January, 2006Vol. 8, No. 4

Upcoming EventsKansas Grazer’s Assoc.Winter Grazing ConferenceJan. 21, 2006Assaria, KSMary Howell785.363.7306marshallcofair@networksplus.net

Cattlemen’s Seedstock Conference and ShowcaseJan. 23, 2006Phillipsburg, KSKent McKinnis785.543.6845mckinnis@k-state.edu

Grazing Lease MeetingsJan. 23, 2006Manhattan morning Marysville afternoonJan. 24, 2006Clay Center morningBellville afternoonChuck Otte785.238.4161cotte@oznet.ksu.edu

Heart of America Grazing Conf. Jan. 25-26, 2006Cave City, KYChristi Forsythe270-365-7541 x221cforsyth@uky.eduhttp://www.uky.edu/Ag/Forage/

WRAPS ConferenceJan. 26, 2006Salina, KSLisa Duncan785.296.4195nps@kdhe.state.ks.us

What do lease terms (length of tenure, per head vs. per acre, etc) have to do with water quality? At fi rst glance one may be tempted to conclude that there is no relationship. However, that conclusion would be premature. The underlying issue is whether or not alternative lease terms have an impact on the operator’s (tenant’s) long term stocking rate decision. Stocking rate over time, of course, impacts overall forage condition, vegetative cover, and other physical aspects of the grazing resource. Those physical aspects in turn impact rainfall infi ltration, runoff, and ultimately surface water quality.

Grazing land managers make stocking rate decisions at the beginning of each season that maxi-mize the expected returns or profi ts from the grazing enterprise, while at the same time taking into account non-economic objectives and goals. Of course conditions often deviate from ex-pectations over the course of the grazing season making it diffi cult to decide on optimal stock-ing rates at the beginning of the season, and resulting in decisions that appear to be sub-optimal in hindsight. An interesting issue revolves around the stocking rate economic incentives that are inherent in alternative land tenure (lease) arrangements over time. In other words, does the expected average profi t maximizing stocking rate differ for the operator (tenant) under alterna-tive lease arrangements.

A recent study looked at average profi t maximizing stocking rates under alternative land tenure arrangements and lengths of leases. Per acre and per head leases ranging in length from one year (annual) to 12 years were compared to an owner-operator arrangement where the opera-tor was assumed to have expectations of controlling the land in perpetuity. The “simulation” study looked at average stocking rates over a 24 year time period to account for livestock price cycles, weather patterns, and other factors. The model was designed around a particular acre-age in the Flint Hills stocked with traditional weight summer stocker cattle in the spring of the year, so the absolute results would be very location and program specifi c. However, the rela-tive results and implications apply to a much broader geographic area (certainly all of Kansas), and to alternative livestock uses of grazing resources (cow-calf pastures as opposed to summer stockers, for example).

Do Terms of Grazing Leases Matter?

The correct stocking rate maintains vegetative vigor and livestock performance while minimiz-ing the potential for environmental damage. Photo courtesey of Herschel George.

cont. on next page

Walt Fick

Kansas Cattleman’s Assoc. ConventionJan. 27-28, 2006Gread Bend, KScowsrus@st-tel.net

Tri-State Cow Calf Symposium.Jan. 29, 2006St. Francis, KSSandy Johnson785.462.6281sandyj@ksu.edu

KDHE Watershed Man-agement SeminarFeb. 2, 2006Topeka, KSLisa Duncan785-296-4195nps@kdhe.state.ks.us

Cover Your Acres Winter Conf.Feb. 2, 2006Oberlin, KSBrian Olson785.462.6281 bolson@oznet.ksu.edu

National Water Confer-ence: Research, Extension and Education for Water Quality and QuantityFeb. 5-9, 2006San Antonio, TXJoni Tanner919-513-1678 joni_tanner@ncsu.eduhttp://www.soil.ncsu.edu/swetc/waterconf/2006/main.htm

Kansas Grazing Lands Coalition InitiativeFeb. 7, 2006Salina, KSRick Davis785.233.5632rdavis@kglc.org

Lease agreements cont. from previous page

Current Rangeland Issues

Calendar Events, cont.

