x>EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Water Planning Division Washington, DC 20460 September 1979 Water Agriculture Nonpoint Source Strategy ^ ^r ------- AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCE STRATEGY WATER PLANNING DIVISION U-SŤ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OCTOBER 10, 1979 ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OCT1979 Office of Water and Waste Management AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCE STRATEGY The national agricultural nonpoint source strategy has been developed to provide direction to EPA, State and local governments and the agricultural community in the implementation of the agricultural portion of the water quality management program. The initial water quality plans have provided evidence that agricultural activities are a source of significant pollution in many parts of the country. The resources required to abate or prevent continuing agricul- tural nonpoint source problems will be substantial. Both public and private investment must be utilized in the most cost effective manner. The strategy focuses initial efforts on those areas which State and local agencies have identified as having the most critical water quality problems. It places the highest priority on use of EPA funds to assist in accelerating the establishment of best management practices (BMPs) in those areas. In addition the strategy recognizes that there is a lack of data on cause and effect relationships between establishment of BMPs and stream quality. EPA resources will be made available to provide more information in that area. Agricultural nonpoint source problems vary from region to region. Institu- tional and legislative mechanisms available also may differ from State-to- State. Regions will be expected to adopt a strategy which will meet the various regional, State and local needs. Merira M. Hurd, Director Water Planning Division ------- Agriculture Nonpoint Source Strategy INFORMATION An aggressive nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control program is required if the legislatively mandated water quality goals are to be met. Since agricul- tural activities have been identified as major contributors to nonpoint source pollution, EPA has given a high priority to the development and implementation of agricultural nonpoint source control programs. Agricultural nonpoint source pollutant problems are pervasive. (Many States-' have identified their agricultural NFS related water quality problems and developed implementation programs.) Reasonable solutions to many of the agri- cultural problems are known and many of the institutional mechanisms are in place. However, there is general agreement that while implementation programs move ahead, there is the need to develop a more comprehensive evaluation of the impact of agricultural nonpoint source pollutants on water quality; the degree of control required to meet water quality goals; and, the effectiveness 'of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in reducing pollutant loadings and meeting water quality goals. Since water quality management resources in EPA are limited, it is not feasible to fund each State to look at every agricultural nonpoint source water quality problem. A strategy has been developed to focus resources on solving the most significant problems in those areas where water quality has or will be most adversely affected. Information and data from these projects will be widely disseminated to other States with similar problems. NPS projects of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) are an integral part of the NPS program. The NPS strategy recognizes the supportive role of the ORD projects in implementation of the strategy. The agricultural strategy builds on the framework developed in the Water Planning Division's Water Quality Management Strategy. It is consistent with the Work Load Analysis (WLA) developed for the Zero-Based Budget process for both the FY 80 and 81 budgets. The increasing emphasis on program imple- mentation described in the strategy is consistent with the FY 80 and 81 bud- get decisions. The attention to implementation will require that additional Agency resources are devoted to this area. However, since the need for personnel in the planning phase will decrease, no additional resources will be required in the water quality management program. PURPOSE The agricultural NPS Strategy is the framework for: 1) defining national agriculture NPS policy; 2) developing Regional agriculture NPS strategies and State programs for continuing agricultural NPS planning and implemention activities; 3) funding FY-1980 agriculture NPS program elements; 4) determining the need for new Federal legislative initiatives or changes needed in existing legislation and 5) recommending required legislative action. here applicable, State definition also includes areawide agencies. ------- OBJECTIVE 1 Complete the development of State agricultural NPS plans: Identify and prioritize areas with critical agricultural NPS water quality problems. Select BMPs appropriate for the pollutant problems. Designate management agencies with adequate authorities and capabilities. Develop operational programs. National Policy Direction Continued Section 208 funding for the development of agriculture NPS programs will be limited to States that have identified agricultural activities as significantly contributing to the State's water quality problems. Planning funds may be made available in those States where EPA has determined that the agriculture plan elements in the initial plan were inadequate. Normally, agricultural portions of 208 plans determined by EPA to be adequate will not receive further funding. Where warranted, further funding must be commensurate with an