NONPOINT SOURCE 

WATER POLLUTION

Greater Oversight and 

Additional Data 

Needed for Key EPA 

Water Program

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2012

GAO-12-335

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-335, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2012

NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION

Greater Oversight and Additional Data Needed for 

Key EPA Water Program 

Why GAO Did This Study

Pollution from nonpoint sources—such 

as runoff from farms or construction 

sites—remains the leading cause of 

impairment to the nation’s waters. 

Under section 319 of the Clean Water 

Act, each year EPA provides grants to 

states to implement programs and fund 

projects that address nonpoint source 

pollution; the program received $165 

million in fiscal year 2012. Section 319 

includes minimum conditions that 

states must meet to receive grants. By 

regulation, EPA’s 10 regional offices 

oversee state programs and are to 

ensure that states’ projects can be 

feasibly implemented. USDA also has 

programs to protect water resources. 

GAO examined (1) states’ experiences 

in funding projects that address

nonpoint source pollution, (2) the 

extent to which EPA oversees the 

section 319 program and measures its 

effectiveness, and (3) the extent to 

which key agricultural programs 

complement EPA efforts to control 

such pollution. GAO surveyed project 

managers, reviewed information from 

EPA’s 10 regional offices on oversight

of state programs, and analyzed USDA

data.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that EPA provide section 319

oversight guidance to its regional 

offices and that USDA analyze data to 

determine if measures were taken to 

mitigate water quality impacts in 

section 319 project areas. EPA agreed 

with the recommendations, while 

USDA was silent on them. Both 

agencies commented on specific 

findings, which are addressed within 

the report. 

What GAO Found

Under section 319 of the Clean Water Act, state-selected projects to reduce 

nonpoint source pollution have helped restore more than 350 impaired water 

bodies since 2000, but other projects have encountered significant challenges. 

According to GAO survey results, 28 percent of projects did not achieve all 

objectives originally identified in the project proposal (e.g., implementing the 

desired number of pollution reduction practices), while many that did so still faced

considerable challenges. About half such challenges were beyond staff control 

(e.g., bad weather or staff turnover), but the other half were challenges that 

generally could have been identified and mitigated before projects were 

proposed and selected for funding, such as gaining access to desired properties. 

In one state, for example, $285,000 in section 319 funds was to subsidize the 

cost to homeowners of repairing damaged septic systems. Once the grant was 

awarded, however, one homeowner signed up to participate. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) oversight and measures of 

effectiveness of states’ programs have not consistently ensured the selection of 

projects likely to yield measurable water quality outcomes. EPA’s 10 regional 

offices varied widely in their review of states’ work plans, which describe projects 

states plan to undertake in the upcoming year, and project selection criteria, 

which identify eligibility parameters for receiving section 319 funds. For example,

three regional offices reported reviewing annual work plans in depth and actively 

influencing the types of projects selected, while three others reported limited to 

no involvement in such reviews, instead deferring to states’ judgment on project 

feasibility and selection. EPA, however, has not provided its 10 regions with 

guidance on how to oversee the state programs. Also, EPA’s primary measures 

of program effectiveness may not fully demonstrate program achievements. 

Section 319 requires states to report to EPA on two measures, including 

reductions in key pollutants. It does not limit EPA to these two measures, but the 

agency has chosen to use them as barometers of success for the section 319 

program. States can demonstrate their achievements in additional ways—ways 

that may provide a more accurate picture of the overall health of targeted water 

bodies, such as the number and kind of living organisms in the water. 

USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program is the key agricultural 

conservation program that can complement EPA efforts to reduce nonpoint 

source pollution, and its conservation practices have significantly reduced 

pollutants coming from agricultural land across the country. Notwithstanding its 

achievements, certain conservation practices can adversely affect water quality if 

not properly implemented—for example, by transporting polluted runoff from 

nutrient-laden fields into nearby water bodies. The agency’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) has procedures in place intended to ensure that its

practices do not inadvertently harm water quality. During its field work, GAO 

identified a few instances where these procedures may not have been followed 

(including in watersheds where EPA’s section 319 funds had been used), and 

therefore sought NRCS data to determine if they were isolated instances or 

indicative of a more prevalent issue. NRCS’ national level data, however, are not 

sufficiently detailed to identify whether appropriate measures are always in place 

to mitigate potential water quality impacts. According to NRCS, such data are

instead located in its field offices and are not analyzed by the agency. 

View GAO-12-335. For more information, 

contact David C. Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or 

trimbled@gao.gov. To view the e-supplement 

online, click on GAO-12-377SP.
Page i GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Letter 1 

Background 4

States Have Funded Many Successful Projects but Also Some That 

Encountered Preventable Challenges 11

EPA’s Oversight and Measures of Effectiveness of States’ Programs 

Have Not Consistently Ensured Projects Likely to Yield 

Measurable Water Quality Outcomes 31

A Key USDA Program Largely Complements EPA’s Section 319 

Program, although It Is Unclear How Closely Its Procedures to 

Protect Water Quality Are Followed 41

Conclusions 48

Recommendations for Executive Action 50

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 50

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 53

Appendix II Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 58

Appendix III Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 66

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 80

Figures

Figure 1: A Watershed 8

Figure 2: Percentage of Section 319-Funded Projects Addressing 

Different Categories of Nonpoint Source Pollution, Fiscal 

Years 2004–2010 12

Figure 3: Percentage of Section 319-Funded Projects Addressing 

Different Categories of Pollution That Were Designed 

Primarily to Implement Direct Pollution Reduction 

Approaches, Fiscal Years 2004–2010 14

Figure 4: Focus of Projects Funded under Section 319 Designed 

Primarily to Implement Indirect Pollution Reduction 

Approaches, Fiscal Years 2004-2010 16

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Figure 5: An Eastern Washington Stream Channeled to Maximize 

Crop Yield 36

Figure 6: Restoration of the Headwaters of the Big Darby River in 

Ohio 38

Abbreviations

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CREP Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 31, 2012

The Honorable Timothy Bishop

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

House of Representatives

Forty years after the 1972 Clean Water Act recognized the problem of 

water pollution from diffuse, or nonpoint, sources—such as runoff from 

farms or construction sites—nonpoint source pollution remains the 

leading cause of impairment of the nation’s waters. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) reports that more than 33,000 water bodies 

nationwide are impaired primarily by such pollution; that is, they do not 

meet water quality standards to provide for, among other things, 

propagation and protection of aquatic wildlife and human use and 

recreation. Runoff from nonpoint sources, including many farms, 

managed forests, and urban areas, often carries harmful pollutants such 

as fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment from fields and logging roads; 

metals and toxins from abandoned mines; and oils from roads and 

highways. Nonpoint source pollution may also alter natural water flow 

patterns, water temperatures, and ecosystems in rivers, streams, lakes, 

estuaries, and oceans, to the detriment of aquatic life.

Recognizing such issues, Congress in 1987 amended the Clean Water 

Act, adding section 319 to explicitly address nonpoint source pollution 

through a cooperative, grant-based program with states, which fund 

projects to reduce nonpoint source pollution and restore impaired water 

bodies. Section 319 authorizes EPA to award federal funds to states to 

implement nonpoint source management programs. Since fiscal year 

2000, section 319 funding has averaged about $200 million annually for 

projects designed to reduce nonpoint source water pollution.1

 

1

In fiscal year 2012, the section 319 program received $165 million. 

Guidelines 

issued by EPA in 2003 for implementing section 319 draw particular 

attention to the potential benefits of working closely with the U.S. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers agricultural 

conservation programs—a source of federal funding that can complement 

EPA’s water quality improvement efforts. USDA’s conservation programs 

provide billions of dollars in assistance to farmers. In particular, through 

its Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which is implemented by 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA develops 

contracts with agricultural producers to implement conservation practices 

on working agricultural land to, for example, reduce soil erosion and 

nonpoint source water pollution.

In 1990, when we last reported on EPA’s section 319 program,2

Concerns have been raised by federal and state agencies, scientists, and 

nongovernmental organizations about the persistence and severity of 

nonpoint source pollution. In this context, you asked us to review the 

effectiveness of EPA’s section 319 program in addressing nonpoint 

source pollution of the nation’s waters. Accordingly, our objectives were 

to examine (1) states’ experiences in funding projects that effectively 

address nonpoint source pollution problems, (2) the extent to which EPA 

oversees the section 319 program and measures program effectiveness 

in reducing the adverse impacts of nonpoint source pollution on water 

quality, and (3) the extent to which key agricultural conservation programs 

complement EPA’s efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution.

we found 

that inherent conflicts existed between some federal agencies’ policies 

and states’ water quality goals. Pollution trends since that time suggest 

that such inherent conflicts and their downstream consequences remain 

today. In 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

reported that the “dead zone” at the mouth of the Mississippi River—an 

area in the Gulf of Mexico where low oxygen levels can stress or kill 

resident organisms—was nearly 7,000 square miles, about the size of the 

state of New Jersey. In 2009, the U.S. Geological Survey reported that 

nine states in the Mississippi River basin contribute over 70 percent of the 

nitrogen and phosphorus that lead to such dead zones, largely through 

fertilizers for corn, whose production is supported by USDA’s commodity 

programs.

 

2

GAO, Water Pollution: Greater EPA Leadership Needed to Reduce Nonpoint Source 

Pollution, GAO/RCED-91-10 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 1990).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and agency 

research and guidelines. We visited 8 states, in four EPA regions, which 

we chose on the basis of their varied types of nonpoint source pollution 

and proximity to some of the nation’s premier watersheds, such as the 

Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Mississippi River.3

• To address the first objective, we surveyed a random sample of 524 

managers of projects that have been implemented with section 319 

funds to obtain information on the factors influencing project selection, 

implementation, and effectiveness on the ground. Our response rate 

was 57 percent. Survey results are generalizable to the 1,273 projects 

that were completed from January 1, 2004, through June 9, 2011; that 

expended section 319 funds; and that involved direct implementation 

of conservation practices or remediation techniques. We also 

examined nearly 2,000 summaries of completed projects in EPA’s 

Grants Reporting and Tracking System database, including those that

provided funds for projects conducted under USDA conservation 

programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program and the 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.4 Further, we obtained 

information from nonpoint source program officials in all 50 states, 

including information on states’ project selection criteria, types of 

organizations that have received funding, and program oversight 

practices.5

• To address the second objective, we obtained from EPA’s 10 regional 

offices information on the nature and extent of their oversight of state 

nonpoint source management programs, including the extent to which 

they examine states’ project selection processes, annual plans, 

program objectives, and the criteria they use to annually award funds. 

 

3

We visited Arkansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, 

and West Virginia.

4

EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System is a database of section 319-funded 

projects awarded by states; the database does not include information on most section 

319 projects awarded by Indian tribes. To assess the reliability of this database, we 

performed electronic data testing for missing data, outliers, and obvious errors. In addition, 

we reviewed internal controls for the database, interviewed knowledgeable agency 

officials, and compared summary information from the database with published reports. 

On the basis of this assessment, we determined that EPA’s Grants Reporting and 

Tracking System data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

5

To obtain this information, we sent a data collection instrument to nonpoint source 

program coordinators in all 50 states and obtained responses from all states. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

In addition, we examined section 319’s statutorily required reporting 

requirements—which EPA uses as national measures of program 

effectiveness— and collected information from state and local staff 

about whether EPA’s national measures accurately reflect the water 

quality improvements from nonpoint source pollution control projects.

• To address the third objective, we analyzed data on conservation 

practices, funded under USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program, that have been implemented in watersheds where states 

have funded section 319 projects.6

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through May

2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We focused on the Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program in this report because improving water 

quality is among its specific purposes, and EPA guidelines encourage 

states to seek opportunities to leverage resources with this program. 

We reviewed USDA reports on the effectiveness of conservation 

practices, and we also interviewed USDA officials familiar with the 

program. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in more 

detail.

Land use substantially affects the type and extent of nonpoint source 

pollution of water bodies. For example, soil erodes naturally from 

undisturbed land, but the amount of erosion can increase manyfold when 

trees are cut or the land is farmed. In addition, when land is used for 

housing or urban development, erosion from land clearing and excavation 

during construction can increase tremendously. Moreover, land use 

activities can also produce toxic pollution. For example, pesticide use in 

 

6

We obtained these data from the Program Contracts System, known as ProTracts, which 

is used to manage Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation program 

applications, cost-share contracts, and program fund management. To assess the 

reliability of these data, we performed electronic data testing for missing data, outliers, and 

obvious errors. In addition, we interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. On the basis 

of this assessment, we determined that ProTracts data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes.

