projects
Elements of a Model Project for the
The Delaware and Maryland
were successful but lacked preproject water
of
Source
monitoring baselines, which impeded the ability to
make quantitative statements regarding water
quality improvements. The Iowa project contained
The
program, which is based on
most of the suggested components but had
a
guidelines, carefully selects the individual
one-year pre-BMP monitoring database and initially
that will be undertaken. The model project based
did not understand that the turbidity problem in
on the outline provided by RCWP regulations. The
Prairie Rose Lake resulted not only from incoming
following discussion of the model project is
sediment but also from resuspended sediment and
ported by examples from the RCWP projects. The
algal growth.
model project would operate under the primary
authority of USDA with consultation and concur-
Although the Massachusetts RCWP project met
rence from EPA ASCS would be the administrative
several key project selection criteria in that the
lead agency. SCS should be responsible for the
River estuary was a high priority resource
development of structural
and ES should be
with significant economic value (shellfish beds), the'
responsible for
and management
While
source of the water quality problem was not well
agencies supervise project activities, committees
documented. This lack of clarity was one of several
would be responsible for setting priorities and coor-
factors that contributed to a lack of consensus within
dination. All agencies, committees, and program par-
the community and, therefore, to poor producer par-
ticipation. The Kansas RCWP project also lacked a
ticipants would be guided by model program
clearly documented water quality problem that could
regulations published in the Federal Register.
be linked to a critical area pollutant source. Careful
application of project selection criteria could have
Project Administration and Management
prevented the selection of this project and its sub
Because of its management abilities, administration
sequent termination three years later.
for the model project at the State and local levels
The Michigan RCWP project had only vague in-
should remain with ASCS. To implement the project
formation indicating that the Saline River was a large
at the State level, each successful project must have
contributor of nutrients (mainly phosphorus) to
strong administrative and technical support from a
Lake Erie. The project had not clearly identified the
State coordinating committee, which also provides a
critical pollutant source or critical area, and the
link to the national coordinating committee and the
project did not document any water -use impair-
local coordinating committee. The local coordinating
ments. On the other hand, the Pennsylvania RCWP
committee needs to have strong and continual sup-
project presented a documented water quality im-
port from the State coordinating committee, which
pairment of agricultural origins and had the high
must establish and maintain open communication
visibility of a project that could reduce pollutants
lines and a willingness to allow the local coordinating
entering Chesapeake Bay. However, careful evalua-
committee to implement the project.
tion of project potential would have shown that the
The fundamental project administration and
large number of small farms and the conservative
management elements are a local coordinating com-
nature of the farmers would impede BMP
mittee, a county Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
and implementation, thereby limiting the
servation
committee, a project manager, and
project's potential.
project advisory committees. The local coordinating
committee should provide guidance for the agencies,
Program Funding
community leaders, and citizens to oversee the ad-
all funds were identified and made
In the
ministrative and technical tasks of a local project.
available at each project's initiation so that long-term
The committee serves many functions, including
project planning and budgeting were possible. In
contrast, budgets for the current USDA Demonstra-
assuring an adequate level of public
tion and Hydrologic Unit projects must be approved
participation,
each year. The associated delays have caused work
developing a plan of work,
plan uncertainties, budgetary burdens on State and
local agencies, and incompatibility with fiscal budget
enlisting the help of needed agencies,
requirements. In the model program, funds should
provided for preproject planning periods, which
overseeing information and educational
may last from six months to two years (as defined
activities,
under "Project Proposal and Plan of Work Develop
determining priorities for water quality plans,
ment").
367
Previous Page