established need for additional water quality problem identification and solutions and for further designations or changes in area priorities. In addition the responsible planning and designated management agencies must clearly demonstrate an interest in implementing the NPS control program before further funding is provided. Agricultural NPS elements are considered adequate if agricultural NPS problems are identified, critical areas and sources prioritized, BMPs identified in sufficient detail to select implementation projects, manage- ment agencies have been designated and the required operational program is underway. No funds shall be provided in those States where agricultural activities do not presently contribute or will not contribute to water quality problems. Problem identification has not been completed in a number of States. Sediment was identified as a pollutant in many of the initial plans, but other potential pollutants (i.e. pesticides, nutrients, etc.) may not have been addressed. In States where preliminary data indicates a strong probability that pollutants other than sediment contribute to water quality problems funding priority shall be given to address those pollutants. Continuing planning process (CPP) funding may also be required to complete other program elements, such as the development of State funding for the operational programs of designated management agencies, for administrative or legislative actions required to accelerate implementation, and for CPP regulatory program development. CPP activities which address regulatory programs shall be given priority. ------- Funding of agricultural NPS work elements that involve cause/effect analyses and the evaluation of the effectiveness of BMP systems will generally be limited to projects selected under the comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program objective. Discussion Identification and Prioritization of Critical Areas or Sources Most States identified agricultural NPS pollutants as a significant water quality problem in their initial 208 plans. A variety of planning techniques were used to identify those problems, ranging from sophisticated land use models to field examination. In many States the information developed was sufficient to identify the critical problem areas. Since implementation will focus on those priority problem areas and available resources will limit the number of areas which can be addressed, the use of funds for further problem identification studies will have a very low priority. States have designated priority areas as a result of RCWP requirements (many States used FY 79 funds), therefore, no FY 80 funds will be utilized for this purpose. Since implementa- tion resources are only sufficient to initiate control programs in a few of the highest priority problem areas, the development of priority listings for every area in the State is not necessary at this time. BMPs BMP identification was required in initial plan development. While these plans addressed BMPs, in many cases the BMPs were limited to standard soil and water conservation practices. As the impact of many of these practices on water quality is not clearly understood, evaluation of BMP effectiveness is still required and will be funded in selected priority problem areas where accelerated BMP implementation is underway. The largest gap in selection, testing and evaluation of BMPs regards pollutants other than sediment. The CPP can be utilized to obtain this information. Exam- ples include the use of Cooperative Extension Service personnel in addressing pesticide, nutrient, animal wastes, etc; the funding of planning activities in such critical problem areas; and the funding of programs to transfer techniques to other applicable areas. The initial planning process resulted in the development of numerous BMP Hand- books and substantial amounts of informational material such as brochures, slide shows, movies, etc. FY 80 funds will not be used to produce similar material which would duplicate what has been produced previously. Funding material of this type will be limited to innovative approaches for which Handbooks, and other informational or educational material have not been developed. Management Agencies There will be few cases that justify funding of activities related to management agencies. Designation of management agencies was completed in the initial plans. Where required, detailed management agency agreements have been funded with FY 78/79 funds. Where management agencies accepted their designation ------- it was in full recognition of their obligations and they should be prepared to fulfil their responsibilities. This does not mean that management agencies can not be utilized to carry out specific planning functions. Planning activities related to management agencies, such as, obtaining additional admin- istrative or legislative authority (i.e. regulatory legislation) are eligible for funding and have a high priority. Develop Operational Programs Most initial plans will require additional effort for the development of effec- tive operational programs. With few exceptions most States have relied heavily on ongoing programs. Issues concerning additional non-Federal resource require- ments were generally not given much attention. The CPP should address the questions of providing technical assistance and cost sharing through non-Federal sources, and developing additional administrative and legislative authorities required to meet the program decisions agreed to in the initial plan. Some examples include State and local budget support for management staffs, including enforcement; State and local cost sharing programs; administrative regulations requiring BMPs on State leased land; etc. Program Tasks Headquarters 1. As requested, assist Regional Offices in the development of Regional agricultural strategy. 