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

farming has resulted in toxic runoff, and mining has produced leaching of 

heavy metals and acid mine drainage.7

Nonpoint source pollution can have long-lasting impacts. For instance, a 

heavy rain can wash tons of soil from a field, and the material can either 

scour a streambed or settle out and cover gravel that fish spawn in. Long 

after the water itself clears, populations of fish and other aquatic life may 

still not have recovered. Similarly, when trees and bushes are cut next to 

stream banks, debris falling into the stream or washing into the water may 

initially degrade the water, but a longer-term problem may be caused by 

persistent elevated water temperatures resulting from the removal of 

shade. In time, altered water temperatures can make the stream a less 

sustainable habitat for fish and other animals or may make it totally 

uninhabitable.

For nearly 40 years, the Clean Water Act has played a critical role in 

reducing water pollution and improving the health of the nation’s waters, 

including rivers, lakes, and streams.8 The purpose of the law is to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

nation’s waters. Passed by Congress in 1972, the act marked a shift in 

clean water policy, establishing a significant federal role in controlling 

point sources of water pollution. Through the 1980s, EPA issued a series 

of reports, including a key 1984 report to Congress, finding that in the 

decade following passage of the act, control of point sources had resulted 

in significant achievements toward water quality goals but that these point 

source reductions had illuminated the nonpoint source contribution to 

water quality problems.9

 

7

EPA groups the primary types of nonpoint source pollution into seven categories—

agriculture, urban and stormwater runoff, hydromodification (e.g., altering water patterns 

by straightening streams or building dams), resource extraction, silviculture (e.g., timber 

harvesting), construction, and land disposal—of which the first three have been identified 

by the agency as the greatest contributors to nonpoint source pollution. 

For example, at that time, a majority of EPA 

regions identified nonpoint sources as the principal remaining cause of 

water quality problems.

8

For consistency, we refer to the statute and its amendments as the Clean Water Act 

throughout this report.

9

Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the 

U.S., NEPIS 841R84100 (Washington, D.C.: 1984). 

Clean Water Act’s 

Approach to Addressing 

Nonpoint Source Pollution
 

Page 6 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act, adding section 319 

and creating the nonpoint source management program. Section 319 

provides for annual grants to be administered by EPA and incentives for 

states to develop and implement nonpoint source management programs. 

Section 319 includes various minimum conditions that states must meet 

to receive grants, including the development of nonpoint source 

management programs—which EPA must approve—and annual reports 

on states’ progress in achieving the goals of their management programs. 

States must also obtain a determination from EPA that they made 

“satisfactory progress” in meeting their goals from the prior year. For its 

part, EPA has discretion by statute to add terms and conditions to grants; 

to require additional information on applications; and to request additional 

information, data, and reports it considers necessary to determine 

continuing state eligibility for grants.10

 

1033 U.S.C. §1329(h)(1), (2), (10). 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act created the nonpoint 

source program, but EPA did not receive an appropriation to implement 

the program until fiscal year 1990. In the early 1990s, EPA focused on 

developing technical support for states’ use in developing and 

implementing their programs. During these initial stages, some states and 

EPA regions focused their nonpoint source programs narrowly on 

demonstrations of particular pollution control technologies. In response to 

EPA program guidelines issued in 1996, states upgraded their programs, 

and in so doing, several states incorporated watershed-based 

approaches as a significant and sometimes central organizing theme. 

These states focused their pollution reduction efforts in specific 

watersheds—areas of land through which all the rainfall and streams flow 

downhill toward a main river channel (see fig. 1). According to EPA 

documents, state nonpoint source programs that adopted this approach 

improved their capacity to solve nonpoint source pollution problems.

EPA Guidance to States in 

Developing Their Section 

319 Programs
 

Page 8 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Figure 1: A Watershed

In the early 2000s, EPA encouraged states to sharpen the focus of their 

nonpoint source management programs toward impaired water bodies. 

Specifically, EPA and the states determined they needed to target their 

efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution within defined geographic 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

areas representing the most severe water quality problems. According to 

EPA documents, the two key steps states need to solve nonpoint source 

problems at the watershed level are the development of a watershedbased plan that addresses water quality needs within a watershed and 

the actual implementation of the plan.

In 2003, EPA issued Federal Register guidelines for the section 319 

program, which remain in use today.11

• The guidelines direct states to use about half their section 319 grants 

to develop and implement watershed-based plans for impaired 

watersheds. Beyond targeting funds to geographic areas in need of 

restoration, the guidelines also allow states to fund activities that 

generally support section 319 goals, such as technical assistance, 

staffing, projects that demonstrate innovative approaches to pollution 

reduction, and education programs that promote awareness and 

changes in behavior.

These guidelines followed a 

substantial increase in appropriated funds. Key features of the guidelines 

include the following:

• EPA’s 10 regional offices, which provide oversight of the section 319 

program, are to place special emphasis on reviewing states’ progress 

in developing and implementing watershed-based plans according to 

the guidelines. Regional offices are to review and discuss with states 

the projects states select for section 319 funding to ensure the plans’ 

effective implementation. It is through this review process that 

regional offices have the opportunity to influence the types of projects 

states select if they believe that the projects selected by a state are 

not adequate to effectively reduce nonpoint source pollution.12

• States are encouraged to leverage section 319 funds with projects 

from other federal programs that have water quality objectives, 

 

1168 Fed. Reg. 60,653 (Oct. 23, 2003). 

12By regulation, EPA regional administrators can deny the award of section 319 funds to 

states in instances where a work plan does not briefly describe each significant category 

of nonpoint source activity and commitments to be produced for each category, among 

other things.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

including USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).

13

Under EPA’s section 319 program, states retain the primary role for 

addressing nonpoint source water pollution. EPA’s 10 regional offices 

annually distribute program funds to the states using a formula that is 

weighted heavily toward state population and the number of acres in 

agricultural crop production. States develop their own project selection 

processes and the criteria that their nonpoint source management 

programs will consider when determining what projects to fund. Annually, 

each state submits its list of selected projects to the EPA regional office 

for incorporation into the state’s work plan, which describes what projects 

will be funded through section 319. Organizations that apply for section 

319 funds—often including conservation districts, local governments, and 

nonprofit organizations—submit project proposals to states’ nonpoint 

source management programs and, if selected, are responsible for 

implementing their proposed nonpoint source pollution projects under an 

agreement with the state. Section 319 is a nonregulatory program, and 

many states therefore rely primarily on voluntary approaches to address 

nonpoint source pollution.

This program is designed to fund conservation practices on working 

agricultural land to achieve national priorities, including reducing soil 

erosion and nonpoint source water pollution. The guidelines state that 

section 319 funding is especially suitable for supporting activities that 

either are ineligible for or typically do not receive significant USDA 

funding, including developing watershed-based plans in impaired 

watersheds, monitoring water quality, and funding staff to work with 

local communities to help assist and promote the development and 

implementation of watershed-based plans.

14

 

13EPA’s guidelines encourage states to select projects that complement USDA’s 

conservation program efforts because the regulations for these programs assigned a 

priority to reducing nonpoint source pollution in impaired watersheds. In fiscal year 2012, 

USDA implemented a National Water Quality Initiative in which state conservationists 

reserved about $33 million in EQIP funds to help producers implement conservation 

practices to protect water quality in impaired or threatened watersheds. 

The programs’ nonregulatory status, 

combined with private ownership of much of the nation’s land, means that 

securing voluntary landowner participation is a key aspect of nonpoint

14State nonpoint source programs may also implement regulatory activities rooted in state 

authority. States may use section 319 funds to support such regulatory efforts, but section 

319 does not provide regulatory authority to EPA or to states with respect to the control of 

nonpoint source pollution. 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

source pollution control and, according to EPA, can introduce significant 

uncertainty in how and when projects are implemented.

Under EPA’s section 319 program, states have funded many projects that 

have helped successfully address nonpoint source pollution and restore 

and protect water bodies across the country, but states have also funded 

projects that have encountered significant challenges—including many

that could have been prevented. This section discusses (1) the types of 

projects states have selected to address various categories of nonpoint 

source pollution, (2) the successes some section 319-funded projects 

have achieved in restoring impaired water bodies, and (3) projects states 

have funded that encountered preventable challenges.

States’ nonpoint management programs have used their annual section 

319 grants from EPA to fund projects that address different categories of 

nonpoint source pollution. The scope of individual section 319 projects 

varies considerably; common activities include direct implementation of 

conservation practices, education and outreach efforts, water quality 

monitoring, and funding of state nonpoint source management program 

staff.

According to data from EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System, 

from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2010, states awarded more than 

$1.2 billion in section 319 funds to more than 5,800 projects. Projects 

have been funded in all 50 states and by many tribes and have been 

targeted to seven different categories of nonpoint source pollution, mainly 

agricultural, urban and stormwater runoff, and hydromodification (see 

fig. 2).

States Have Funded 

Many Successful 

Projects but Also 

Some That 

Encountered 

Preventable 

Challenges 

States Have Funded 

Projects Addressing Varied 

Categories of Nonpoint 

Source Pollution
 

Page 12 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Figure 2: Percentage of Section 319-Funded Projects Addressing Different 

Categories of Nonpoint Source Pollution, Fiscal Years 2004–2010

Notes: Because many projects were listed in EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System as 

addressing multiple categories of pollution, the cumulative percentage of projects in the figure totals 

more than 100 percent. Also, some projects included in the tracking system did not identify the 

categories of pollution they were meant to address. The percentages displayed in the figure (and 

discussed in the report) are based only on projects whose categories of nonpoint source pollution 

were identified.

a

The “agricultural” category includes projects listed in the database as addressing, at least in part, 

pollution from either agriculture or animal-feeding operations.

b

The “land disposal” category includes projects listed in the database as addressing pollution from 

“land disposal/storage/treatment.” 

c

The “all sources” category is used for projects that address all categories of nonpoint source 

pollution.

d

The “other” category includes projects identified in the database as addressing pollution from any of 

the following categories: other nonpoint source pollution, historical pollutants, marinas and 

recreational boating, or turf management.

States funded section 319 projects that supported a mix of direct and 

indirect approaches to help restore, protect, or prevent further 

degradation of water quality.15

 

15We characterized projects as supporting either direct or indirect approaches by 

analyzing EPA data on the functional categories of activities listed for section 319-funded 

projects.

Direct approaches generally involved 

projects implementing conservation practices or other corrective actions 

to directly reduce or eliminate pollutants entering a water body. Common 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

direct approaches included, but were not limited to, agricultural 

conservation practices, such as the installation of fences to exclude cattle 

from shorelines or stream banks; erosion control projects; and stormwater 

discharge projects such as the installation of surfaces in parking lots that 

absorb rainfall rather than allow it to run off into urban streams. Indirect

approaches typically involved activities to help build state and local 

capacity to address nonpoint source pollution, raise public awareness, 

and assess water quality in particular places of concern and commonly 

involved methods such as education and outreach, watershed planning, 

and staffing.

According to our analysis of EPA data, approximately 45 percent of 

projects that states funded in fiscal years 2004 through 2010 under 

section 319 involved direct approaches and were designed primarily to 

implement activities to directly restore, protect, or prevent further 

degradation of water quality. The categories of pollution that were the 

most common focus of direct restoration approaches—such as 

implementing agricultural conservation practices, stabilizing stream 

banks, or restoring a stream’s natural channel configuration—include 

agricultural pollution and pollution resulting from urban and stormwater 

runoff (see fig. 3).
 

