Based on our findings and literature review, we offer the following suggestions for
programmatic direction:
The Agricultural
Program could place a higher priority on nutrient
l
(and particularly, nitrogen) management. Nutrient management has been
proven to be a cost-effective strategy for reducing both edge-of-field and
watershed loading from agricultural lands.
Increasing the cost-effectiveness
will
an Increased
l
commitment to education and technical assistance. We have not attempted to
quantify the cost-effectiveness of public education programs outside the
realm of cost-sharing. However, we feel that enhanced educational efforts
can be highly cost-effective and should be given high priority as a means of
achieving nutrient reductions goals.
The Nutrient Trading Program is in a positionto take a proactive approach to
l
restoring and protecting land uses and land cover types that provide positive
water quality benefits. The cost-effectiveness of this approach needs to be
determined.
basin study
This report also includes detailed appendixes discussing the
(upon which the Phase nutrient trading value was based) and
Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Model (from which we drew both effectiveness data and loading
factors for selected practices).
Previous Page
