Proceedings of National
In the early part of the Virginia RCWP project,
extremely high levels of coordination and coopera-
tion existed among the different agencies, and com-
1991. A Manager's Guide to NPS
munication was excellent. However, after BMP
Implementation Projects. NCSU Water
ric. Eng., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.
implementation, which occurred about five years
Coffey, S.W. and M.D. Smolen.
Results of the
into the project, both the State and local
Rural Clean Water Program: methodology for on-site
committees stopped meeting, which caused a break-
Rural Clean Water Program 1990 Workshop
down in communication between the
Source Branch, U.S. Environ.
and water quality groups.
Coffey, S.W. and TJ.
1992. Rural Clean Water Program
Methodology for Evaluation, Short Answer Questionnaire.
Serv., Dep. Biolog.
State Univ., Raleigh.
Federal Register. 1980a. 1980 Rural Clean Water Program
7 CFR Part 700. March 4. 1980 (45 ER. 14006).
The Rural Clean Water Program has demonstrated
Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric.,
be successful in protecting and restoring water
1980b. Cooperative Agreements for Protecting and Restor-
resources if they are carefully structured and based
ing Publicly Owned Freshwater Lakes. 40 CFR Part 35.
February 5.1980. U.S. Environ.
on the findings of previous programs. The model
program we propose requires administrative and
TJ. and R.C. Wimberley. 1992. Farm operators' attitudes
about water quality and the
technical support from all levels
Clean Water Symposium, 1992. Orlando, Florida.
and local. The States and their local counterparts
RP.. M.D. Smolen,
Jamieson, and AC. Weinberg. 1987.
need guidance on project implementation. Much of
Source Control. Off.
this guidance can best be communicated through
Water, Reg. Stand., U.S. Environ.
program regulations similar to the regulations writ-
ten for the RCWP (Federal Register, 1980a). A nation-
LC. Stanley. M.D.
Overview and Evaluation of Section 108a Great Lakes
al technical support group, independent of
Demonstration Program. EPA-905/S86.001. U.S. Environ.
designated cooperating agencies, should be in place
Prot Agency, Washington, DC
to help develop program guidance, provide technical
National Water Quality Evaluation Project and Harbridge House,
assistance, and conduct project evaluations.
Inc. 1983a. The Model Implementation Program: Lessons
Learned from Agricultural Water Quality Projects
Water quality monitoring is required to docu-
tive Summary. Biol. Agric. Eng. Dep., North Carolina State
ment the problem and track project effectiveness.
We suggest minimum monitoring requirements to
of the Management and Water
guide the development of the monitoring program
Quality Aspects of the Model Implementation Program: Final
design. BMP systems must be targeted to treat criti-
Report. Biol. Agric. Eng. Dep., North Carolina State Univ..
cal areas and specific pollutants responsible for the
Targeting critical water quality areas. Pages
present or potential problem. Finally, a project
131-41 in Rural Clean Water Program 1988 Workshop
manager and a core project staff (from various coor-
Nad. Water Qual,
Proj., Agric. Ext. Serv., North
dinating agencies) are needed to implement the
Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.
project. Greater accountability among project staff
J. 1992. Linking land treatment to water quality.
and incentives to avoid turnover wjll improve the
1992 National Monitoring and Evaluation Conference,
likelihood of meeting project goals. Information and
Chicago, IL U.S. Environ. Prot Agency, Washington, DC. In
educational efforts should be expanded to en-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Watershed Monitor-
courage greater adoption of
ing and Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring
Continual evaluation of programs and projects
Assess. Watershed Prot Div., Office Water,
and full communication of technical information are
RA, CA Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and WI? Anderson. 1987.
key factors in controlling
and achieving water quality goals.
Analysis Tool. Conserv. Res. Rep., No. 35. U.S.
Dep. Agric., Washington, DC.