Page 14 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Figure 3: Percentage of Section 319-Funded Projects Addressing Different 

Categories of Pollution That Were Designed Primarily to Implement Direct Pollution 

Reduction Approaches, Fiscal Years 2004–2010

Notes: The percentages displayed in the figure are based on projects that listed a direct approach to 

restoring, protecting, or preventing further degradation of water quality as their primary functional 

category of activity and listed the categories of nonpoint source pollution they were designed to 

address. Because many projects were listed in EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System as 

addressing multiple categories of pollution, the cumulative percentage of projects in the figure totals 

more than 100 percent.

a

The “agricultural” category includes projects listed in the database as addressing, at least in part, 

pollution from either agriculture or animal-feeding operations.

b

The “land disposal” category includes projects listed in the database as addressing pollution from 

“land disposal/storage/treatment.” 

c

The “all sources” category is used for projects that address all categories of nonpoint source 

pollution.

d

According to our analysis of EPA data, approximately 55 percent of 

projects that states funded in fiscal years 2004 through 2010 under 

section 319 were designed primarily to implement activities that indirectly 

The “other” category includes projects identified in the database as addressing pollution from any of 

the following categories: other nonpoint source pollution, historical pollutants, marinas and 

recreational boating, or turf management.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

help restore, protect, or prevent further degradation of water quality.16 We 

classified such projects into the following six broad groups based on the 

type of indirect activities they were primarily designed to support 

(see fig. 4):17

• Planning activities include the development of various planning 

documents designed to help identify and address nonpoint source 

pollution, such as watershed-based plans and total maximum daily 

loads (TMDL) for pollutants.18

• Education activities include statewide and local education and 

information projects, such as educating local officials about the 

causes and effects of nonpoint source pollution or developing 

nonpoint source-related educational curriculums for use in schools.

• Water quality monitoring and assessment activities include biological 

monitoring and assessments to determine water body health and 

monitoring the effectiveness of conservation practices.

 

16Although the distinction between direct and indirect approaches is helpful for 

understanding the primary purposes of different projects, it is important to note that some 

section 319-funded projects supported elements of both approaches. In addition to listing 

a primary functional category of activity, some projects also listed secondary functional 

categories in EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System. For example, a project may 

have been designed primarily to install conservation practices (an example of a direct 

activity), but a secondary goal of the project may have involved conducting water quality 

monitoring (an example of an indirect activity). The data presented here are based 

exclusively on the primary functional category of activity listed for each project in EPA’s 

Grants Reporting and Tracking System.

17We developed these groups largely on the basis of how EPA categorizes different 

indirect activities, although they also reflect modifications based on the results of our 

analysis.

18TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can 

receive and still meet water quality standards. States can use up to 20 percent of section 

319 funds to develop nonpoint source TMDLs, watershed-based plans to implement the 

nonpoint source TMDLs, and watershed-based plans in the absence of or before 

completing development of TMDLs for waters listed as impaired under section 303(d) of 

the Clean Water Act, among other things. The relevant EPA region can authorize a state 

to use over 20 percent of the incremental funding to develop watershed-based plans in 

section 303(d)-listed waters, but the region is to ensure that a proper balance exists 

between funding the development of watershed-based plans and the implementation of 

watershed-based plans. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

• Management and staff activities include funding the administrative 

and personnel costs associated with state nonpoint source 

management programs, as well as supporting other program 

management efforts, such as funding watershed coordinators at the 

local level.

• Technical assistance activities include activities such as engineering 

assistance related to implementing conservation practices provided to 

state or local entities.

• Other activities include a variety of regulatory and enforcement 

activities, as well as activities related to groundwater and soil 

analyses.

Figure 4: Focus of Projects Funded under Section 319 Designed Primarily to 

Implement Indirect Pollution Reduction Approaches, Fiscal Years 2004-2010

Note: The percentages displayed in the figure are based only on projects that listed an indirect 

approach to restoring, protecting, or preventing further degradation of water quality as their primary 

purpose.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

States have used section 319 funds to improve the condition of water 

bodies impaired by nonpoint source pollution. EPA reported that as of 

December 2011, restoration efforts supported by section 319 funds had 

helped 49 states partially or fully restore 356 water bodies that were listed 

under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as impaired by nonpoint 

source pollution.19 In addition, many other section 319-funded projects 

continue to restore portions of water bodies and may help them attain 

their water quality standards or designated aquatic uses in the near 

future. According to our survey results, project managers for 72 percent of 

the projects reported that their projects accomplished all objectives 

originally identified in the project proposal.20

• Agricultural runoff: Since 2007, Pennsylvania has awarded more than 

$700,000 in section 319 funds to three projects to help implement the 

Hungry Run Watershed Implementation Plan. Two of these projects 

focus on installing suites of complementary agricultural conservation 

practices on farms located in the watershed, such as stream bank 

fencing, riparian buffers (undisturbed or planted areas along stream 

banks), and cover crops to address agricultural runoff. State and local 

officials we spoke with said that water quality monitoring data suggest 

that as a result of these efforts, Hungry Run may be removed from 

Pennsylvania’s list of impaired waters in the future if its water quality 

continues to improve as a result of the department’s efforts. These 

projects also illustrate the value of putting multiple conservation 

practices in place at the same location to increase the overall 

In addition, water quality 

improvements resulting from section 319-funded projects have been 

demonstrated across a variety of categories of nonpoint source pollution. 

For example:

 

19In instances where a water body has multiple segments listed by the state as impaired, 

each fully or partially restored segment is counted separately within the total number of 

restored water bodies reported by EPA. The number of partially or fully restored water 

bodies is based on those that had been listed as impaired during the 1998-2000 listing 

cycle or in subsequent years. EPA considers a water body that has been included on the 

Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies to be “fully restored” once the 

water body meets all water quality standards or designated uses. “Partially restored” water 

bodies are those that, as a result of restoration efforts, meet some, but not all, of their 

initially impaired water quality standards or designated uses.

20We surveyed a random sample of managers of projects receiving section 319 funding 

that were completed from January 1, 2004, through June 9, 2011. The response rate was 

57 percent. The 95 percent confidence interval for the 72 percent of projects is 67-78 

percent and denoted (67, 78). For more detail on survey methodology, see appendix I. 

The full results of this survey are available at GAO-12-377SP. 

States Have Used Section 

319 Funds to Achieve 

Water Quality Benefits and 

Restore Hundreds of 

Impaired Water Bodies
 

Page 18 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

effectiveness of water quality restoration efforts, according to the 

project manager.

• Urban and stormwater runoff: In Michigan, urban development and its 

associated runoff led to the impairment of Malletts Creek, a tributary 

to the Huron River. To help address this impairment, the Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality has allocated more than 

$230,000 in section 319 funds to a project designed to implement 

stormwater conservation practices at a local library containing a 

portion of the creek on its property. Practices implemented under this 

project included a vegetated green roof on the library to absorb 

rainwater, as well as basins filled with native vegetation to help slow 

the flow of water from the library’s parking lot into the creek. Water 

quality testing showed that the project’s conservation practices 

reduced the pollutants in stormwater leaving the site, including a 

greater than 40 percent reduction in copper, lead, oil, and grease, 

along with a 66 percent reduction in zinc.21

• Hydromodification: In Washington state, the natural flow of 

Jimmycomelately Creek was altered in the past to facilitate farming 

and the construction of roads and buildings. One effect of this 

alteration was a significant decline in chum salmon in the creek during 

the 1990s. Using approximately $300,000 in section 319 funds 

awarded to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, along with several million 

dollars from other federal, state, and local sources, the effort to 

restore Jimmycomelately Creek involved removing roads and 

buildings, altering the creek channel, and planting native vegetation. A 

tribal official involved with this project told us that the section 319 

funding helped the restoration effort include an additional tributary of 

the creek. The creek is still listed as impaired on Washington state’s 

303(d) list, but the tribe reported that more than 4,000 summer chum 

salmon returned to the stream to spawn in 2010 (up from 7 fish in 

1999). The tribal official told us that this biological indicator is an 

important sign that the project was successful at reducing pollution 

and restoring water quality in the creek.

 

21According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Nonpoint Source Unit 

Chief, this project served as a demonstration for the rest of the community of effective lowimpact development practices, and other local government buildings and businesses in 

the area have subsequently implemented similar practices, at least in part because of this 

project’s success. 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

• Resource extraction: In West Virginia, the Department of 

Environmental Protection has used more than $625,000 in section 

319 funds to install treatment systems that remove metals and 

neutralize acidic water draining from abandoned coal mines in the 

Lambert Run watershed. The acidic water drains from the mines into 

Lambert Run, a stream that Department of Environmental Protection 

staff described as having such high concentrations of iron and 

aluminum that fish and other water-dwelling life had not been able to 

survive before the installation of the treatment systems. The treatment 

systems channel mine drainage into ponds, where the acidic water is 

neutralized through contact with limestone, and metal pollutants are 

removed. As of February 2011, EPA reported that the treatment 

systems have helped to restore approximately 2.3 miles of the original 

4.4 miles of impaired stream, and additional restoration efforts 

focused on the water body were in progress. State officials we spoke 

with said that monitoring data indicate that within 3 or 4 years, the 

stream may be removed from the state’s list of impaired water bodies.

Some states have directed section 319 funding toward projects that did 

not achieve their objectives, and many projects that did still faced 

challenges. Specifically, projects that relied on voluntary participation 

sometimes did not achieve goals when third-party buy-in was not secured 

in advance. Others sometimes used indirect approaches (e.g., community 

outreach) that did not have a clear connection to achieving tangible water 

quality results. Nevertheless, in recent years some states have adopted 

more rigorous project selection processes to avoid these challenges.

According to our survey results, project managers for 28 percent of all 

projects that involved implementing conservation practices or pollution 

remediation techniques reported that their projects were unable to 

accomplish all objectives originally identified in the project proposal.22

 

22Estimates produced from the sample of projects are subject to sampling error. We 

express our confidence in the precision of our results as a 95 percent confidence interval. 

This interval would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we 

could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the confidence 

intervals in this report includes the true values in the study population. The 95 percent 

confidence interval for this estimate lies between 22 percent and 33 percent and is 

expressed as (22, 33). 

These projects were generally unable to implement the desired number or 

type of conservation practices or to implement them in the originally 

States Have Also Funded 

Some Projects that 

Encountered Preventable 

Challenges

Reliance on Voluntary 

Participation
 

Page 20 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

proposed locations. Moreover, of the 72 percent of the projects that 

project managers reported achieved their originally proposed objectives, 

almost half did so only after encountering significant challenges that 

prevented them from finishing on schedule, staying on budget, or 

achieving the desired levels of pollution reduction.

Many of the challenges that project staff reported facing resulted from bad 

weather, staff turnover, or other factors outside their control. 

Nevertheless, of the 132 project managers that submitted narrative 

responses to our survey, 71 (54 percent) cited challenges that generally 

could have been identified and mitigated before projects were proposed 

or selected for funding. For example, project staff’s inability to secure 

third-party buy-in, such as landowner cooperation to implement the 

projects as intended, was the most commonly identified challenge (49 out 

of 132 responses to the question, or 37 percent).23

As a result of the challenges that project staff reported facing, managers 

for 29 percent24 of all projects reported that their projects required grant 

revisions to, for example, change the type, number, or location of 

conservation practices to be implemented and that 39 percent25 of all 

projects required grant extensions, with most extensions more than 6 

months.26

GAO-12-377SP

(Additional information on the factors that influenced project 

selection and the challenges that project staff reported some projects 

facing can be found in the e-supplement accompanying this report, 

.)

The following examples illustrate projects that project staff reported could 

not be implemented as planned because third-party participation was not 

secured in advance:

 

23States often select projects proposed by organizations that rely on voluntary third-party 

participation for implementation. Such organizations typically include soil and water 

conservation districts, county health departments, and nonprofit organizations. For 

example, project managers we surveyed reported that 81 percent of the organizations that 

implemented section 319-funded projects were organizations that typically rely on 

voluntary participation from third parties, such as landowners, to achieve project goals. 

Nonprofit organizations typically rely on voluntary participation from third parties, but in 

some cases they own the land on which projects are to be implemented. 

24The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (23, 34). 

25The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (33, 44). 

26Some projects may have required both grant revisions and extensions. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

• A project on the Illinois River was to reduce pollution by implementing 

conservation practices in urban and forested areas, such as rain 

gardens planted with native plants, which absorb urban and 

stormwater runoff, and prescribed burns on forested lands.27

• In West Virginia, Department of Environmental Protection officials 

selected a project that was to subsidize the cost to homeowners of 

pumping and replacing damaged septic systems in rural areas, 

among other practices. The department awarded a nonprofit 

organization nearly $450,000 to implement the project, of which 

$285,000 was for the septic system component. A departmental 

official explained that the project was designed to be a 5-year 

project—3 years for implementation and 2 years for monitoring. In 

2011, the project was in its third year of implementation, but as of 

November 2011, even though there was no cost to homeowners for 

the project, a single homeowner had signed up to have a septic 

system replaced. A representative from the nonprofit organization said 

that when the project was proposed, project staff had not verified 

whether landowners in the project area would participate. Upon 

receiving section 319 funds, the representative told us that the project 

did not receive much interest from the community and that her 

organization may have to return unspent funds to the Department of 

Environmental Protection to be reallocated to another project.

