Homeowners and Their Choice of Information Sources About Gardening

The Georgia Cooperative Extension Service increases its involvement in educating homeowners in fertilizer and pesticide use to reduce nonpoint source pollution from residential landscapes. A survey of homeowners revealed their current and preferred sources of gardening information. By dividing information sources according to the degree of their accessibility and cost, we determined the differences in the use of various sources according to homeowner gender, age, and education. Females, young homeowners, and those with a high level of education used and preferred more information sources. The Georgia Cooperative Extension Service will use a combination of sources to effectively disseminate best management practices to homeowners

Best Management Practices for Georgia Urban Gardeners to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution

Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference, April 26 and 27, 2001, Athens, Georgia.Water quality samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey from March 1993 through April 1994 from one urban and two agricultural watersheds in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Ocumulgee River basins were analyzed for 84 commonly-used pesticides (Frick et al., 1998). More pesticides were detected and at generally higher concentrations in water from urban watersheds than from agricultural watersheds. In 1989, the National Academy of Sciences stated homeowners tend to use as much as ten times more chemicals per acre on their lawns than farmers use on agricultural lands (Jenkins, 1994). Nonpoint source pollution from pesticide and nutrient loading in urban areas increases with increasing development and the affluence of many new population centers. Metro Atlanta has grown by 26% since 1990 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). A five-year, three-phase project is underway to develop and disseminate Best Management Practices for Georgia home gardeners to encourage changes in behavior that will reduce nonpoint source pollution of urban surface waters due to pesticides and fertilizers.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397) or the other conference sponsors

Research and Education Garden: Disseminating Pollution Prevention Information for Urban Landscapes

Proceedings of the 1999 Georgia Water Resources Conference, March 30 and 31, Athens, Georgia.The Georgia Station Research & Education Garden serves as a vehicle to transfer research results to the general public through hands-on programs. Research focuses primarily on improving the economic viability of the ornamental horticulture industry while reducing the environmental effects of fertilizers and pesticides in the landscape through the use of pollution prevention strategies. The Georgia Station Research & Education Garden connects scientists with industry professionals and the general public, allowing for the rapid transfer of research information to improve the quality of Georgia urban landscapes while preventing the pollution of groundwater and surface water.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202 with partial funding provided by the U.S. Department of Interior, geological Survey, through the Georgia Water Research Insttitute as authorized by the Water Research Institutes Authorization Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397). The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of the University of Georgia or the U.S. Geological Survey or the conference sponsors

Chattoga River Watershed Plan

Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, March 27-29, 2007, Athens, Georgia.In 1999, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) established TMDLs on eight tributaries in the Chattooga River Watershed located in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The Georgia Environmental Protection Division estimated that over 85 percent of the water quality impairments from fecal coliform and erosion and sedimentation stemmed from agricultural related activities. In 2000 and 2001, cooperating agencies and representatives from urban, development, municipal, environmental, forestry, and agricultural interests formed the Chattooga River Watershed Group to use the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) nine-step process to identify contamination sources and to develop a watershed plan. The process determined that the City of Clayton’s leaking waste water treatment facility was responsible for significant amounts of the fecal coliform contamination. Modeling studies showed fecal contamination from agricultural runoff to be below water quality standards (100 col/100 ml). Sediment from harvested forest land, public forest land and development contributed 63 percent of erosion and sedimentation in the watershed according to modeling activities. Agricultural lands contributed only two percent of all erosion in the watershed.Sponsored and Organized by: U.S. Geological Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Service, The University of Georgia, Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of TechnologyThis book was published by the Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2202. The views and statements advanced in this publication are solely those of the authors and do not represent official views or policies of The University of Georgia, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Georgia Water Research Institute as authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-397) or the other conference sponsors