2. Define and provide examples of acceptable agri- culture NPS elements to Regional Offices & States. 3. Develop additional cooperative agreements as re- quired. Define functions and areas where Regions and States may use USDA (ASCS, SCS, SEA, FS), USDI, and TVA to complete agriculture NPS programs. 4. Provide Regions and States with information on the mechanisms States have developed to fund the opera- tional elements of the agriculture NPS programs and on regulatory agricultural NPS programs. Regions 5. Develop Regional agricultural NPS strategy. 6. Identify those States with acceptable agricultural NPS plans and those States with inadequate elements. Define requirements and work elements necessary to make the plans acceptable. This analysis is needed as input into the Regional strategy. Scheduled Action Assist three Regions prior to 1-80 Quarterly; Starting 1-80 Develop two coopera- tive agreements in FY 80 Quarterly, starting 1-80 Complete 1-80 Complete 12-79 ------- 7. Use the cooperative agreements to assist States Each Region develop in utilizing the expertise of USDA (ASCS, SCS, minimum of 1 program SEA, FS) and other agencies (DOI, TVA) to com- plete their State agriculture NPS programs. 8. Negotiate State/EPA Agreements and develop 208 Complete for FY 81 work plans to correct the inadequacies of State agricultural NFS plans. Funding Decisions 9. Fully approved Agricultural NPS elements are generally not eligible for funding. Where conditions change, the continuing planning program may be required to address plan additions or revisions. 10. Funding will be available only to those States with: (a) Significant agricultural NPS problems. (b) Agricultural NPS elements which were found to be inadequate in the initial 208 plan. 11. Funding will not be provided for further problem identification activity in designated RCWP projects. 12. BMP Handbooks for soil and water conservation practices will not be funded. Pesticide and nutrient BMP activity may be funded. 13. 208 funds can not be used to cost share BMP implementation. 14. Those States addressing regulatory programs for agricultural NPS controls shall be given funding priority. Federal Legislative Initiatives, 15. Reauthorization of 208 planning grants beyond FY 80. ------- OBJECTIVE 2 Develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program to: Determine the cause and effect relationship between agricultural activities, NFS pollutants and their impact on stream quality. Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs on stream quality; Determine the degree of control necessary to meet water quality qoals. National Policy Direction Initial plans have defined the agricultural NPS problem on a broad scale. However, only limited information is available regarding the effect of agricultural activities at the field, farm and small watershed level. There is a need to analyze the effect of NPS pollutants on stream quality from various farming activities and to evaluate the cost effectiveness of BMPs applied to correct or prevent those problems. A comprehensive M&E program, including technical guidance, is being developed in coordination with the Office of Research and Development. The M&E Guidance document will be jointly released by ORD and OWWM and will provide guidance for; General M&E which will normally consist of a few stations to determine BMP effectiveness in selected projects. An example is the requirement for a general M&E program in all approved Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) projects. General M&E is also being conducted in a number of Model Implementation (MIP) and ACP Special Projects. Intensive M&E which will be utilized to determine detailed cause and effect relationships in a very limited number of areas (projects in the major type of agricultural activity areas such as dairy farming, corn belt and wheat belt cropping systems, irrigated agriculture, etc). Intensive M&E will be restricted to nationally approved projects. M&E guidance being developed must be utilized for all intensive M&E projects. Additionally all monitoring and evaluation funded, beginning with FY 80, will be conducted in accordance with the Administrator's June 14, 1979, memorandum: Quality Assurance Requirements for all EPA Extramural Projects Involving Environmental Measurements^ Discussion There is a Tack of information regarding the causes and effects of NPS pollution and cost effectiveness of control programs. This has been stated in the initial plans, in GAO reports, and in the recent Congressional Oversight Hearing on NPS pollution. ------- This information is required vto establish appropriate BMPs, determine the costs and benefits of a NFS control program, convince landowners and the public that the required investment is appropriate and, where required, provide justifi- cation for enforcement actions. The information will be obtained through both general and intensive M&E in project areas where BMPs are being applied on an accelerated basis. These projects will normally be restricted to RCWP, MIPs, Special Water Quality Projects, projects where State funded cost sharing is available and research projects. A number of field evaluation (M&E) projects will be funded with ORD funds in FY 80. Approximately ten projects (including those selected under RCWP), representative of different types of farming operations, climatic and soil conditions, combinations of BMPs, and receiving water use will be selected for intensive study of cause/effect relationships. The intensive M&E projects are costly and will normally have a time span of not less than five years. Information from these projects will be used in other areas with similar problems and conditions. Priority for both intensive and general M&E