The 

state of Illinois provided section 319 funds to a regional planning 

organization to (1) put in place 2,500 urban and stormwater 

management practices and (2) implement prescribed burns on 1,000 

forest acres. The organization, however, did not implement the project 

as proposed because, after receiving funding, it was unable to compel 

landowners to implement the practices on private property; the 

organization had not secured the landowners’ consent before applying 

for the funding. As a result, of the intended 2,500 urban stormwater 

practices, 11 were ultimately implemented, and forest conservation 

measures were implemented on 282 of the intended 1,000 acres 

because prescribed burns could not be done.

• In Arizona, Department of Environmental Quality officials selected a 

project that aimed to install hundreds of native willows in two areas on 

the shore of a lake impaired by high levels of nitrogen and 

 

27Prescribed burns were chosen to remove excessive invasive shrubs and trees, which 

would then allow the growth of desired native vegetation for erosion control. 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

phosphorus. The department awarded section 319 funds to a 

nonprofit organization to plant the willows, whose root systems would 

absorb polluted runoff and thus help prevent nutrients from entering 

the lake. The project manager reported that after section 319 funds 

were received, project staff advertised the project to community 

members and reached out to landowners near the lake. Some 

landowners, however, were unwilling to have the nonprofit 

organization plant willows on their properties, according to the project 

manager’s report. Some willow trees were ultimately planted in one of 

the two areas, but the report concluded that the project’s water quality 

goals were not achieved and that no measurable reduction in 

pollutants came from the planting.

Securing voluntary third-party cooperation ahead of time is particularly 

important with agricultural projects, whose success largely depends on 

the implementation of a suite of complementary conservation practices. 

Agricultural projects by their nature can be particularly challenging for 

securing third-party participation to implement them in ways that 

effectively reduce nonpoint source pollution.28 According to EPA officials 

and USDA research,29

 

28Our survey results indicate that projects addressing agricultural runoff are more 

challenging than those addressing other forms of nonpoint source pollution: 86 percent of 

projects implemented in impaired watersheds that did not accomplish all their objectives 

were aimed at addressing agricultural runoff, whereas 14 percent of projects that did not 

accomplish their objectives addressed other forms of nonpoint source pollution. The 95 

percent confidence intervals for these estimates are (74, 93) and (7, 26), respectively. 

agricultural projects address nonpoint source 

pollution best when conservation practices are implemented as part of a 

suite of complementary practices. When landowners choose to implement 

conservation practices without all of the proper companion practices, 

however, assurance may be reduced that the practices will result in the 

29In June 2010, NRCS reported that conservation practices may sometimes be 

inadequate to address soil and water conservation when installed in isolation, and instead, 

suites of complementary practices should be used where possible to better ensure 

protection of both soil and water resources. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated 

Cropland in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Draft (Washington, D.C.: June 2010). 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

intended water quality benefits, according to state environmental 

protection officials we spoke with.30

The need for complementary conservation practices to protect water 

quality is often evident on lands where livestock graze. On such land, for 

example, installing livestock exclusion fencing in isolation does not 

always ensure that the negative water quality effects of grazing will be 

significantly reduced unless additional practices are put in place.31

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection funded a project 

that demonstrated the success of enlisting landowner cooperation to 

install a suite of complementary practices to protect water quality on land 

where livestock graze. For example, the department awarded $1.2 million 

in section 319 funds to a project in Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, in which 

a conservation district installed suites of conservation practices on 

several farms to keep livestock from congregating near an impaired 

stream and entering it. Such practices included livestock exclusion 

Livestock exclusion fencing is largely ineffective without riparian buffers, 

which help prevent stream bank erosion and absorb nutrients from 

manure, according to the nonpoint source coordinator for West Virginia’s 

Department of Environmental Protection. When riparian buffers are 

absent, livestock still congregate near stream banks, altering stream 

ecosystems and allowing sediment and manure to enter the water.

 

30According to state environmental protection officials, agricultural issues are complicated 

and take a thorough assessment from trained and skilled specialists to determine what 

practices will address the observed degradation, as well as fit into farmers’ management 

limitations. Once the proper suite of practices is determined, local and state specialists 

need to identify what program is the best fit to help support farmers’ efforts to install the 

necessary practices.

31Livestock exclusion fences, for instance, are often installed because when livestock 

graze close to water bodies and drink from them, they trample stream bank vegetation, 

break down the stream bank, and deposit manure—which can increase the amount of 

sediment, nutrients, and bacteria within the water bodies and alter the physical structure of 

streams as well. Fencing to exclude livestock may or may not need companion practices 

to fully reach its pollution control potential. According to state environmental protection 

officials, there are a number of reasons why livestock exclusion fencing may not need to 

include any companion practices. For example, such fencing may not need companion 

practices when off-stream watering facilities or areas already exist for a pasture. In 

addition, riparian buffers may not be needed if the stream corridor will naturally generate a 

riparian buffer once fencing is installed.
 

Page 24 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

fencing, riparian buffers, stream crossings,32 and off-stream watering 

facilities for livestock. In this case, conservation district staff said they 

proposed this project because the landowners were willing to install all of 

the complementary practices needed to keep livestock away from the 

stream. Further, this project is likely to help restore the stream to such a 

condition that it will soon be removed from the state’s list of impaired 

waters, according to the project manager.33

State nonpoint source management program officials in one state we 

visited said that because section 319 is a voluntary program, they 

hesitate to require participating landowners who are willing to install a 

given conservation practice to also install all the complementary practices 

that may be needed to ensure that water quality is protected. For 

example, in Arkansas, the state’s nonpoint source management program 

encourages certain agricultural conservation practices to be installed 

together as a suite to maximize water quality benefits, but it does not 

require section 319 fund recipients to implement all these practices on 

agricultural land. One state official acknowledged that this process does 

not always result in implementing the conservation practices that would 

produce the greatest water quality benefit and that landowners may resist 

implementing the most effective conservation practices. Consequently, 

less effective practices are sometimes chosen for projects to ensure 

sufficient landowner participation, he said.

Our analysis of EPA data indicated that section 319 funds may have 

sometimes paid for conservation practices to be put in place without all of 

the proper companion practices. Our analysis of EPA’s Grants Reporting 

and Tracking System data showed that when section 319 funding was 

used to install livestock fencing, more than half the time, the fencing may 

have been installed without all of the proper companion practices—those

 

32Stream crossings are stabilized areas or structures that allow livestock, people, 

equipment, or vehicles to cross a stream in a safe and environmentally sound manner. 

Stream crossings help prevent stream bank erosion, water pollution, and damage to 

stream beds and channels. 

33In 2010, in a draft Water Quality Manual for Livestock Grazing, Washington state’s 

Department of Ecology identified additional practices that should be implemented together 

to reduce negative water quality impacts when exclusion fencing is installed, which may 

include riparian buffers, stream crossings, and off-stream water facilities where livestock 

can drink. An Ecology official explained that if section 319 funds are used to install such 

fencing without these additional practices, there is limited assurance that water quality will 

improve. 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

practices that state environmental protection officials and USDA research 

show are needed to reduce nonpoint source pollution from livestock 

grazing. Specifically, in projects from 2004 through 2010 where about 700 

separate livestock exclusion fences were installed, the following 

additional practices were installed with the fencing: about 50 stream 

crossings (7 percent), 260 riparian buffers (37 percent), and 225 watering 

facilities or troughs (32 percent).34

Many section 319-funded projects that use indirect approaches to 

address nonpoint source pollution aim to educate local landowners about 

nonpoint source pollution problems or support other activities, such as 

promoting enrollment in USDA conservation programs.

(The data do not reflect instances 

where additional practices may have already been in place before the 

fencing was installed.)

35

 

34If complementary practices were installed together, one would generally expect the data 

to show a similar number for all practices. It is possible, however, that on some of these 

properties, the complementary practices were already in place or funded by the landowner 

or another organization. 

Such projects 

are allowable under EPA guidelines and are often the key to achieving 

local buy-in and commitment to successfully implementing future nonpoint 

source pollution reduction activities, according to EPA headquarters 

officials. State environmental officials in several of the states we visited, 

however, cautioned that such projects can sometimes have limited 

assurance of generating meaningful water quality results when their 

approaches are not directly aligned with addressing nonpoint source 

pollution or are not linked to specific outcomes. Local education and 

technical assistance activities may support improvements to water quality 

by educating community members or developing institutional capacity to 

address nonpoint source pollution, but as shown in the examples below 

some projects offer little assurance that measurable improvements will 

actually be achieved. In some instances, state officials have used the 

35In November 2011, EPA issued a national evaluation of the 319 program. According to 

this report, projects that use indirect approaches provide funds to enable the states to 

work with federal, state, local, private-sector, and watershed groups to gain cooperation 

and to leverage dollars, authorities, and other resources to solve or prevent nonpoint 

source pollution problems. These funds also provide critical support for state staff to 

conduct project planning and selection, monitoring, and building of partnerships, which are 

critical to ensure successful implementation of watershed-based plans. Environmental 

Protection Agency, A National Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program

(Washington, D.C.: November 2011). 

Indirect Approaches Not 

Always Linked to Tangible 

Water Quality Results 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

lessons learned from funding such projects to help inform their decisions 

on whether to fund similar projects in the future.

• One section 319-funded project in Arkansas had the stated purpose of 

training teachers and conservation district employees to teach a 

conservation education curriculum, so that they in turn could 

encourage students to participate in a conservation program, thereby 

developing students’ appreciation and awareness of natural 

resources. Although designed to teach students about nonpoint 

source pollution, the project did not have a clear link to tangible 

reductions in nonpoint source pollution or changes in behavior 

stemming from the use of section 319 funds. According to the state’s 

nonpoint source program director, his staff found that while the 

curriculum materials this project funded were well received by many 

teachers, staff were unable to ascertain the effectiveness of the 

project and whether it resulted in any behavioral change.

• A project in California aimed to implement conservation practices in a 

creek that was impaired in part by sewage disposal from septic 

systems. To do so, the project sought to increase community 

education through several outreach initiatives, among other activities. 

Project staff held workshops and community events, which about 200 

people attended, and conducted follow-up surveys, which showed that 

80 to 90 percent of residents had increased their understanding of 

environmental conditions and watershed pollution. Nevertheless, in 

the project’s final report, project staff concluded that changing the 

habits of residents to actually implement conservation practices—

such as pumping septic systems, planting streamside vegetation, and 

limiting fertilizer use—was much more complicated than originally 

anticipated. Despite increased levels of awareness, the report 

concluded, few conservation practices were implemented.

• In West Virginia, the state nonpoint source program director told us 

that the state’s department of environmental protection used section 

319 to fund a project to promote best management practices on oil 

and gas drilling sites and access roads. The project was designed to 

establish a training program for company inspectors that would help 

them identify drilling sites and access roads contributing to sediment 

runoff into impaired waters. The training would help company 

inspectors promote the design and implementation of management 

practices in these areas to reduce runoff and encourage compliance 

with such practices. This project promoted positive practices, but 

according to a departmental official, few management practices were 

ultimately implemented. In addition, he said, the project was not 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

directly linked to specific water quality outcomes, such as the number 

of sites and roads on which practices were to be implemented, and he 

will likely not use section 319 funds to fund similar projects in the 

future.

Projects using section 319 funds to pay for staff to promote enrollment in 

USDA conservation programs have also sometimes lacked approaches 

and intended outcomes that were directly aligned with addressing 

nonpoint source pollution.36 Project managers with whom we spoke said 

that when such projects do not contain concrete deliverables, such as the 

number and specific location of acres enrolled in conservation programs, 

there is limited assurance that the most vulnerable land will be protected. 

For example, Kansas awarded $225,000 in section 319 funds to a project 

whose objectives were to provide dedicated assistance to USDA’s 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and eliminate delays in providing 

program enrollment assistance to agricultural crop producers.37

Similarly, West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection used 

section 319 funds for several projects aimed, in part, at enrolling 

Funding 

was used to hire from 24 to 30 part-time staff to help interested 

landowners enroll in the CRP program, complete paperwork, and enroll 

acres in the program in shorter-than-typical time frames. According to the 

state project manager, the project did not include a specific focus on 

promoting CRP in areas of concern to nonpoint source water pollution. 

