677
South Segoe
Road, Madison, WI 53711-1086, Tel: 608-273-8080. Cost is $25 per copy within
the U.S. (make
checks out to American Society of Agronomy).
Farmers today are faced with multiple challenges as they make decisions on crop rotations, nutrient management, and economic returns, while trying to conserve the resource base. Decision making is further complicated by varying soil types and other site characteristics.
In an effort to meet this challenge, a multi-agency team is developing a computer program to assist farmers. The Comprehensive Resource Planning System (CROPS) is designed to help farmers achieve their production objectives while also meeting sustainable agricultural goals. CROPS can help farmers achieve multiple objectives by producing alternative and final plans that meet whole-farm production and tillage needs as well as farm production and economic goals, address nutrient and pesticide leaching and runoff considerations, meet resource conservation objectives, and minimize reliance on purchased inputs.
CROPS produces a resource conservation plan that includes recommendations for crop rotation and tillage, soil conservation,and pesticide and nutrient management. The software provides graphic display of farm plan and income projections and comparisons.
The development of CROPS is a cooperative effort by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); USDA/EPA Southern Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Project; Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation; Pennsylvania Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts; and Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania farmers. A prototype is currently in place in the NRCS field office in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The system is being field tested by farmers and field staff. For more information, contact David Faulkner, CROPS Coordinator, USDA-NRCS, Richmond, VA (Tel: 804-287-1664) or Dr. Nick Stone, VPI, Blacksburg, VA (Tel: 703-231-6885).
You may want to browse through the information listed on the NCSU Water Quality Group's home page, including:
2) a list of publications available through the Water Quality Group
3) the Rural Clean Water Program evaluation report (click on Rural Clean Water Program)
4) a list of Water Quality Group projects.
Also accessible via our home page is WATERSHEDSS, a decision support system that we are currently developing with a grant from U.S. EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens, GA. The decision support system, called WATERSHEDSS (WATER, Soil, and Hydro-Environmental Decision Support System), has been designed as a tool to facilitate effective management of agricultural nonpoint source pollution at the watershed level.
** Many thanks to our programmers, Cary Knott and Jerry Sienkiewicz, for their great work in getting all of the above on line!! **
I welcome your views, findings, information, and suggestions for articles. Please feel free to contact me.
Judith A. Gale, Editor
Water Quality Extension Specialist
North Carolina State University Water Quality Group
Campus Box 7637
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695
Tel: 919-515-3723
Fax: 919-515-7448
Internet: notes_editor@ncsu.edu