Consistent with many common perceptions, one year per acre lease arrangements resulted in the highest average stocking rates (22% higher than the average stocking rate of the owner operator). As the length of the lease increased (for both per head and per acre leases), average optimal stocking rates decrease. Under lease arrangements covering 8 years or more, optimal stocking rates are con-sistent with the average optimal stocking rate of an owner operator. In other words, long term lease arrangements provide incentives for the tenant to treat the property as if they owned it. It’s hard to ask more that than that.

Forage condition over time responds to stocking rates, with forage condition deteriorating more se-verely under short term lease arrangements (heavier average stocking). Per head lease arrangements provide some benefi ts to the operator on a year-to-year basis, allowing stocking rates to fl uctuate in response to livestock price conditions. Over a period of just a few years this increased fl exibility does not diminish average landowner returns, or negatively impact long-term forage condition.

Perhaps most interesting, long-term average returns for both the tenant and the landowner can be ex-panded by maintaining a higher level of forage condition over time. This outcome can be facilitated by utilizing longer term (more than one year) pasture leases, and by considering the advantages of per head leasing arrangements rather than the traditional one-year per acre leases. It is possible to improve the well being of everyone (grazingland operators, landowners, and the water quality con-scious public) by encouraging longer term written lease agreements for grazinglands.

Rodney Jones

Wildfi res in Texas and Oklahoma this win-ter have prompted burning bans in those two states. Warm and windy conditions along with dry soil conditions have fl amed fi res that have burned thousands of acres, doing considerable property damage, and resulting in the loss of life. Rangelands that have burned could have signifi cant forage loss and decreased livestock production next year. The lack of winter cover will increase runoff and decrease soil moisture.

Although conditions are not as serious in Kan-sas there have been overtures to put a state-wide burn ban into effect. To date, only a few counties have decided to do so. Other counties, mostly those with permit requirements, have issued statements emphasizing the rules for burning that require notifi cation and approval before lighting a match.

Hopefully, environmental conditions will im-prove before the pasture burning season begins. Safety is always the number one criterion when planning to conduct a prescribed burn. Know the state and your county regulations regard-ing burning. State regulations require that the local fi re department or designated entity, e.g. sheriff’s offi ce, emergency management offi ce, etc. be notifi ed before burning. It is a good idea to contact your neighbors about your intent to burn.

Smoke management is an important part of burning safety. If at all possible, burn under conditions that do not create a traffi c safety haz-ard. If conditions exist that will cause smoke to

blow toward a public roadway, notify the high-way patrol or sheriff’s offi ce before burning. Do not conduct a burn that creates an airport safety hazard. Other ways to manage smoke include timing, method of burning, and envi-ronmental conditions at the time of burning. Temperature inversions normally occur after dark or in the early morning. Inversions cause smoke to stay closer to the ground causing visibility and safety issues. Using a ring fi re technique is a good method to lift the smoke. Wind direction and speed impact where the smoke drifts. Burn with wind speeds less than 15 mph to prevent the smoke from staying too close to the ground. Fires are easier to control if air temperatures are in the 55-800 F range and relative humidity is 40-70%. In general, burn with conditions that lift and dissipate the smoke as quickly as possible.

Walt Fick

Producers need to consider wind direction and speed, humidity, and temperature when plan-ning a burn. Photo courtesy of Walt Fick.

