For several practices, cost-effectiveness values are presented as "box and
whisker" plots. The range shown in these plots represents the variability in
BMP nutrient loading across different sites. The ranges do not capture other
sources of variability such as the site-specific variations in BMP cost or
effectiveness. Table
summarizes the cost-effectiveness estimates for
practice&or which both cost and effectiveness data were available.
The cost data that are presented in this report represent the direct cost of
implementing
Other "less direct: costs such as (1) opportunity costs from
and (2) costs of
(e.g.,
loss of productive land to
higher fertilizer costs,
costs resulting from pollution impacts) are not
addressed.
Specific findings of this report include:
The cost-effectiveness of animal waste management practices is highly
dependent upon the preexisting waste management practice on a farm. The
range of the cost-effectiveness estimates for any given scenario can be quite
wide due to variability in (1) nutrient content of the waste and (2) the crop's
fertilization requirement.
Water control structures are highly cost-effective for nitrogen control, but not
I
for phosphorus control.
Nutrient management is not cost-shared in the basin, yet it has been shown to
be highly cost-effective.
conservation
is a cost-effective
Relative to other
practice for both nitrogen and phosphorus reduction, especially when used in
conjunction with nutrient management.
Relative to other practices, terracing is not cost-effective for either nitrogen
phosphorus reduction.
conversion could potentially be very cost-effective, but this depends
greatly on site-specific factors.
Insufficient data exist to
effectiveness (and therefore,
effectiveness) of grassed waterways, diversions, and stripcropping.
Although data are presented by BMP type, it is important to realize that
holistic farm management is more cost-effective than single objective BMP
cost-sharing.
ii
Previous Page
