Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />o <br /> <br />(-~ ") <br /> <br />N <br />~ <br />(') <br />~ <br /> <br />cvcr, King not~d increased coliform cou\s <br />in lake water adjaCt'.nt to campgrounds l'n <br />the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (3), and <br />w.~ we observ(>d that sOme pit to' that <br />i:{ same area w:re i~G re- <br />~ard to ~~~~~f;:Ll le. ' a <br />care I \. ~l( p~' t~ilet schc lC <br />haph", placing OhCIV"\iil%'?l by a c <br />campi )a~ tD ~:i;~st'4ohlCt1mes re n <br />"ater I ItlOn. . i' R <br />The ( tl . t I' fI.\l)\'J'iJIJ', ~~ers <br />feel's ha 1 es,oQ\! l'li'fllill>\s a ladous. <br />It shonld J}(tt).l'.\b~ asis for recommenda~ <br />tions 011 wa\te disposal. Burial at ~Ilfficient <br />e1t'ptl) or far enough pw~)' from campsites <br />to p~\'(~nt direct contnet with feces by sllb~ <br />s('qll~:tll campers is Il('edcd to prevent the <br />spread of disease, From a Sierra Club <br />swd)' on feces disposal in wilderness (6), it <br />is ohdollS that modification of camper be- <br />havior is needed to accomplish this goal. <br />Thl' altenwtive is acceptance of a .~Illall but <br />re<11 health haz<ll"d or a reduction in rHUH- <br />/)('(.s of visitors at heavily lIsed campsite.s, <br />Pre~cnt recommel~dati()ns-onc bro- <br />chure .stales that biological disposers will <br />take care of wastes "in a few days"~.are <br />partly responsible for inadequate attention <br />to this problem by campers. An educa- <br />tional program Illay have positive results. <br />Di.~tance from the campsite and from <br />watPl' drainage COllr.ms; the dispersal of <br />cal~holl\S; alld cllrcfllt complete burial <br />should he emphasized. The location of <br />carnp.siles aud tlwir IIS(' level should reneet <br />these rcqllirt~lllcllts. <br />The use of latrines is' a separate subjt.'Ct <br />with its own problems (1, 4), including in~ <br />cre<l!i{'d ('hanel' of insect transmission and <br />water pollution. A regularly used latrine <br />will havc a contilllUlI population of bac- <br />teria and viruses. Latrines rnight be consid- <br />('fed for locations with concentrated use, <br />especially by large grOl~ps. In wilderness <br />areas, the appropriateness of such concen- <br />trated use seems questionable in any casc, <br /> <br />HEi'EHENCES CITED <br />I. lIelldt't" Johll C., George H. Stankey, and <br />Hobprl C. I.ucas. HJ7R. Wildl'I"1l('.~," lIulIlagc- <br />II/i'IIt. Mist'. Pub!. No. 1365. Forest Service, <br />1l.S. Dt'pl. Al-!:l".. Wa~hington. D.C. <br />2. Ilughc.\. E. C. WHO. TIle ('olllposfillj!. oj <br />mlmid/la! ll'(/.~/('S. In M.\..v.M. Bcwick [ed.l <br />!/ll/I(!lJ/wk of Orgallir' Wash' COm'l'rsiOlI. <br />Vail No.\trul1d Hcillhold Co., New York, <br />N.Y. <br />J, Kinj.!;. John. 1071. The effect.I' oj I"eCl"('(l!iOll(J! <br />1/.\'(' {/II wal('/' I/IW{ily ill tl/(, ddJlify oj ('(11111'- <br />.~it('.\' ill/he' ho/mdm!l wllll'fs cmllll' OTl'Q. M.S. <br />tlll'sh. Unh. Minn., St. IJauL <br />4. Lt'OJHlrd. H. E.. and II. J. Plllmley. W7D. <br />flll/lIllII IN/.\.ft' dispo,wl! ill 1'(I.\'lerr/ b(Jck(,o/lll~ <br />flY, J. Forestry: 349.:3fj2, <br />5. SiI\'t'n\l<lll, C., and D. C. -Erman, 1mU, Ai. <br />flilll' /lIk('s ill Kings Canyo1/ ,"',ratiolla! Park, <br />(:alifomia: Ha,\'('Ii"e ('(}/ulitio/ls (//l(1 l'o.",I'ibh' <br />1j('~!..\' of ri.\'ilor /lS('. J. Environ. i\Jllllagt'. S: <br />,;) H" <br />Ii, Stallky. J. T.. II. T. lIarwy. ,me! H. 1. <br /> <br />_. <br /> <br />.I:!::i!."l~'~ <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />"' <br /> <br />Hartesveldt. 1979. Wilderness impact study. <br />Consolidated Publications, Inc. Palo Alto, <br />Calif. <br />7. Swalley, B. R. 1980. The use oj sewage <br />slud[{e as a Jertilizer. In M.W,M, Bewick <br />[ed.J llandbook of Organic Wa..te Conver- <br />sjoll. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co" New <br />York, N. Y. <br />8. Temple, Kenneth L., Anne K. Camper, and <br /> <br />Gordon A. McFeters. 1980, Survival of two <br />enterobacteria in Jeces buried ill soil under <br />field conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbial. <br />40, 794.797. <br />9, Wellings, Flora Mae, Arthur L.:-Lewis, and <br />Carrol W, Mountain. 1977. Survival oj virm- <br />es in soiluTlder natural conditions. In Frank <br />M, D'Itri [cd.