Native Plant School: Plant PropagationFeb. 9, 2006Missouri Botanical Garden Shaw Nature ReserveSt. Louis, MO636.451.3512http://www.mobot.org/events/calendar.asp?Code=2006/02

Kansas Wildlife Federa-tion Annual MeetingFeb. 10-11, 2006Manhattan, KSSteve Sorensen316.755.2239webforbs@cox.net

Society for Range Management59th Annual MeetingFeb. 12-17, 2005Vancouver, British Colum-bia, Canadahttp://www.rangelands.org/vancouver2006/

Integrated Beef-Forage Systems ShortcourseFeb. 16, 2006Wallace, NEEllen Heil308.696.670

Ogallala Water SymposiumFeb. 20, 2006Wray, COGolden Plains Area Ext.970.345.2287http://www.coopext.colo-state.edu/GPA/2006_ogal-lala_aquifer_symposium.html

Kansas Stream Obstruc-tions WorkshopFeb. 22, 2006Wichita, KSBeth Cooper785-296-0573http://www.ksda.gov/De-fault.aspx?tabid=435

Forage Production SchoolFeb. 23, 2006Ulysses, KSCurtis Thompson620.275.9164cthompso@k-state.edu

Wildlife Society Spring Meeting-Kansas SectionFeb. 24-25, 2006Hays, KSElmer Fink785-628-4214efi nck@fhsu.edu

Research published in the Dec. 23 issue of the journal Science examines water and soil “trad-eoffs” when using trees to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

The fi ndings could aid future environmental policy, researchers said. The study found as more tree plantations are grown for biological-carbon sequestration, decreased stream fl ow and changes in soil and water quality are likely. While trees can help control groundwater re-charge, they also contribute to soil salinization and acidifi cation.

The practice should be used carefully in dry areas, said Dr. Bruce McCarl, part of the 10-member research team and a Texas Agricultural Experiment Station economist.

“When we establish forests for carbon plan-tations or wood, we consume water, reduce springfl ow and alter soil and water quality,” McCarl said. “This means we should be care-ful in areas where runoff helps alleviate water scarcity.”

Careful consideration must also be given to areas with dense brush, he said. “Where brush has grown, we know it uses water and its re-moval can increase water, but this also involves a tradeoff with the carbon stored in that brush,” he said. “Brush removal effects on carbon are okay now since the U.S. does not have a carbon emission policy, but it may be a future con-cern.”

According to the research, tree plantations decreased stream fl ow by 52 percent globally, with 13 percent of streams drying completely for at least one year.

While plantations can help with climate change issues when comprehensive environmental planning is conducted, the “co-benefi ts and tradeoffs of plantations need to be taken into account when negotiating exchange agree-ments,” the report said.

Blair Fannin Texas A&M University

Carbon sequestration practices affect rangeland hydrology

Brush control is important on Kansas rangelands. Brush interferes with grass growth, reducing available forage and water fi ltering capabilities. Photo courtesy of Walt Fick.

“Managers are frequently confronted with situations where they are expected to achieve poorly defi ned outcomes via the applica-tion of untested practices over unknown time frames.”

Brown, J.R., J.Herrick, and D. Price. 1999. Managing low-output agroecosystems sustain-ably: the importance of ecological thresholds. Canadian J. of Forest Res. 29:1113.

Calendar Events, cont.

Calendar Events, cont.EquiFest of KansasFeb. 24-26, 2006Wichita, KSKansas Horse Council7853776.0662equifest@kansashorsecouncil.oomwww.kansashorsecouncil.com

Playa Lakes: Gems of the Plains Exhibitthru Feb. 28, 2006Prarie Museum of Art and HistoryColby, KS785.460.4590www.prairiemuseum.org

March 8-April 30, 2006Sternberg Museum of Natural HistoryHays, KS877-332-1165http://www.fhsu.edu/stern-berg/traveling.shtml

KSU Cattleman’s DayMarch 3, 2006Manhattan, KSDale Blasi785.532.5427dblasi@k-state.edu

Tallgrass Legacy AllianceMarch, 9, 2006St. Anthony’s Parish HallStrong City, KSJeff Davidson620.583.7455jdavidso@k-state.edu

KSU Sheep DayMarch 11, 2006Manhattan, KSClifford Spaeth785.532.1255cspaeth@k-state.edu