She also told us that the state Department of Health and Environmental 

Services has since concluded that projects such as these are not always 

the most cost-effective because the number of vulnerable acres enrolled 

has not been proportional to the resources invested. As a result, the 

number of funded staff decreased to 8 the next time the project was 

proposed, and the state project manager said that such projects may not 

be funded in the future.

 

36Since 2004, 20 states have spent nearly $30 million on nearly 100 projects that were 

designed, at least in part, to provide administrative support to USDA programs and 

activities or to directly promote these USDA programs and activities to landowners. The 

$30 million includes four projects approved by Michigan’s Department of Environmental 

Quality, totaling more than $10 million, which were designed to fund the state’s nonpoint 

source management program staff, who are generally responsible for assisting with 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program agreements, among other activities. 

37CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners through which they can receive 

annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resourceconserving covers on eligible farmland.
 

Page 28 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

landowners in USDA’s CRP and Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program (CREP).38

In November 2011, EPA issued a national evaluation of the 319 program 

and found that states’ success in controlling agricultural nonpoint source 

pollution when funding these types of indirect projects has been mixed.

According to the state’s nonpoint source program 

director, the department has not had much success in reducing nonpoint 

source pollution when section 319 funds are used to enroll land in CRP 

and CREP because pieces of land contributing the largest amounts of 

agricultural runoff are not always enrolled. West Virginia’s nonpoint 

source program director told us that as a result, he will be reluctant to use 

section 319 funds on projects aiming to enroll landowners in these 

programs.

39

The report noted that on one hand these projects can help develop and 

strengthen key partnerships among federal programs and are critical for 

making significant progress in remediating large numbers of water bodies 

impaired by nonpoint source pollution. Coordinated efforts between state 

nonpoint source programs and NRCS state conservationists has occurred 

in about one-half of all states’ farm bill program funding, which is 

distributed in whole or in part in accordance with the states’ nonpoint 

source program goals and priorities, according to the report.40

Our review of some states’ experiences and EPA’s 2011 evaluation report 

has shown that the challenges associated with third-party participation 

and projects whose approaches are not clearly linked to tangible water 

But EPA 

also reported that many states have had difficulty obtaining significant, 

broad-based, recurring support from USDA programs for nonpoint source 

program priorities. Many states therefore identified improved coordination 

and collaboration with USDA programs as a key nonpoint source program 

goal, according to EPA’s report.

 

38CREP, as part of CRP, is a voluntary land retirement program that helps agricultural 

producers protect environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife 

habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water. CREP authorizes state-federal 

conservation partnerships that address specific state and nationally significant water 

quality, soil erosion, and wildlife habitat concerns related to agriculture. 

39Environmental Protection Agency, A National Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 

319 Program (Washington, D.C.: November 2011). 

40In other words, USDA’s project-ranking systems include significant weighting of water 

quality considerations, such as projects focused in impaired watersheds, nonpoint source 

program priority watersheds, or watersheds that have watershed-based plans. 

Preventing Challenges through 

More Rigorous Project 

Selection 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

quality results can largely be avoided when states use more rigorous 

project selection processes. For example, in 2006, Ohio’s nonpoint 

source management program staff examined the types of organizations 

that commonly received its section 319 funding and found that more than 

70 percent of funding had gone to soil and water conservation districts, 

county health departments, and regional planning agencies, which 

typically have little authority to address water quality problems, according 

to Ohio’s nonpoint source program director. Ohio’s program staff found 

that these organizations often used section 319 funding to pay for staff 

salaries without getting a proportionate improvement in water quality from 

the projects they implemented. Further, when funds were used for 

implementing projects, these organizations’ projects were not 

implemented as anticipated in the grant application—typically resulting in 

substantially less water quality improvement than originally intended.

For example, in 2004 Ohio’s EPA allocated $500,000 under section 319 

to one agricultural project to install 15 different complementary 

conservation practices in an impaired watershed. The organization that 

received the grant, however, was unable to convince farmers in the 

impaired watershed to adopt the conservation practices, and after 

numerous grant revisions and extensions, it implemented 3 of the 15 

planned conservation practices, according to Ohio’s nonpoint source 

management program director. Instead, he told us, the majority of funding 

was used to purchase 111 pieces of equipment for tilling fields and 

handling and transporting manure, which can help reduce the amount of 

nutrient runoff entering nearby water bodies. What had started as a 

comprehensive approach to changing farmers’ behavior and farming 

practices evolved into an agricultural equipment acquisition project 

because agricultural equipment was what the landowners wanted, he 

explained. In addition, Ohio’s program review showed that section 319 

funds were being used to support payroll for 27 full-time-equivalent staff

positions in local organizations for some projects whose indirect 

approaches did not contain objectives or deliverables that addressed 

nonpoint source pollution problems, according to the nonpoint source 

management program director. Further, the nonpoint source management 

program director told us that the water quality results were not 

proportionate with the investment.

Following the 2006 review, Ohio’s nonpoint source management program 

changed its project selection criteria to favor grantees with authority to 

implement projects on the ground or projects for which any necessary 

landowner buy-in was secured in advance. Ohio EPA’s application 

process now requires that specific properties for proposed projects be 
 

Page 30 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

identified before grants are awarded and that assurances from property 

owners are obtained in advance, so that conservation practices can be 

implemented as planned. These programmatic changes have also 

prompted Ohio’s nonpoint source program to fund fewer projects that rely 

on indirect approaches. Consequently, since 2007, Ohio’s nonpoint 

source program has funded fewer than 5 full-time-equivalent positions in 

local organizations. Ohio EPA’s nonpoint source program director told us 

that these changes have helped the agency make significant progress in 

achieving the state’s water quality goal.41

Other states have changed their project selection processes along the 

same lines. In its November 2011 report, EPA found that as part of 15 

states’ project selection processes, nonpoint source program staff 

coordinate with project staff at the local level before selecting proposed 

projects for section 319 funding.42 The report goes on to say that this 

preproposal coordination helps increase local understanding of state 

nonpoint source program priorities, identifies potential project partners, 

gauges local receptivity to projects, and provides greater assurance of 

potential project success. These efforts typically improve the quality of 

proposals and, ultimately, water quality results from section 319-funded 

projects, according to EPA’s report. For example, Colorado’s nonpoint 

source management program increased the rigor of its project selection 

process by working with local officials to identify the highest-priority water 

quality issues so that the state can better support the projects that will be 

most effective in addressing them.

 

41Ohio’s water quality goal is for 100 percent of large rivers and 80 percent of small rivers 

to attain their designated use by 2020. 

42The report notes that 20 states’ project selection processes explicitly take into 

consideration a project’s feasibility for successful implementation.
 

Page 31 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

EPA regional offices have varied widely in the extent of their oversight 

and the amount of influence they have exerted over state nonpoint source 

management programs. In addition, EPA’s primary measures of 

effectiveness of state management programs may not always 

demonstrate the achievement of program goals—which are to (1) 

eliminate remaining water quality problems and (2) prevent new threats 

from creating future impairments—or reflect the achievements of some 

critical state activities for reducing nonpoint source pollution.

EPA’s 10 regional offices varied in their oversight of states’ nonpoint 

source management programs and the extent to which they influenced 

the projects states funded through section 319. This variability is seen 

most notably in regional offices’ reviews of states’ annual work plans and 

project selection criteria, which are to describe the activities that states’ 

nonpoint source management programs plan to undertake in the 

upcoming year and the parameters for which projects are eligible to 

receive section 319 funds from the state. To oversee states’ nonpoint 

source management programs, EPA regional offices by regulation are to 

determine, before annually awarding section 319 funds to states, that 

achievement of states’ proposed work plans is feasible—which means 

that states are to demonstrate that the projects described in the work plan 

can be implemented.43

Among their responsibilities for oversight of state nonpoint source 

management programs as provided in regulation and guidance, EPA’s 10 

regional offices perform two key functions. First, they review state 

nonpoint source management program plans, which are to identify states’ 

goals for addressing nonpoint source pollution. Second, they review 

Officials from most regional offices reported to us 

that they do not assess the feasibility of specific projects. Nevertheless, 

regional offices have almost always determined that states have made 

satisfactory progress in achieving their program goals—a condition that 

must be met for states to receive section 319 funding the following year.

 

4340 CFR §§ 35.111(a)(4) , 35.101(a)(10) (2012). 

EPA’s Oversight and 

Measures of 

Effectiveness of 

States’ Programs 

Have Not Consistently 

Ensured Projects 

Likely to Yield 

Measurable Water 

Quality Outcomes

EPA’s Regional Offices 

Have Varied in Their 

Oversight of States’ 

Nonpoint Source 

Management Programs

Variations in EPA Regional 

Office Oversight 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

states’ annual work plans and project selection criteria, which are to 

describe the activities that states’ nonpoint source management programs 

plan to undertake in the upcoming year to meet program goals and the 

parameters for which projects are eligible to receive section 319 funds 

from the state.

Regional offices have varied in the extent of their review of states’ 

nonpoint source management program plans, which are to ensure that 

states align the goals of their programs with the highest-priority water 

quality impairments. Some regional offices have encouraged states to 

modify their plans, whereas other regional offices have not. For example, 

regional office officials reported to us that Region 5 has encouraged all of 

its states to revise their management plans within the past 5 years,44

whereas Region 1 has not encouraged any of its states to update their 

plans since 1999.45 Section 319 guidance to states indicates that they 

should update their nonpoint source management plans if EPA finds that 

the practices and measures proposed in such plans are not adequate to 

reduce the level of nonpoint source pollution. Overall, EPA’s 2011 report 

evaluating states’ implementation of the section 319 program found that 

EPA regional offices have not required 28 states to upgrade their 

nonpoint source management program plans since 1999 or 2000.46

 

44Region 5 comprises Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

As a 

result, according to the report, these states’ plans play a diminished role 

or are simply ignored in the current implementation of the states’ 

programs and do not adequately reflect innovations that have become 

available during the past decade, including watershed-based planning 

and low-impact development. One primary reason for the variations in 

oversight among the regional offices could be that EPA headquarters has 

not issued specific implementing guidance to the 10 regional offices on 

45Region 1 comprises Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont. Massachusetts added an amendment to its management plan in 

2007. 

46EPA’s 2011 report does not specify which states have not upgraded their nonpoint 

source management program plans. 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

how they are to fulfill their regulatory oversight responsibilities for the 319 

program.47

Regional offices have also varied in the extent of their review of each 

state’s annual work plans and project selection criteria. Officials from 

three regional offices told us that they reviewed annual work plans in 

depth and played an active role in influencing the types of projects 

selected. For example, Region 4 officials reported that they helped 

ensure that several states within the region targeted their section 319 

funds to severely impaired watersheds and, before granting funding, 

selected project applicants who were willing to implement and capable of 

implementing projects.48

In contrast, of the 7 other regional offices, 4 reported that they review 

project selection criteria on an “as needed” basis, and 3 regions reported 

that they have limited to no involvement in reviewing or approving the 

project selection criteria. When reviewing project selection criteria and 

work plans, EPA’s regional offices have an opportunity to influence how 

state funding is distributed, determine which projects are selected to 

receive section 319 funds, reject proposed projects, or require 

Specifically, state program officials in North 

Carolina established a priority-setting system in collaboration with the 

regional office, which helped state staff review and rank project 

proposals. Final project selections were generally made after proposals 

were ranked and reviewed by various stakeholders, including Region 4 

officials. An official with another regional office told us that this kind of 

process provides regional offices with the opportunity to guide states to 

spend funds on certain geographic regions or to encourage 

implementation of projects in watersheds that have a watershed 

implementation plan and willing landowners.

 

47EPA’s existing national water program guidance for fiscal year 2013 provides little 

direction to EPA regional offices. EPA’s 2003 guidelines for section 319 grants are 

focused on state responsibilities. To the extent they discuss regional office oversight, the 

2003 guidelines identify some responsibilities but generally do not advise regions on how 

they are to fulfill them. For example, the guidelines state that the region will work with a 

state to ensure that the work plan has programmatic, technical, and scientific merit, but 

there is no further direction on what regions should consider in ensuring this is achieved. 

