WSP11270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Who's In Chllrge? ...... CO C') -J The RCWP is administered by the U.S. Deparlmentof?\griculture's Agricultural Stabilizlltion and Conservation Service (ASCS) in consuftation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Several USD'A agencies contribute in various ways: . Soli Conservat/pn Service (SCS) coordinates technical assistance, . Economic ReSf/lrcll Service (ERS) assists in ihe economic evaluation of BMPs and project impacts, . Extension Service (ES) coordinates educetionaf programs, . Forest Service (FS) has technical responsibility for forestry, . F/lrmers Home Administration (FmHA) coordimltes Its programs with the RCWP. National, state, and local RCWP coordinating commi$es make the major decisions alfeliJing the program. ',~ The project has conducted more than 30 field tours for groups interested in learning more about management practices and water quality monitoring. In 1983, the Oregon project reported that part of the success of the Til- lamook RCWP was due directly to the support of the dairy industry. Repre- sented on the local coordinating committee, the dairy indulltry helped convince local dairy operators of the need to reduce the bacterial load to Tillamook Bay. Federal, State and Local Agencies: Can They Get the Job Done? The simple answer is "yes," . . . but not without local ownership of the project. In fact, for federal programs such as the HCWP to solve state and local problems using voluntary measures, agencies must cooperate and coordinate their various capabilities at all levels to synthesize a team ap- proach to meeting common water quality and conservation objectives. The importance of local support for the project cannot be overstated. If landowners are not willing to participate, all of the interagency coordina- tion will be for naught. Voluntary nonpoint source programs ai,e akin to a buyer's market where the agencies are the merchants. A consistent sales pitch, a good price, and reliable and effective service are required to sell voluntary implementation. Under these conditions, agencies have no choice but to plan together and work together. Other Lessons Learned III Select projects for their likelihood of success and visibility: Highest priority should be given projects most likely to succeed in restoring, protect- ing, or maintaining the use of a valued water resource. A priority project will have a clearly documented water quality problem or the threat ofa problem as well as a feasible means to remediate or protect the water resource. The project must be backed by substantial local support, financial sup- port, adequate staff, expert technical assistance. local agency coopera- tion, and an effective information and education program. Some regulatory authority is also helpful. Visible success helps to change the altitude and behavior of the public toward waste management, conservation, and pollution control. Sinceall pollution cannot be controlled by expensive, governmer)t-financed projects, the success of nonpoint source pollution management depends on demonstrations of success. -'1 . A clear statement of goals and objectives Is necessary to, keep Im- plementation on target: Programs operating without such a statement of purpose may waste money. Projects may be working, but in the absence of specific goals directed at improving water quality, they probably won't result in water quality benefits. , ~~ -1 . Target Implementation to meet water quality needs: Land treatment should be targeted to critical areas where BMPs are likely to most improve and protect the water resource. The pollutants -and their major $ources- must be the primary focus in identifying critical areas. 6