Water and the Future of Kansas ConferenceMar. 16, 2006Capitol Plaza HotelTopeka, KS informationdce@ksu.edu

Integrated Beef-Forage Systems ShortcourseFeb 16, 2006Kearney, NEEllen Heil308.696.6701

2006 Kansas Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Contest Apr. 1, 2006Fall River, KSCharles Lee785-532-5734clee@ksu.edu

Jan Allen cares about the environment. A Great Blue Heron rookery located in the large sycamore trees on the creek that runs through her property is one example of the wildlife you’ll fi nd in her picturesque woodland located in Riley County. Yet Jan believes that owning land requires a commitment to the management or stewardship of the natural resources.

Thad Rhodes, forester with the Kansas Forest Service, was able to help Jan think about how she might manage her woodland and where

additional trees might be planted. The forester visited her property and prepared a tree plant-ing plan that included recommendations on site preparation, tree and shrub species best suited for the location and how to

control competing weeds and grass for the fi rst three years.

Landowner Protects Water Quality with FLEP

Jan Allen planted trees and shrubs and FLEP covered 75% of her expensesJan Allen planted trees and shrubs and FLEP covered 75% of her expenses. She used a tree plant-used a tree plant-ing plan prepared by a KFS forester to guide her tree planting project. Photos courtesy of Bob Atchinson

Jan begin implementing the plan by planting bur oak, sycamore and American plum adjacent to Wildcat Creek. She was able to off-set most of the costs of planting through the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). FLEP is a USDA program that covers 75% of the ex-penses landowners incur to plant trees and thin woodlands. So far Kansas has obligated over $147,000 of FLEP funding to forestry prac-tices like Jan’s. FLEP will also help establish agroforestry practices such as fi eld windbreaks, renovating old fi eld windbreaks, living snow-fences and livestock windbreaks that remove animals from riparian areas.

This year Kansas received another $50,000 of FLEP funding which landowners may apply for. Interested landowners should contact their local Kansas Forest Service district forester or the State offi ce at 785-532-3300.

Bob Atchison Rural Forestry Specialist

Kansas Forest Service

Before the Christmas holidays, the organiza-tion Bridging the Gap (BTG) found a unique way to encourage brush clearing in the greater Kansas City area. The following invitation was circulated:

Kansas City WildLands Fifth Annual Red Cedar Christmas Tree Day

Saturday, December 3, 2005

Native Trees available for cutting 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM

Get a native red cedar tree for the holidays!

Kansas City WildLands, in partnership with Jackson County Parks and Recreation, is again offering the public an opportunity to remove red cedars from an overgrown wild place and take them home to decorate for the holidays! You can help with the lands restoration, and make your house smell great at the same time! This year, the public is invited to cut their own eastern red cedar from one of two sites in north Fleming Park, Blue Springs, Missouri (Blue Springs Lake area). Please bring hand saws and rope. We will have a few saws on site if you need to borrow one. Sturdy boots and work gloves are recommended. Kansas City

Local environmental group uses novel approach to battle cedar encroachment

WildLands suggests a minimum $10 donation for each tree, with proceeds benefi ting natural community restoration throughout the Greater Kansas City region.

For more information, contact Linda at 816-561-1061 x116 or linda@bridgingthegap.org.

Happy Holidays!

For a map of Cedar Tree Event locations, your Web browser to:

http://www.bridgingthegap.org/E-mails/KCWL/CedarTree05/KCWLcedarTreeFlier05_map.htm

While cedar encroachment onto grasslands is typically seen as a rural problem, urban landscapes can also be affected. Prescribed burning, the most common method of cedar control, is often banned in urban areas and other cost-effective methods need to be found to address the problem.

For 14 years, BTG’s mission has been to en-courage local and global understanding of our interconnectedness and to develop this under-standing through community education and action. Their web site is: www.bridgingthegap.org

Carol Blocksome

One commonly suggested method for using riparian areas is to use the riparian area as a separate pasture, deferring grazing until later in the season or using the pasture in a rotation scheme. This management strategy can provide water quality and wildlife benefi ts, but there may be some sacrifi ce in animal performance.