projects will be given to the accelerated implementation projects (MIPs, Special Water Quality Projects, RCWP projects) to make use of the administrative and management structure, the baseline data, the commitment of USDA agencies and the institutional structure already developed. Intensive M&E projects approved under the RCWP will receive funds from that program. Other intensive M&E projects will be funded mainly with 208 funds although 106, 314 and research funds may also be used. Those RCWP projects which are not selected for intensive M&E will require a general M&E program. Assurances that such a program will be conducted must be forthcoming before final project approval is given. Funds for general M&E may be provided from a number of sources; 208, 106, other Federal programs, State and local funds, etc. Program Tasks Scheduled Action Headquarters 1. Develop draft monitoring and evaluation guidelines 3-80 with ORD assistance (September 1, 1979). Finalize detailed monitoring and evaluation guidance. 2. Based upon an analysis of State 208 plans and the 10-79 advice of Regional Offices and States, develop a matrix of water quality conditions, types of farm operations, pollutants and BMP systems to be covered by the intensive monitoring and evaluation studies. ------- 8 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Develop a monitoring and evaluation strategy that classifies pollutants, water quality conditions and combinations of BMPs for different agricultural enter- prises to determine the required mix of monitoring and evaluation proposals. The M&E project proposals will cover a variety of conditions, pollutants and BMP systems and will be prioritized with the assistance of Regional Offices and States. The classification of pollutants, conditions and BMP systems will be used as a check to cover as many matrix elements as possible within existing resources. The strategy will integrate the mix of conditions to be studied in order to: 1) determine the cause/effect rela- tionship of selected NPS pollutants on water quality; 2) to estimate the effectiveness of BMP systems on preventing pollutants from reaching the stream for different types of farming operations; and, 3) the amount of control required to meet water quality goals. In cooperation with USDA, select the RCWP M&E projects. In cooperation with the Regional Offices and States, select projects for intensive M&E with 208 funding. Assist in development of work plans for RCWP and 208 funded intensive M&E projects. Coordinate with O.RD on its M&E Projects. 11-79 Establish system to provide Regions with informa- tion obtained from the M&E projects. Regions 9. Recommend appropriate RCWP and 208 funded projects for intensive M&E. 10. Assist appropriate States to develop M&E plans for RCWP projects and 208 funded M&E projects, both general and intensive. 11. Negotiate FY 1980 208 grant agreements to fund general and intensive monitoring and evaluation project activities. 11-79 11-79 Complete 2-80 Ongoing 6-80 10-79 Complete 3-80 Complete 3-80 ------- Funding Decisions 12. Intensive M&E projects funded by 208 or RCWP must be consistent with the national M&E project priorities. 13. 208 funds for other than intensive M&E projects will be limited to trend analysis on RCWP projects and special projects where M&E is already underway. Other funding sources will also be utilized. 14. All M&E projects must follow EPA's Quality Assurance Requirements. Federal Legislative Initiatives 15. None ------- 10 OBJECTIVE 3 Expedite the Implementation of Agriculture NFS Control Programs: t Utilize the resources and authorities of EPA, USDA and other agencies (USDI, TVA) to accelerate the implementation of approved/certified State agriculture NPS programs. Seek additional resources to fund the implementation of agriculture NPS programs (Federal, State, local). t Encourage States to use their existing water pollution legislative authorities as necessary, to secure the application of BMPs by farmers who will not participate in voluntary programs. National Policy Direction Implementation is the highest priority of the agricultural NPS strategy. Aggressive national and Regional leadership is required to assist States to make use of their own authorities and the authorities and resources of Federal agencies to expedite the implementation of agriculture NPS control programs. Regional Project Officers will work with States and other agencies to develop at least one accelerated implementation project for a priority agricultural water quality problem area in each State, in addition to ongoing MIP, ACP special projects and RCWP projects. Discussion Environmental and agricultural programs provide incentives which can be used to assist to meet the national goals of fishable/swimmable waters while maintaining an adequate food and fiber base. Regions must work with local. State, and other Federal planning and management agencies who have the authority, delivery systems and resources to implement NPS controls. The means for implementing priority projects include: RCWP projects. Additional ACP projects. Agreements with other Federal and State agencies to transfer or add resources to work in priority areas. This includes' Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension Service, T.V.A., Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest Service, State agricultural and forestry agencies, etc. Provision of State and local cost sharing programs. ------- 11 Provision to re-direct funds by those agencies whose program objectives are enhanced by NFS control programs, (ie) Highway Department, Irrigation Districts, Fish and Game Agencies, etc. Local and State regulatory programs. The Administrator reiterated his support of non-regulatory agricultural control programs on July 18, 