48Region 4 states include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 
 

Page 34 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

modifications to the state programs’ annual goals.49 Nevertheless, most of 

the 10 regions reported that although they provide feedback to states on 

specific project proposals before states select projects, they do not 

systematically assess the merits and feasibility of specific projects.50

Notwithstanding the variation in regional offices’ reviews of nonpoint 

source management program plans and annual work plans, regional 

offices have almost always determined that states have made satisfactory 

progress in achieving their program goals, which states must do to 

receive section 319 funding the following year. Regional office officials 

told us that it is more common for regional office staff to work with states 

that are at risk for not achieving satisfactory progress than to withhold 

funds. For example, according to Region 8 officials, the regional office 

almost withheld its determination of satisfactory progress from Wyoming 

for not having developed satisfactory watershed-based plans, but it 

granted the determination instead and then worked with Wyoming state 

program staff to direct future funds toward developing TMDLs with 

implementation plans that would include all the elements of satisfactory 

watershed-based plans. Officials from regional offices reported to us that 

determinations of satisfactory progress were made according to a variety 

of factors specific to each state’s program, such as the number of projects 

completed and reductions in pollutant loads, which states commonly 

reported in nonpoint source management program reports.

As 

noted above, EPA headquarters has not issued specific guidance to the 

10 regional offices, including on how to review states’ plans for project 

feasibility and criteria to ensure that funded projects have characteristics 

that reflect the greatest likelihood of effective implementation and tangible 

water quality results.

51

 

49In addition, regional offices also review proposed projects and activities for synopses 

explaining the state’s strategy for using section 319 funds in the current fiscal year, 

including the nonpoint source problems to be addressed, the types of practices that will be 

implemented, and indicators of performance, among other things. 

Officials with 

one regional office told us that the determination of satisfactory progress 

is a fairly low bar and that they were generally reluctant to withhold this 

50Because of the way EPA records information on the achievements of states’ nonpoint 

source management programs, we could not determine whether water quality outcomes 

differed in the states that received more oversight than in those that did not. 

51We also found that regional offices use specific criteria in making these determinations 

about half the time. 

EPA Regional Offices Almost 

Always Approve State 

Programs for Annual Funding
 

Page 35 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

determination because states would then not receive funds to address a 

significant water quality problem.

In addition to requiring states to report on their progress in meeting 

milestones for their nonpoint source management programs, section 319 

requires states to annually report to EPA on two measures of 

effectiveness resulting from implementation of their management 

programs: (1) reductions in loadings of specific nonpoint source pollutants 

and (2) improvement in water quality of water bodies identified on states’ 

lists of impaired waters as requiring nonpoint source controls to meet 

water quality standards. Section 319 does not limit EPA to these two 

measures of effectiveness, but the agency has chosen to use these two 

reporting requirements as barometers of success for the section 319 

program. Specifically, EPA provides nationwide data on these two 

measures to Congress to report on the progress that the section 319 

program makes each year toward achieving the program’s goals of (1) 

eliminating remaining water quality problems and (2) preventing new 

threats from creating future impairments. Reporting on the two measures 

of effectiveness is statutorily required, but as described in the 2003 

Federal Register guidelines and other EPA documents, states can 

demonstrate the achievements of nonpoint source management 

programs in additional ways—ways that in many respects may provide a 

more accurate picture of environmental outcomes and reflect the 

achievements of some critical state activities for reducing nonpoint source 

pollution, such as the number, kind, and condition of living organisms in 

the water.

For the first national performance measure of effectiveness—reductions 

in loadings of specific nonpoint source pollutants—EPA requires states to 

provide information on the amounts by which nitrogen, phosphorus, and 

sediment have been reduced in water bodies where section 319 projects 

targeting such pollutants have been implemented.52

 

52EPA reported that in fiscal year 2010, projects funded at least in part by section 319 

funds had achieved estimated nationwide reductions during the year of 9.7 million pounds 

of nitrogen, 2.6 million pounds of phosphorus, and 2.1 million tons of sediment. 

According to several 

state environmental protection officials, EPA’s focus on these reductions 

as one of two primary reporting requirements has inherent limitations. For 

instance, it has encouraged some states to design their nonpoint source 

management programs and select projects to maximize reductions in 

EPA’s Primary Measures of 

Effectiveness May Not 

Fully Demonstrate 

Program Goal 

Achievements

Reporting Requirements 

Emphasize Reductions of 

Specific Nonpoint Source 

Pollutants
 

Page 36 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

specific pollutants, but the projects and activities associated with reducing 

these pollutants do not always address the root cause of a nonpoint 

source pollution problem that prevents living organisms from inhabiting 

the water. One example of this limitation is the manner in which states 

have used section 319 funds to mitigate the effects of channeling streams 

in areas of agricultural production. Stream channeling occurs when 

farmers straighten creeks and streams to maximize the amount of land 

that can be farmed and make it easier to move machinery across fields 

(see fig. 5). Channeling streams, however, removes vegetation along 

stream banks, alters streambed configuration and water flows, and 

disrupts stream food webs and other life-supporting systems, according to 

EPA documents, and such effects may extend far downstream.

Figure 5: An Eastern Washington Stream Channeled to Maximize Crop Yield

Projects to mitigate the adverse effects of channeled streams may yield 

large pollutant reductions, but because they do not address the 

straightening of the streams, the goal of healthier water bodies—as 

measured by biological indicators, such as the number, kind, and 

condition of living organisms in the water—is not always achieved. For 
 

Page 37 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

example, to absorb runoff and help reduce loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and sediment, section 319 funds have often been used for projects that 

install 20- to 120-foot-wide grass filter strips as a buffer between cropland 

and adjacent water bodies. These filter strips, however, do not solve the 

water quality problems caused by the loss of streamside vegetation and 

altered streambed configuration, according to an engineer with Ohio’s 

nonpoint source management program.53

Some state officials mentioned their concerns when this performance 

measure drives project selection. For example, an official with Iowa’s 

Department of Natural Resources told us that focusing on this reporting 

requirement has compelled his state’s nonpoint source management 

program to select projects that are likely to substantially reduce nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and sediment, even though such reductions may not 

address actual causes of stream impairment or improve the condition of 

water bodies for aquatic life. In addition, an official with Michigan’s 

Department of Environmental Quality told us that he generally has the 

flexibility to choose projects that are the most cost-efficient and effective 

at addressing nonpoint source pollution. To satisfy EPA, however, he told 

us he feels compelled to use section 319 funds for several projects each 

year that may not be the most important in addressing nonpoint source 

pollution problems but that are likely to yield large reductions in pollutants.

From 2001 to 2005, one 

midwestern state used section 319 funds to install more than 40,000 feet 

of grass filter strips, which were estimated to have reduced nitrogen by 

more than 500,000 pounds and phosphorus by 168,000 pounds annually. 

Yet none of the watersheds where the grass filter strips were installed 

demonstrated any measurable improvement in stream health (since they 

were installed 7 to 11 years ago), as indicated by the number, kind, and 

condition of living organisms in the water, according to the engineer who 

monitored the stream.

In contrast, we also found limited instances in which states funded 

projects (such as stream restoration) that, rather than concentrating on 

reductions of specific pollutants, sought instead to address the underlying 

causes of impairment. One project in Ohio in 2011 involved the 

headwaters of the Big Darby River, which had been channeled more than 

a century ago to help agricultural producers increase crop yields. The 

 

53Grass filter strips do not absorb polluted runoff as well as natural riparian vegetation, 

according to the engineer. 
 

Page 38 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

channeling, however, removed streamside trees and shrubs and altered 

the stream’s flow, thereby increasing water temperatures and reducing 

the stream’s ability to support life. Furthermore, the officials said that 

numerous local agricultural activities contributed nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and sediment to the stream. Project staff did not focus solely on the 

pollutants used by EPA as key measures; instead, their holistic design 

focused on restoring the natural configuration and flow of about one mile 

of the stream’s headwaters. Project engineers told us that when this 

restoration is completed, the stream will be able to better assimilate 

pollutants, water temperature will fall, stable stream banks will reduce 

erosion, and structure and habitat for living things will be restored for 

approximately 75 downstream miles (see fig. 6).

Figure 6: Restoration of the Headwaters of the Big Darby River in Ohio

EPA research and guidelines over the past several decades acknowledge 

the advantages of incorporating biological indicators (e.g., the number, 

kind, and condition of living organisms) into state water quality programs 
 

Page 39 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

to better reflect environmental outcomes.54 In 2005, EPA stated that the 

most direct and effective measure of the integrity of the water body is the 

status of its living systems and that the use of biological information can 

help states improve water quality protection.55 Moreover, EPA’s 2003 

Federal Register guidelines list demonstrable improvements in biological 

or physical parameters—such as increased diversity in fish or insect 

populations or improved riparian areas—as a key method for measuring 

the progress and success of state nonpoint source programs.56

Nonetheless, despite the advantages of implementing projects that 

address the varied root causes of water bodies’ impairment and 

associated downstream effects, EPA data show that state nonpoint 

source management programs have far more often funded practices that 

generally reduce pollutant loads than those more directly linked to 

improving the number, kind, and condition of living organisms in water 

bodies. For example, the installation of filter strips and other similar 

practices have been funded more often than stream restoration projects—

at least 1,000 projects compared with about 175—since 2004, even 

though stream restoration projects generally result in more living 

organisms in the water.

For the second national performance measure of effectiveness—the 

improvement in water quality of water bodies identified on state lists of 

impaired waters as requiring nonpoint source controls to meet water 

quality standards—EPA asks states to provide information on the number 

of water bodies that are removed from these lists. EPA tracks this number 

to document how states’ efforts are improving water quality across the 

nation and to demonstrate to Congress the program’s annual progress in 

 

54EPA has singled out Ohio and Maine as states that have adopted biologically based 

information in how they measure water quality. Both Maine and Ohio developed and 

adopted their programs to incorporate ecologically relevant endpoints into decisions, 

inform water quality management decisions, and quantify water quality improvements, 

among other things. Maine and Ohio scientists have identified a sequence of steps and 

milestones that EPA has compiled as a template other states may use to develop 

biologically based measures of water quality. 

55Environmental Protection Agency, Use of Biological Information to Better Define 

Designated Aquatic Life Uses in State and Tribal Water Quality Standards: Tiered Aquatic 

Life Uses, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 10, 2005). 

56Water quality standards are established by each state, however, so the extent to which 

biological indicators are incorporated as measures of program success may depend in 

part on how states define their water quality standards. 

States Must Report on the 

Number of Water Bodies 

Removed from State Lists of 

Impaired Waters 
 

Page 40 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

reducing nonpoint source pollution. Since 2000, states have removed 

more than 350 water bodies from their lists of impaired waters.57

EPA’s focus on this second measure may also influence state project 

selection in ways that may reduce the effectiveness of their nonpoint 

source management programs. According to four officials from the eight 

states we visited, this focus has compelled state program staff to choose 

projects for water bodies that were close to being restored and removed 

from the states’ 303(d) lists of impaired waters, rather than solely those that 

are most degraded. For example, Maryland’s nonpoint source program 

manager told us that the program’s project selection committee targeted 

projects for water bodies close to removal from the state’s list of impaired 

water bodies over water bodies with more serious water quality problems, 

where such funding could have had a greater impact on nonpoint source 

pollution. He told us that such projects are selected because EPA expects 

each state to “deliver” several such successes each year. According to the 

official, each case has its merits. The former is more likely to result in 

meeting standards for the particular water body. The latter demonstrates 

incremental improvement and typically has a greater pollutant load 

reduction, which benefits downstream waters like the Chesapeake Bay.

The emphasis on this measure of effectiveness has also encouraged 

some state program staff to focus on restoring impaired water bodies 

even when they have determined that greater benefit could be achieved 

by protecting high-quality water bodies not yet listed as impaired. 

Environmental protection officials from several states we visited told us 

that if EPA put a greater emphasis on protecting high-quality water 

bodies, they would likely select some different projects on water bodies 

that are not yet impaired but are threatened by nonpoint source pollution. 

Instead of focusing solely on EPA’s two performance measures, Maine’s 

Department of Environmental Protection requested and received 

permission from EPA to fund projects that focus on preventing pollution of 

lakes, streams, and coastal waters by, for example, providing training 

opportunities to advance stream protection efforts. The state’s nonpoint 

source program’s annual report for 2010 reported that such a focus is far 

more cost-effective than the long-term investments needed to restore 

waters once they become polluted.

 

57According to EPA, this number does not reflect the net change in the number of 

impaired water bodies over this time period; water bodies are also being added to state 

lists of impaired waters each year. 
 