“The longer a pasture is deferred, the greater the impact on livestock performance,” warned Dr. Clenton Owensby, Professor of Range Man-agement at KSU. Forage quality is best during late spring and early summer on native Kansas rangelands. As the season progresses, forage becomes more mature and quality declines.

Alternative strategies include continuous, light stocking of the riparian area, permanently excluding livestock from the riparian area, and removing trees from near the water. “Shade is a stronger attractant than water for loafi ng dur-ing hot summer days,” Dr. Owensby explained. “Cattle, once they have drunk their fi ll, will leave water to seek shade.” Trees or other

Cattle performance and behavior is affected by riparian management

shade on the upland will reduce cattle loafi ng in the riparian area. Cattle seek shade to the extent that they will align themselves with fence post shadows at the corners where the H-braces provide additional shade.

Upland shade will effectively change animal loafi ng behavior only if the trees are removed from the riparian area. If trees remain and cattle have continuous access to the riparian area, upland shade may have little effect on animal behavior1; cattle will continue to prefer the combination of water and shade over shade alone during hot weather.

When fencing out riparian areas, take into account the length of the shadows cast by ri-parian trees. Dr. Owensby concludes, “During the summer, trees will cast very long shadows. If this shadow extends beyond the fenced area, cattle will move into the shade along the fence, close to the riparian area.”

Carol Blocksome

1Zuo, H. and M.S. Miller-Goodman. 2004. Landscape use by cattle affected by pasture devel-opments and season. J. Range Manage. 57:426-434.

Also recommended:McIlvain, E.H. and M.C. Shoop. 1971. Shade for improving cattle gains and rangeland use. J. Range Manage. 24:181-184.

KSU ARC RoundupApril 6, 2006Hays, KS785.625.3425 ext. 200wkarc@oznet.ksu.edu

Kansas Academy of Sci-ences Annual MeetingApr. 7-8, 2006Wichita State UniversityWichita, KSKristie Bixbykristie.bixby@wichita.eduhttp://www.washburn.edu/kas/meeting2006.html

Calendar Events, cont.

On July 21st the Kansas Technical Committee agreed to devote another $100,000 to improv-ing the health of Kansas forests through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). It was in 2004 that the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) fi rst recognized Forestland Health as a resource con-cern in Kansas. NRCS approved 32 Forestland Health applications in 2005 that obligated $119,614 to 1,107 acres.

The program is only eligible to woodland own-ers in the eastern 1/3 of the state (see map). Applications may be accepted anytime at coun-ty NRCS offi ces. NRCS then refers applicants to their local Kansas Forest Service forester who will visit the property and develop a forest management plan to guide project implementa-

tion. NRCS then ranks all applications based on criteria developed for Forestland Health and approves applications based on the availability of funds. In 2005 all applications received funding. After contracts are signed landowners may begin working on their projects.

Landowners will receive the following funding for the forestry practices listed below.

• Thinning woodlands - $55/acre

• Heavy Site Preparation - $400/acre

• Tree Planting (seedlings) - $0.70/tree (tree purchase, site preparation & planting)

• Herbicides (weed control) - $22.50/acre

• Wire Fence - $0.70/linear foot

• Electric Fence - $0.07/linear foot

Tree planting is limited to forested areas with inadequate stocking and all cost-share rates are subject to change. EQIP for Forestland Health is a great opportunity for landowners to im-prove the quality of their woodlands. Consider contacting your local NRCS offi ce about this important program.

Bob Atchison Rural Forestry Specialist

Kansas Foreast Service

Another $100,000 is made available for forestland health

Counties eligible for EQIP Forestland Health funds shaded in green

The vegetation of Kansas rangeland riparian areas varies greatly. Otter Creek in Greenwood Co. (left) has riparian trees and shrubs that provide dappled shade along fairly steep banks. In contrast, the Smoky Hill River in Logan Co. (right) has low, grassy banks with few trees or shrubs. Photos courtesy of Carol Blocksome.