1979, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Review, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation. However, a number of States have developed backup authority to ensure that non-participating farmers do not gain an economic advantage over cooperating farmers by their failure to implement BMPs. Iowa, South Dakota and Pennsylvania have adopted regulatory controls for agricultural erosion and sediment problems. Other States such as Washington rely on a voluntary program but refer non-participating farmers (those who have had a valid complaint filed against them and refuse to correct their problems) to the Department of Ecology for action. Without violating the concept of a voluntary program, there are a number of mechanisms that can be used to monitor program compliance. Various management tools are available to accelerate NPS control programs. For example, where pesticide use is substantial, in addition to an on-farm integrated pest management program, container disposal may require attention. Consideration may be given to establishing a system of disposal fees included in the price of the pesticide to support a program for proper disposal of containers in these situations. Regional project officers are the key to assisting States in implementing their agriculture NPS program. The umbrella USDA/EPA agreement and agreements between EPA and individual USDA agencies should be used by project officers to develop projects with USDA on shifting its resources to meet State priorities. Agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Tennessee Valley Authority can also assist States with their agriculture NPS control programs. Other examples for NPS implementation include Bureau of Land Management leases requiring performance standards to protect water quality and Title V Regional Economic Development Commission funds used to establish BMP demonstration projects. A few States (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, etc.) have developed cost share programs to subsidize the costs of BMPs. Regions should assist States in these types of legislative initiatives by providing information on State cost share programs and encouraging their adoption. Regions should identify and evaluate conflicting, inflexible and ineffective programs. Problems with State and local laws, ordinances and programs should be included in any evaluation process. A major example is the prior appropriation rights water law common in the western States. ------- A key element in the strategy is the training assistance given to designated management agencies in the utilization of management tools in their States to accelerate NFS implementation. As part of this assistance, a number of manage- ment agency workshops will be conducted in FY 30 and FY 81. Program Tasks Headquarters 1. Provide information to Regional Offices and States on innovative management and legislative/ administrative initiatives to secure the implemen- tation of NFS controls. 2. Work with national agricultural organizations to enlist their support for implementation program. 3. Develop material which will be used in management agency workshops. With Regions, schedule work- shops as required. National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) will provide consulting services and have a major responsi- bility for the scheduling and conduct of workshops. Regions 4. Develop better communication among State water quality agencies, designated management agencies, and ASCS, SEA, SCS, BIA, TVA, BLM, etc. Methods of accomplishment include work shops, establishing advisory groups, etc. 5. Assist States, ACP development committees and other agencies to focus technical assistance (SCS, SEA, FS) and funds (ACP, Small Farm Demonstration projects, State cost-share programs Title V Regional Development Commission funds, etc) in at least one priority area per State to expedite the implementation of agri- culture NFS control practices. 6. Assist States to develop leases and contracts which include stipulations to protect water quality on public lands with the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and Tennessee Valley Authority, as appropriate. Select at least one priority area per State and develop agreement. 7. Encourage States to use their existing legislative/ administrative authorities to secure compliance from non-cooperating operators. Develop program in at least one State per Region. Scheduled Action Quarterly beginning 1-80 Continuing 6 workshops; 2 per quarter in 2nd, 3rd, & 4th quarters. Throughout year Identify project 1-80 Initiate 4-80 Initiate 5-80 By 6-80 ------- 13 8. Assist in initiating, scheduling and conduct of Initial selection 12-79 management agency workshops. Locations will be Final selections 1-80 limited to those Regions which request workshops. Workshops start 3-80 Workshops completed 8/80 Funding Decisions 9. Approve RCWP project applications. Federal Legislative Initiatives 10. Extend RCWP (208j) authorization. ------- 14 OBJECTIVE 4 Develop a Management Information System for evaluating the effectiveness of the Agriculture NFS control program. National Policy Direction The WQM program will be evaluated on its success in implementing 208 planning decisions which will lead to meeting the Nation's water quality goals. A management information system which will provide data for evaluating the NPS program is to be developed. Agriculture will be a key element in the system developed. Discussion Hundreds of management agencies have been designated to implement agricultural NPS programs. These agencies were generally in operation and were given the additional responsibility for water quality management. The success of the agricultural NPS program depends to a great degree on their concerted efforts. EPA has not normally worked with management