Page 41 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

EPA’s former nonpoint source pollution chief acknowledged that EPA’s 

emphasis on the two statutorily required national performance measures 

makes it difficult to judge which states are making more progress than others 

in addressing nonpoint source pollution. He said that protecting undisturbed 

lakes and streams is critical for protecting aquatic life but that such projects 

rarely demonstrate substantial reductions in pollutant concentrations. He also 

said that, conversely, reductions in pollutants are reported each year in some 

states without associated improvements in biological indicators. EPA does 

not require states to provide information on their progress under the nonpoint 

source program in improving water bodies’ condition for aquatic life or the 

protection of high-quality water bodies.

In EPA’s November 2011 program evaluation, the agency reported that it 

will issue new section 319 guidelines to states in fiscal years 2012 to be 

implemented in 2012 and 2013. EPA reported that these guidelines will 

generally address program accountability but did not specify whether 

such accountability will include measures to more accurately reflect the 

overall health of targeted water bodies (e.g., the number, kind, and 

condition of living organisms) or demonstrate states’ focus on protecting 

high-quality water bodies, where appropriate.

USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the key 

agricultural conservation program that can complement EPA’s efforts to 

reduce nonpoint source pollution.

58 According to the Department’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which manages the program, it 

has resulted in substantial pollutant reductions in key watersheds across 

the country.

59

 

58The program funds conservation practices throughout the nation that are intended to 

reduce nonpoint source pollution and, among other things, soil erosion. 

Nonetheless, certain conservation practices under the 

program could adversely affect water quality if installed without the proper 

suite of companion practices to mitigate these adverse effects. NRCS 

officials maintain that its procedures ensure that conservation practices 

conserving one resource (e.g., soil) do not inadvertently harm another 

(e.g., water), and that its quality control measures ensure they are 

followed at the ground level. Our analysis of the EQIP data shows that 

nutrient management plans and other conservation practices of one kind 

59Reports describing such pollutant reductions are available at 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/nra/deap/pub. 

A Key USDA Program 

Largely Complements 

EPA’s Section 319 

Program, although It 

Is Unclear How 

Closely Its 

Procedures to Protect 

Water Quality Are 

Followed
 

Page 42 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

or another have often been put in place. The EQIP data, however, is kept 

at an aggregated level and does not reveal which mitigation measures 

are applied for site-specific conditions on the ground—information which 

is necessary to determine whether the mitigation measures are effective.

Under EQIP, NRCS funds conservation practices throughout the nation 

that are intended to reduce nonpoint source pollution and, among other 

things, soil erosion.60

According to NRCS technical documents, some conservation practices 

could have unintended, negative effects on water quality if installed 

without the proper “companion practices” capable of mitigating the 

potential negative effects. This is due to the fact that EQIP-funded 

practices may have distinct purposes, such as to reduce soil loss or 

improve soil conditions for agriculture, which are not oriented toward 

improving water quality. For example, NRCS often funds underground 

outlet systems, which help move surface water to a “suitable outlet,” such 

as a drainage ditch, to reduce soil erosion. Such systems can help 

conserve soil, but NRCS conservation practice physical effects 

assessments show that such systems can also help transport nutrients 

(nitrogen and phosphorus) and pesticides from nutrient-laden fields into 

outlets that in turn feed nearby water bodies.

NRCS has developed standards for each 

conservation practice, which provide science-based criteria that 

participating agricultural producers are supposed to follow to address soil, 

water, air, plant, animal, and energy resource concerns. Each practice’s 

potential effects on soil, water, and air quality are documented in the 

agency’s assessments of the conservation practices’ physical effects. 

Almost one-half the conservation practices can address nonpoint source 

water pollution, according to officials in NRCS’ Office of Science and 

Technology. 

61

 

60EQIP offers cost-share payments and technical assistance to agricultural producers 

through 1- to 10-year contracts to implement conservation practices. Cost-share payments 

require agricultural producers to pay some percentage of the total cost of the conservation 

practices, which can include money or in-kind payments (e.g., labor or use of equipment). 

According to NRCS, the program funds an average of 4 conservation practices per 

contract. 

 

61According to NRCS, underground outlet systems allow water to change elevations and 

move more quickly, which reduces the time that natural processes have to reduce 

nutrients or other agricultural chemicals. 

NRCS Soil and Water 

Conservation Practices 

and Procedures Are 

Intended to Prevent 

Certain Practices from 

Adversely Affecting Water 

Quality
 

Page 43 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

According to officials in NRCS’ Office of Science and Technology, the 

agency has therefore put procedures in place to help ensure that all 

resources, including water quality, are protected when EQIP funds are 

used. These procedures include the following: 

• Environmental evaluation: NRCS’ National Environmental Coordinator 

told us that the agency requires its field planners to perform an 

environmental evaluation for every proposed conservation practice as 

part of NRCS’ process to comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act.62

 

The environmental evaluation helps field planners 

identify existing soil and water resources on land where a 

conservation practice is proposed and to analyze the effects of the 

proposed practice on the same resources. In short, NRCS field 

planners are to assess whether the proposed actions for improving 

one resource (e.g., soil erosion) will negatively affect another resource 

(e.g., water quality) and document their assessment and 

determination.

• Compliance with state plans for impaired waters: With respect to 

water quality, field planners are to identify whether a proposed 

practice is on or near a stream listed by the state as impaired. If it is, 

then field planners are directed to review and comply with any existing 

pollution limits or watershed plans that have been established by the 

state. This process asks field planners to ensure that landowners are 

provided with options to install practices that will not further degrade 

the stream segment. The final decision on what practices to install 

ultimately rests with the landowner. 

• Nutrient management planning: In the event of a significant net 

negative effect on water quality, field planners are to document it, 

which would trigger an environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement under the National Environmental 

Policy Act, according to NRCS’ National Environmental Coordinator. 

He said that significant net negative effects on water quality are rare 

because landowners instead typically agree to implement other, 

mitigating practices along with the proposed practice. The agency’s 

key method to help ensure that the potential negative effect is 

mitigated is termed nutrient management planning. Nutrient 

 

62Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies are to assess, among 

other things, the effects of major federal actions that significantly affect the environment 

and prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of those actions.
 

Page 44 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

management plans describe a coordinated combination of 

conservation practices that help farmers manage the amount, form, 

placement, and timing of fertilizer to support crop production while 

also minimizing polluted runoff.63

 

These plans are site specific and are 

developed by NRCS field planners and implemented by landowners.

• Alternative mitigation measures: According to NRCS Science and 

Technology officials, if landowners choose not to adopt nutrient 

management plans, NRCS field staff may still work with them to 

develop alternative mitigation measures—that is, additional 

conservation practices, often in a suite, to minimize potential adverse 

effects on water quality. Such mitigation measures may include, for 

example, planting cover crops on agricultural fields or installing filter 

strips on field borders. Each of these practices helps reduce runoff of 

nutrients and pesticides from fields into nearby water bodies by 

absorbing pollutants in plant root systems.

During the course of our field work, we identified instances that raised 

questions as to whether NRCS’ procedures to protect water quality were 

always implemented as intended, particularly in watersheds where EPA’s 

section 319 funds had been used. To ascertain whether such instances 

were isolated occurrences or indicative of a broader problem, we 

examined NRCS’ national level data to determine the extent to which 

NRCS’ procedures intending to ensure that all resources are protected 

(including water quality) were followed. 

During the course of our field work, we found some indications that sitespecific mitigating practices were not implemented when practices with 

potentially negative effects on water quality were installed. For example, 

nonpoint source management program staff in two states told us that 

 

63In addition, nutrient management plans take into account critical factors that may affect 

water quality, including a property’s slope gradient, soil composition and density, and 

distance to a water body. For some sites that are at high risk for contributing pollution to 

nearby water bodies, NRCS’ nutrient management plans require the landowner to limit 

fertilizer application to the amount that can be taken up by the crop, among other things, 

to protect water quality.

Instances of Potential 

Water Impacts Raise 

Questions about the 

Extent of Adherence to 

Procedures, but NRCS 

Data Are Too Highly 

Aggregated to Resolve

Them

Observed Instances of Potential 

Water Impacts from 

Conservation Practices 
 

Page 45 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

NRCS field staff have sometimes funded soil conservation practices 

without appropriate alternative mitigation measures. Specifically:

• An agriculture specialist in Washington State’s nonpoint source 

pollution program told us that NRCS field staff have authorized 

funding of stream crossings for livestock. The departmental official 

told us that stream crossings in Washington were installed on certain

properties where livestock exclusion fencing prevented cattle from 

entering the stream. The stream crossings were to be installed for 

emergency purposes only, in case off-site watering facilities were 

unable to function, and closed off with gates. He explained, however, 

that some landowners chose not to implement additional conservation 

practices, such as off-site watering facilities in places that would keep 

the cattle away from the stream, and they have kept the gates 

permanently open, meaning that livestock now enter certain streams 

more often than they did before installation of the stream crossings.64

• An engineer with Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency official told 

us that NRCS promoted hayland buffer strips to help reduce soil 

erosion and absorb nutrient runoff as part of a NRCS water quality 

focused program. The buffer strips were to be 100 to 200 feet wide, 

located adjacent to a water body, and to remain in place for 3 years. 

Landowners received $100 per acre each year for installing these 

buffer strips. But on some properties, riparian vegetation—and the 

water quality protection it provides—was removed so that landowners 

could install hayland buffers. According to an engineer with Ohio’s 

Environmental Protection Agency, hayland buffers provide less overall 

protection to water quality than wooded riparian vegetation, such as

that which was removed. 

A former agriculture specialist with the program echoed this concern, 

stating that on land where livestock graze in eastern Washington, it is 

not uncommon for NRCS conservation practices intended to protect 

water quality to be implemented in such a way that actually increases 

the number of livestock entering streams. 

 

64According to NRCS, this scenario is likely an exception. Adding stream crossings 

generally allows cattle to travel from one side of a property to another and concentrates 

their crossing at one place, thereby reducing stream bank erosion and nutrient runoff in 

streams. Stream crossings are generally part of suites of companion practices whose net 

effect on water quality is positive, according to NRCS.
 

Page 46 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

To determine whether the instances we observed when meeting with 

state officials were isolated examples or indicative of a more prevalent

problem, we examined EQIP data on three key parameters: (1) the 

universe of conservation practices funded by NRCS field units that could 

have negative water quality effects in watersheds in which Section 319 

projects were funded; (2) for that universe of practices, the extent to 

which nutrient management plans were in place to mitigate unintended 

adverse effects on water quality; and (3) where nutrient management 

plans were not in place, the extent to which alternative mitigation 

practices were in place that could reliably serve that same purpose.

Conservation practices that can affect water quality. EQIP data show that 

from 2005 through 2010, of the 47,000 practices that NRCS field units 

funded in watersheds where states allocated section 319 funds, nearly 

8,000 were types of individual conservation practices that could facilitate 

agricultural runoff or have other unintended consequences unless other 

mitigating measures were implemented along with them.

65

Use of nutrient management plans. EQIP data show that nutrient 

management plans—the agency’s primary method for ensuring that those 

practices intending to conserve one resource (e.g., soil) do not 

inadvertently harm another resource (e.g., water)—were funded on 

properties in less than one-third of the watersheds where soil 

conservation practices that NRCS acknowledges could degrade water 

quality were also funded. According to NRCS officials, there are several 

reasons why the data on nutrient management plans do not provide a 

complete picture of water protection efforts. For example, it is possible 

that some of the acres within the 820 watersheds where these practices 

were funded were actually not vulnerable—that is, were not close to water 

bodies of concern—and therefore did not require a nutrient management 

plan to ensure that water quality was protected. In addition, officials told 

us that nutrient management plans expire after 3 years, so nutrient 

management plan contracts that expired during the time period of our 

analysis that could have possibly addressed the practices with potential 

adverse effects on water quality would not appear in the data. 

Furthermore, landowners often adopt nutrient management practices well 

These 8,000 

practices were funded in about 820 watersheds. 

 

65Underground outlets, access roads, and subsurface drains, accounted for 80 percent of 

the nearly 8,000 conservation practices. 