Lyon, J., S. Trimble, and L. Paine. 2000. Grass verses trees: managing riparian areas to benefi t streams of central North America. J. Am. Water Resources Assoc. 36:919-930.

Tress or grass: which is better for riparian areas in Kansas? The answer is dependent upon management goals, as both trees and grass have their place along Kansas streams.

Lyon et al. summarized riparian research for the region extending from western Illinois to the Rocky Mountains and southern Alberta to central Texas, looking for comparisons of stream characteristics between forested and grassy streams. The chart below lists some of their conclusions. “Forested” streambanks are defi ned as having 75% canopy closure of trees and shrubs at 2 meters in midsummer. “Grassy” streambanks are defi ned as having more than 75% dense grass cover (basal or aerial cover is not clarifi ed, but aerial cover is assumed), with only a few widely scattered trees and shrubs. High (>1m), steep ( >450

angle) banks are more suited to trees, while less steep banks may be more suited to grassy vegetation.

In some cases, a mix of woody reaches inter-spersed with grassy reaches provided the most productive fi sh habitat. Grassy riparian areas in many parts of Kansas “will likely revert to woody vegetation through natural plant succes-sion” since ecological processes like fi re and large mammal grazing have been eliminated from much of the riparian area. Maintenance (burning, mowing, grazing, herbicide applica-tion) will be necessary to maintain open grassy vegetation.

This paper points out the diffi culties in compar-ing the types of streambank vegetation and the lack of side-by-side studies. Missing from this publication is a discussion on woody riparian species, which can differ in their stabilizing and infi ltration capabilities. Little discussion is given to pre-European settlement landscapes, although it is assumed that there were more grassy streambanks than at present. The histor-ical amount and type of forested riparian areas on the High Plains of Kansas and Colorado is more thoroughly covered in Elliot West’s book The Contested Plains.

Carol Blocksome

From the Grassland Water Quality database

Management AspectManagement AspectM

Bank Stability, Channel Morphology, and Erosion

Cover for Fish

Terrestrial Runoff and Subsurface Inputs

Hydrology

Water Temperature

Organic Matter and Primary Production

Macroinvertebrates

Fish

Grassy Vegetation

Less bank erosion; greater trapping of sediment; narrower channels; more undercut banks and pools

More undercut banks, over-hanging vegetation, aquatic macrophytes

Better assimilation of phos-phorus

Less local fl ooding; higher basefl ows

unknown; more studies needed

Greater primary production; more algae, macrophytes

Higher per-unit-area abun-dance and biomass, more herbivores

Better habitat in some cases, with higher trout abundance; fewer beaver; easier fi shing in spring and fall

Woody VegetationWoody VegetationW

Better stabilization of severely eroding banks; wider channels, more diverse substrate

More large woody debris

Better assimilation of nitrogen; uptake of nutrients from deeper subsurface waters

Reduced downstream fl ooding

Less variable and lower sum-mer temperatures

Greater organic matter inputs; less chance of excessive prima-ry production

Greater overall abundance (?), more shredders and detriti-vores

Better habitat where high sum-mer temperatures or exces-sive primary production are problems

West, Elliot. 1998. The contested plains: indians, goldseekers, and the rush to Colorado. University Press of Kansas, Law-rence, 422 pages.

Grassland Water Quality Stewardship Programhttp://www.oznet.ksu.edu/glwq

Walter FickProject LeaderRodney JonesProject Co-LeaderDonna Schenck-HamlinISSAScott SatterthwaiteProject Offi cer, KDHECarol BlocksomeExt. Asst. AgronomyKevin HerbelExt. Asst. Ag. EconomicsLarry HuberExt. Asst. Agronomy

The Grassland WatershedCarol Blocksome, editorblocksom@ksu.edublocksom@ksu.edublocksom@ksu.ed(785) 532-0416

Larry Huber, copy editor and circulation managerlhuber@ksu.edulhuber@ksu.edulhuber@ksu.ed(785) 532-0401

Kansas State University AgriculturalExperiment Station and CooperativeExtension ServiceK-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, as amended. Kansas State University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, Fred A. Cholick, Director.