agencies on a continuing basis. Presently, there is no system by which the implementation program (water quality outputs) of these agencies can be determined. EPA does not have any system by which this information can be collected and analyzed (ie) there is no way by which we can determine if a program's goals are being met or if we can judge whether a program is successful. An approach is required which recognizes EPA's resource limitations and utilizes the delivery systems of other agencies (local, State and Federal) to provide required data. Program Tasks Scheduled Action Headquarters 1. Form a management information system task force of Initiate 11-79 Headquarters, Regional, ORD, USDA and State Complete 6-80 representatives to: a. Establish the scope of the system; b. identify the data elements to be included in the system; c. evaluate information collection and transfer mechanisms and recommend a system that will provide the user community with timely and accurate information on the implementation of agriculture nonpoint source control programs. 2. With the Regions, develop criteria to be used to Initiate 1-80 document the success of State agriculture NPS Complete 6-80 control programs. ------- 15 Regions 3. Develop with States, the criteria to be used to Initiate 3-80 evaluate the States' and the designated management Complete 9-80 agencies' success in implementing agricultural nonpoint source control programs. Funding Decisions 4. None Federal Legislative Initiatives 5. None ------- 16 OBJECTIVE 5 Policy issue analysis required to provide basis for Agency's long range agricultural strategy. National Policy Direction To date, agricultural NPS policy and programs have focused on utilizing presently available legislative authority, resources and institutions. It is believed that significant short term progress in NPS implementation can be achieved in this manner. However, the strategy should also consider long range needs in the above areas. It is also necessary to evaluate a number of broader agricultural policy issues to determine their long range effect on the Nation's water quality goals. Discussion There are a number of policy and program issues which must be reviewed in order to determine what actions are required to assure that the agricultural NPS strategy is revised as required, addresses changing needs and remains consistent with other program policies in the Administration. No major policy or program shifts are expected within the next two years. However, there are a number of policy issues which require analysis at this time. For the past few years agricultural production has been curtailed as a matter of national policy (ex., set aside programs). It now appears that this policy is changing and production constraints will be lifted. The effect will be to bring more land into crop production. This land is often marginal and may require more management to prevent NPS pollution from occurring. A coordinated policy will be required to assure that agricultural and environmental goals are mutually recognized and that programs consistent with those goals are adopted. Another issue which has surfaced in recent years is the need to adapt agricul- tural incentive programs to meet environmental goals. There is some discussion in Congress and within the Administration regarding the need for better coordination of various economic incentive programs with national environmental goals. For example; legislation has been introduced to require that fanners who utilize Federal assistance programs for crop insurance also be required to adopt a soil and water resource plan. Support for this concept is growing. It is important for EPA to analyze the effects of this and other legislative efforts to develop policy positions and structure its long range strategy to accommodate changes in national agricultural policy. ------- 17 Most States, have adopted a non-regulatory approach for their agricultural nonpoint source control program. However, a number of States have adopted various regulatory mechanisms to support the non-regulatory approach. Evaluation of the various approaches will be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of each. It is expected that a period of three to five years will be required to make a determination of program effectiveness, A few States have adopted the general permit concept for various NPS activities, including some related to agriculture. These initial efforts should be evaluated to determine their effectiveness and utility in other areas and for other situations. Another issue which requires attention is the utilization of section 313 to assist designated management agencies in their efforts in working with other Federal agencies to accelerate NPS implementation on public lands. While there are a large number of issues which might be studied it is important to recognize resource limitations in this area. Only one or two major issues will be evaluated within a fiscal year. Program Tasks Scheduled Action Headquarters 1. Work closely with USDA, national agricultural and Continuing environmental organizations and others on national agricultural policy issues. 2. Evaluate policy issues relevant to WQM program, Continuing utilize ORD to assist in analyses and decisions on long range issues. 3. Develop work groups as required to study and Select issue 1-80 provide recommendations on policy changes. Convene work groups 3-80 Complete study 7-80 4. Revise agricultural NPS strategy as required. 9-80 Regions 5. Participate in Headquarters' work groups. Continuing Funding Decisions 6. Provide contract assistance. Federal Legislative Initiatives 7. Provide Agency recommendations on Administration oolicy and congressional legislation. ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-311-13E/67 ------- |