1992
Targeting BMP Systems. BMP systems directed
to write, primarily because the Iinkage between
land treatment and water quality is not known with
at water quality improvements are far more effective
certainty. A national technical support group is
than the installation and maintenance of individual
needed to help the project address key obstacles,
In Oregon, for example, the development and
define the water quality problems, and develop effec-
use of BMP systems to store and use manure were
tive land treatment and water quality monitoring
essential in reducing fecal coliform levels in
strategies.
lamook Bay. However, whether a BMP system or an
individual BMP is to be used, each should be
Project objectives and goals as stated in the plan
to control specific pollutants identified in the
of work-must be measurable, quantitative, and (for
water quality problem definition and project plan of
the most part) attainable, given best available infor-
work.
mation. Project objectives and goals must be critical-
ly reviewed to ensure consistency with overall
For example, BMP systems used to control lake
program objectives and goals.
sedimentation may be different from and target a dif-
ferent soil particle size than systems used to control
Time Frame. A model project should last from 6
lake turbidity. The South Dakota RCWP project tar-
to 15 years, depending on size and the ability to im-
geted its
to a specific problem; consequently,
plement land treatment. The median project length
nutrient management was found to be the most ef-
should be 8 to 10 years, but some projects may need
fective BMP for reducing nutrient contamination in
12 to 15 years to implement enough practices and
an area dominated by
with only a few scat-
document results. Larger areas could require long
tered animal operations. On the other hand, the Utah
periods to show improvement. Examples of projects
RCWP project saw marked improvements in phos-
that successfully made use of longer time frames are
phates through animal waste management systems
the Idaho, Florida, Oregon, and Utah
in a watershed totally composed of animal opera-
projects. The long pre- and post-BMP water quality
tions.
and land treatment monitoring time frames for these
projects, along with high levels of BMP implementa-
Implementing the Plan of Work
tion, made it possible to track irrigation water
Federal agencies and committees provide direction
management, sediment control structures, and con-
and funding to support local administration and coor-
servation
in the Idaho project, and animal
dination of project activities such as I&E and land
waste management in the Florida, Oregon, and Utah
treatment_ Local committees, however, are respon-
projects. On the other hand, the Pennsylvania RCWP
sible for carefully defining project objectives and im-
project found that more time
needed than
plementing project activities to meet goals. In
originally expected to establish firmly the reduction
addition, local committees receive guidance and sup
in nutrient levels from BMP implementation on
port from the State coordinating committee and the
experimental sites.
national coordinating committee.
Critical Area Definition. Critical areas are pol-
Information and Education. Extension Service
lutant source areas in which the greatest improve-
should provide leadership for the development, im-
ment in the water resource can be obtained for the
plementation, and coordination of
programs for
least investment in
et al. 1987). The ef-
agricultural
source water pollution control.
source pollution control
fectiveness of a
The local coordinating committee, the county ASC
program is likely to be a function of where, when,
committee, the soil and water conservation district,
and how many
are installed. Therefore,
and SCS should help with I&E efforts to ensure that
share funding should only be available for the treat-
the
message is being received by participants.
ment of critical areas.
(1988) reports that in
During the proposal development, the com-
critical areas cause and effect are clear, hydrology is
munity and relevant agencies must be informed
simple, and response time to treatment is short. The
about problems in the project area, objectives, and
Utah, Oregon, and Vermont RCWP projects docu-
design. Local people also need to take part in
mented major reductions in bacterial
decisions from the start. An advance
effort
resulting from land treatment efforts in animal waste
should be used to ensure that the majority of the
management. The project areas exhibit simple sur-
population and project staff agree about the problem,
face water hydrology, and treatment occurred in the
its causes, and the treatment approach. The effect of
critical areas. Bacterial populations, especially in sur-
general and farm community support (or lack of sup-
face waters, respond to BMP implementation, thus
port) was clearly demonstrated in several RCWP
making bacteria in water a prime candidate to
projects. In the Iowa
project, three public
demonstrate project effectiveness.
370
Previous Page