Financial assistance for the Kansas Grass-land Water Quality Stewardship Program is provided, in part, through EPA Section 319 Non-point Source Pollution Control Grant K3-016 by a grant agreement with the Kan-sas Department of Health and Environment.

Anonymous. 2004. Meeting water quality chal-leges in Kansas. Kans. State Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. and Coop. Ext. Serv., Manhattan. http://www.oznet.k-state.edu/kcare/Water/Water-QChallenges.pdf

Meeting Water Quality Challenges in Kansas is a brochure put out by K-State Research and Extension full of valuable resources to address water quality concerns in Kansas. It begins by stating the many contaminants such as bacteria, herbicides, nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments impair the quality of water resources in our state. It then states that Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)s have been designated for sur-face waters not meeting standards. TMDLs are simply defi ned as: “...the amount of a pollutant that a stream or lake can receive and still meet water quality standards.”

Seven Watershed Specialists have been as-signed to assist in helping improve the quality of water within 7 large watersheds designated by the state as ‘high priority’. However, this brochure rightly informs readers that these specialists are part of a team which may include local Extension personnel, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) personnel, col-laborating agencies (the Kansas Rural Center, or the Kansas Water Offi ce for example) which are available to help answer questions and/or fi nd resources for solving water quality prob-lems anywhere in the state.

These team members can help citizens in numerous ways, such as increasing public awareness about water quality issues within a given watershed, promoting the adoption of effective best management practices (BMP)s, assisting in the monitoring of water quality improvements, helping individual assessments of water quality, strengthening local citizens’ ability to develop and implement watershed preservation/conservation/protection strategies, as well as connecting citizens and stakeholders and helping them prioritize issues and develop action plans/strategies.

This brochure also lists several ways anyone can help protect water quality, including:

• applying the correct amount of fertilizer on lawns

• cleaning driveways/other areas of oil – rather than letting the oil run into street drains.

For agricultural producers, the brochure has even more suggestions. These include:

• installing and maintaining buffer strips along streams

• moving livestock feeding areas away from streams

• improving management of crop residue and nutrients to help reduce runoff and erosion

• use of approved timing, banding, alternative weed control and buffer zones for pesticide application

• installing and maintaining a proper livestock management system(s).

This brochure then acknowledges its funding providers followed by an extensive list of coop-erating entities. Lastly, the names and contact information for the seven Watershed Specialists is provided. Alphabetically, by watershed, these are:

Lower Arkansas - Ron Graber Offi ce Ph:316-722-7721 ext. 142, Cell Ph: 620-727-5665, email: rgraber@ksu.edu

Lower Big Blue - Mike Christian Offi ce Ph: 785-532-5833, Cell Ph: 785-587-5704, email: mchristi@ksu.edu

Lower Kansas - Will Boyer Offi ce Ph: 785-843-7058 ext. 24, Cell Ph: 785-587-7828, email: wboyer@ksu.edu

Lower Neosho - Warren Bell Offi ce Ph: 620-625-3113, Cell Ph: 620-203-0080, email: wbell@ksu.edu

Marais des Cygnes - Herschel George Offi ce Ph: 785-229-3520, Cell Ph: 913-294-6021, email: hgeorge@ksu.edu

Smoky Hill/Kanopolis Lake - Stacie Minson Offi ce Ph: 785-628-3081, ext. 334, Cell Ph: 785-650-1282, email: sedgett@ksu.edu

Upper Arkansas - Robert Frisbie Offi ce Ph: 620-659-2149, Cell Ph: 620-285-5111, email: rfrisbie@ksu.edu

Larry Huber

From the Grassland Water Quality database