84 



Level III watershed. Appropriate implementation of best management practices 

 would be required. Level III watersheds would receive highest priority for 

 targeting of agency programs. State water quality agencies and the EPA would 

 focus primary attention on these level III watersheds. 



Pollution prevention plans would be required for watersheds in Level III. 

 Participation in education and training programs would be mandatory. 



At Level III, pollution prevention plans and recordkeeping, as both voluntary 

 efforts and as mandatory vehicles for compliance with regulations, could 

 provide liability protection for the producer and promote good stewardship of 

 natural resources. 



Advantages of the Tiered and Targeted Model 



• The "tiered and targeted" approach would build on existing, successful programs and 

 create new linkages and partnerships among local, state and federal agencies as needed 

 to assure water quality goal achievement. Primary funding for levels I and II 

 watersheds would be through USDA agencies for federal funds and through appropriate 

 state agencies at that level. Significant level III watersheds funds could come through 

 EPA and be administered through section 319 programs. 



• None of the agencies has the necessary resources to deal with all problems 

 simultaneously; this approach allows for prioritizing agency activities and facilitating 

 coordination. 



• 



• 



Agency personnel and clientele are unaccustomed to tailoring programs to specific 

 geographical areas; this program would mandate the targeting approach. 



There is limited technical expertise available and the best talents of available experts 

 must be applied to the most serious problems. 



Voluntary programs would be administered by USDA and appropriate state agencies 

 that have traditionally managed such programs. However, EPA and state regulatory 

 agency inputs would be built into the overall program and coordination assured. 



Enforcement programs would be administered by those agencies already recognized to 

 have regulatory responsibilities. However, even in level III watersheds, significant 

 USDA educational, technical and financial assistance would be included since not all 

 producers would be subject to the same requirements. 



This approach would also provide a defensible approach to the CZARA program with 

 the proposed mandatory guidelines being applied only to level III watersheds since 

 expenditure of excessive funds to apply programs in areas without identified water 

 quality problems cannot be justified. However, all areas would receive general basic 

 water quality programs of the level I or level II types, as appropriate. 



March 23, 1994 