} Wastewater RenovatioTl and <br />Reuse, Marcel Dekker. New York, N.Y. 0 <br /> <br /> <br />~valuating a.gric~lt,,!ral land <br />use change In illinOIS <br /> <br />Falke Dovring, David L. Chicoine, and John B. Braden <br /> <br />ABSTRACT: The National AgriCllltural Land, Study (NALS) was tested for lIIinow on <br />the basis of a critique of Census oj Agriculture 'data and statistics compiled by the North- <br />eastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC), Census data were tested with the aid of <br />rertangular coordinates from the Illinois State Geological Survey ami other sources, An- <br />alysir; of the Census data showed that those from the mail cenSllSC'<" (1969, 1974, and 1978) <br />had exaggerated the extnlt oj land in farms. This overcmmt was especially sfrikir/g in the <br />1.978 Census (1.5 million acres), jorcing the ('onr/usion that farmland had declined much <br />more than Census data would indicate. NIPC' data for the six couTlties in the Chicago <br />metropolitan area showed rapid conversion to urban land use (45 percent in the 11 years <br />jrom 1964 to 1975). This classical case oj urban decentralization was accompanied by <br />very slow population growth but (I rapid rise in per capita real income, pointing to rising <br />afflllcnce as the drivillgjorce inland conversion, As a conclu'lion, the NALS estimates for <br />rates of lewd conversion from agricultural to urban lises were upheld for Illinois, <br /> <br />THE National Agricultural Lands Study <br />(NALS) was undcrtaken in 1979 to <br />dctermine how much farmland in the <br />United Stutes was being converted to non- <br />farm uses and to identify means of rcdllc~ <br />ing such conversion (13). Many critics of <br />NALS have expressed skepticism about the <br />land use data used in the study (7, 11. 17. <br />19). Their contention is that the NALS <br />data overstate the rate of urbanization, <br />thus making farmland conversion appear <br />more rapid than it actually has been (7), <br />We studied land use measurement data <br />in Illinois in an effort to confirm or refute <br />the NALS findings. We also examined land <br />use trends in the Chicago metropolitan <br />area to determine the causes of conversion <br />prcssures, Both aspects of our study per~ <br />mitted us- to make several interesting con* <br />elusions about farmland conversion data <br />and trends in Illinois, one of the nation's <br />most important agricultural states. <br /> <br />Farmland conversion in Illinois <br /> <br />Underlying aggregate land use statistics <br />are problems of data definition and mea. <br /> <br />Folk!' J)ovring is a proje.\wor and David L <br />Chicojrlc and John B. Braden are assistant pro- <br />fes,~'on'. Department oj Agricultural EnHlomics, <br />Univ('T.\.ityof 1l1inoL... Urbana. 61801. ThL\'stlldy <br />was a part oj projects 30-/,5-05-3.'11. 332, and <br />3:)6 oj th(' Agrh'ltltural E.tpcriment Stafjo/!. Col- <br />h>gc of Agriculture. Urliversity of lJIilloL... <br /> <br />surement. Categorizing land use can create <br />inconsistencies, for example, in distin- <br />guishing between fore<it and pasture. Mea~ <br />surernent distortions can influence assess. <br />meots of the magnitude orland conversion <br />as well as trends in land use. <br />Farmland conversion in Illinois is of spe- <br />cial interest because the state has some of <br />the best farmland in the United States, <br />Equally significant is the fact that conver- <br />sion in 'Illinois has taken place against a <br />backdrop of low rates in population <br />growth, For decades, population growth <br />in Illinois has been slower than in most <br />other Midwest states. During the last <br />decade, the state's rate of population <br />growth, 2.8 percent (about 0,28 percent <br />compounded annually), was among the <br />slowest in the country (26). Between 1970 <br />and 1980, net migration from Illinois <br />amounted to 375,000 people. Yetfarmiand <br />conversion appears to have accelerated <br />during that time. <br />NALS listed an average of 106.000 rural <br />acres in Illinois as land converted to urban, <br />built~up, transportation, or water-related <br />uscs annually between 1967 and 1977 (12). <br />This conclusion was based upon a compar~ <br />ison of 1967 and 1977 inventories of rural <br />land by the Soil Conservation Service (23, <br />24). In contrast, the 197H Census of Agri. <br />culture indicated an amount of Illinois <br />farmland that was virtually the same as in <br /> <br />November.December 1982 359 <br />