Headquarters Data on Projects’ 

Potential Impacts Are Too 

Highly Aggregated to Reveal 

Site-Specific Information
 

Page 47 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

beyond the length of a contract because they recognize the economical 

and environmental benefits of improved nutrient use efficiency provided 

by those practices, according to NRCS officials.66

Use of alternative mitigation measures. As noted above, the absence of a 

nutrient management plan does not mean that an NRCS conservation 

practice will adversely affect water quality, if proper alternative mitigation 

measures are in place. According to NRCS officials, when a conservation 

practice with a potentially negative effect is identified, and where a 

nutrient management plan is not in place, conservation planners are 

alerted so that they know to plan any site-specific mitigating practices to 

ensure positive outcomes. However, when we examined EQIP data

provided by USDA to determine if alternative mitigation measures were 

funded in the two-thirds of watersheds where nutrient management plans 

had not been funded, we found the data to be too highly aggregated to 

allow for a determination as to whether the conservation practices 

reflected in the data were the appropriate practices that could mitigate 

site-specific problem. For example, the EQIP data show that the agency 

funds an average of 4 conservation practices per EQIP contract. This 

summary information, however, does not shed light on the type of 

practices that are being installed, whether the combination of those 

practices have a water quality focus, or whether they are effective in 

mitigating the potentially adverse effects on water quality of the practices 

in question. 

 

According to NRCS officials, detailed, project-specific information, while 

not available at the national level, is available in NRCS’ many field offices 

across the country. NRCS field staff, for instance, are supposed to 

document their site-specific determinations, which include information on, 

among other things, how conservation practices are to be implemented in 

a way that protects all resources. Moreover, the field offices are subject to 

NRCS’ internal quality assurance processes designed to ensure that all 

contracts are structured to protect all resources, including water quality, 

and that projects are appropriately tailored to reflect site-specific 

 

66NRCS officials also commented that in some instances a landowner might have taken 

the initiative to choose an alternative mitigation measure that protects soil and water 

quality, without needing to adhere to a formal nutrient management plan. 
 

Page 48 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

conditions.67 Nonetheless, EQIP officials told us they neither ask for nor 

analyze this site-specific information. Without examining such data, 

however, it is difficult to see how NRCS can assure itself or the Congress 

that certain practices are not having unintended effects on water quality.

The magnitude, pervasiveness, and dispersed nature of nonpoint source 

pollution make it particularly difficult for states to control. EPA has 

achieved some notable successes through its section 319 program and, 

in recent years, has helped states target their nonpoint source pollution 

reduction efforts in watersheds with the most severe water quality 

problems. Now more than ever, EPA’s and states’ limited budgets make it 

critical that the most effective projects are selected for funding. In some 

cases, however, states used section 319 to fund projects that were not 

effectively implemented or not clearly linked to tangible water quality 

results. Our review of the experiences of some states and EPA’s 2011 

evaluation report has shown that such issues can potentially be avoided 

when states use more rigorous project selection processes. EPA’s 

regional offices can constructively influence the types of projects that 

states fund through the program, but they are generally not reviewing 

states’ plans for project feasibility or for project selection criteria that 

would help ensure that funded projects have characteristics reflecting the 

greatest likelihood of effective implementation and tangible water quality 

results. As state programs have evolved over the last decade, some state 

programs have shown that certain characteristics of proposed projects, 

such as securing third-party buy-in in advance, can provide greater 

assurance that these projects will achieve tangible water quality results, 

although such lessons learned have not been systematically adopted by 

all states.

In addition, EPA’s emphasis on two statutorily required reporting 

measures as measures of effectiveness—to the exclusion of other 

measures—may not be fully capturing information reflecting program 

 

67Specifically, NRCS emphasized the rigor of its quality control process noting, for 

example, that the program uses a ranking process for proposed projects that gives greater 

weight to projects implementing complete suites of practices over individual practices. In 

addition, NRCS field staff review each contract to ensure it complies with the agency’s 

procedures, and that practices are planned and applied appropriately for site-specific 

concerns and conditions. After conservation practices are implemented, NRCS state or 

field staff spot-check 5 percent of all program contracts to ensure practices are 

appropriately planned and applied for site-specific conditions. 

Conclusions 
 

Page 49 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

achievements and may, in some cases, influence state project selection 

toward narrow measures of nonpoint source pollution over 

comprehensive results. As a result of EPA’s focus on these primary 

measures, states are sometimes selecting projects targeted to meet 

those measures, rather than selecting projects that could have larger 

impacts on improving the health of impaired or threatened water bodies. 

At present, certain EPA documents discuss the advantages of additional 

performance measures that may more accurately reflect the overall health 

of water bodies, such as conditions for aquatic life, but the agency does 

not require states to use such measures to provide information on their 

progress under the nonpoint source program. As a result, most states 

report on reductions of specific pollutants, rather than on indicators of 

overall health of targeted water bodies (e.g., the number, kind, and 

condition of living organisms) or on protection of high-quality water bodies 

that are not impaired. EPA plans to soon issue new section 319 

guidelines to states that generally address program accountability, but it 

is unclear whether and to what extent these new guidelines will include 

measures to more accurately reflect the overall health of targeted water 

bodies or demonstrate states’ focus on protecting high-quality water 

bodies, where appropriate.

USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program has helped to 

substantially reduce sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus runoff across 

the country. By their nature, however, some of the conservation practices 

supported by the program have the potential to inadvertently conflict with 

EPA efforts to reduce nonpoint source water pollution. While NRCS 

procedures strive to minimize such problems, state environmental officials 

identified instances where these procedures may not always have their 

intended effect. NRCS has cited highly-aggregated data to demonstrate 

that a preponderance of mitigating practices—an average of four 

practices per project—counter any possibility that such unintended effects 

occur. However, the EQIP data provided by USDA lack the details 

needed to assess whether these other practices mitigate the potential for 

negative effects. The most meaningful data on the use and effectiveness 

of mitigating practices is site-specific information that resides within 

NRCS’ field offices, and has been neither obtained nor analyzed by 

NRCS program officials. Tapping and analyzing these data could more 

accurately inform NRCS, and other interested parties including the 

Congress, on the extent to which EQIP projects may inadvertently affect 

water quality in areas where Section 319 funds are used.
 

Page 50 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

We are making three recommendations to help protect the quality of our 

nation’s water resources.

To strengthen EPA’s implementation of its responsibilities under the 

Clean Water Act’s section 319 nonpoint source pollution control program, 

we recommend that the Administrator of EPA take the following two 

actions:

• provide specific guidance to EPA’s 10 regional offices on how they 

are to fulfill their oversight responsibilities, such as how to review 

states’ plans for project feasibility and criteria to ensure that funded 

projects have characteristics that reflect the greatest likelihood of 

effective implementation and tangible water quality results, and

• in revising section 319 guidelines to states, and in addition to existing 

statutorily required reporting measures, emphasize measures that (1) 

more accurately reflect the overall health of targeted water bodies 

(e.g., the number, kind, and condition of living organisms) and 

(2) demonstrate states’ focus on protecting high-quality water bodies, 

where appropriate.

To provide assurance that efforts to conserve soil resources do not work 

at cross-purposes with efforts to protect water quality, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service to analyze available information, and obtain 

necessary information from field offices, to determine the extent to which 

appropriate mitigation measures are implemented when nutrient 

management plans are not in use, particularly in watersheds where states 

are spending section 319 funds. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency and to the Secretary of Agriculture for 

their review and comment. EPA provided written comments in an April 16, 

2012, letter, in which the agency expressed general agreement with the 

report’s two recommendations calling for improved and more consistent 

regional oversight, and for improved and more comprehensive program 

measures. The letter also cited GAO’s “constructive engagement with the 

EPA headquarters, the EPA regions, and state nonpoint source control 

program staff.” It did, however, also question our characterization of 

several points related to project selection and effectiveness. The letter is 

included in appendix II along with our responses to the agency’s 

comments. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 51 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

USDA’s NRCS provided written comments in an April 20, 2012, letter that 

did not specify whether the agency concurred with our recommendations. 

The letter acknowledged that we addressed some of the concerns NRCS

raised in reviewing an earlier “Statement of Facts” we had provided 

NRCS officials as a means of verifying the factual information we had 

planned to use in drafting our report. However, in its letter, NRCS took 

issue with what it characterized as “several inaccuracies" that remained 

after the draft report was sent to USDA for comment. Specifically, NRCS 

identified two, related concerns with the draft report, stating that (1) the 

message conveys that USDA soil conservation practices have unintended 

negative impacts on water quality and (2) this inaccuracy appears to be 

based on misinterpretation and subsequent misuse of a generalized 

planning tool (Conservation Practice Physical Effects matrix), lack of 

knowledge of NRCS conservation planning process, and inferences that 

exceed the limitations of the data on which they are based. Regarding the 

first concern, our draft report acknowledged the goals and 

accomplishments of NRCS’ Environmental Quality Incentives Program in 

mitigating the impacts on water quality of certain agricultural practices. 

We revised the language in the draft report to further discuss the 

program’s benefits in response to NRCS comments. That said, our field 

work identified instances where the program’s goal of mitigating 

agricultural impacts appeared—on occasion—not to have been carried 

out at the ground level, and where water quality may have been affected 

as a result.

Addressing NRCS’ second concern, in an effort to ascertain whether 

instances of ground water quality being affected were anecdotal or more 

prevalent, we examined USDA data and other information. Specifically, 

we examined (1) information from NRCS' Conservation Practice Physical 

Effects matrix; (2) data on EQIP conservation practices funded in 

watersheds where states had spent section 319 funds; and

(3) information on the extent to which “alternative mitigation measures” 

are used as required, when nutrient management plans are not in use. In 

examining this information, we concluded that the EQIP data provided by 

USDA do not contain site-specific information on the extent to which 

alternative mitigation measures are effectively employed when nutrient 

management plans are not used. As we state in the report, without 

examining such information, neither we, nor NRCS, could determine that 

certain practices are not having unintended effects on water quality. 

It was for this reason and to ensure that complete data are available to 

allow NRCS and others to assess whether the program has unintended 

water quality impacts that we recommended that NRCS analyze available 
 

Page 52 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

information and obtain necessary site-specific information from field 

offices as necessary. NRCS would then be in a better position to 

determine the extent to which appropriate mitigation measures are 

implemented when nutrient management plans are not in use (and 

particularly in watersheds where states are spending section 319 funds). 

We therefore continue to believe this recommendation has merit. NRCS’

letter is included in appendix III, along with our responses to its 

comments. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of EPA, 

the Secretary of Agriculture, the appropriate congressional committees, 

and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix IV.

David C. Trimble

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

The objectives of our work were to examine (1) states’ experiences in 

funding projects that effectively address nonpoint source pollution 

problems, (2) the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) oversees the section 319 program and measures program 

effectiveness in reducing the adverse impacts of nonpoint source 

pollution on water quality, and (3) the extent to which key agricultural 

conservation programs complement EPA’s efforts to reduce nonpoint 

source pollution.

To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and agency 

guidance. In addition, we visited 8 states in four EPA regions: Arkansas, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and 

West Virginia. We chose these states on the basis of their varied types of 

nonpoint source pollution and proximity to some of the nation’s premier 

watersheds, such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Mississippi 

River. On our site visits, we met with state nonpoint source management 

program officials, conservation districts, nonprofit organizations, 

watershed associations, and research officials.

We also interviewed agency officials, including officials from EPA, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA regional offices, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service’s Office of Science and Technology, 

and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. We also interviewed 

representatives from the National Association of Conservation Districts, 

Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 

Administrators, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control 

Commission, and state abandoned mine land programs. We discussed 

with these officials their observations on efforts to reduce nonpoint source 

pollution and the challenges associated with such efforts. We also 

interviewed subject-matter experts from industry and academia.

To examine states’ experiences in selecting projects that effectively 

address nonpoint source pollution, we e-mailed a 10-question data 

collection instrument to nonpoint source program management officials in 

all 50 states, which solicited information from them on project selection 

processes, project selection criteria, types of organizations receiving 

funding, program organization and responsibilities, and program oversight 

practices. We received responses to this data collection instrument from 

every state. We also examined summary information, including 

objectives, methods, and outcomes, for more than 1,500 projects in 

EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System database. We reviewed 

this information for all projects in the database that were (1) awarded 

funding during or after fiscal year 2004 and completed before December 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

31, 2011; (2) categorized as nonstatewide projects; (3) received section 

319 funds; and (4) had complete information on objectives, methods, and 

outcomes. Before reviewing project summary information and drawing the 

sample for our survey, we interviewed EPA officials to discuss the 

reliability of the data contained in EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking 

System; we also checked for outliers and determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

In addition, we surveyed a random sample of 524 managers of projects 

that have been implemented with section 319 funds. The purpose of this 

survey was to examine topics such as general project information, project 

proposal and selection, conservation practice selection, project 

implementation and goals, challenges associated with projects, 

monitoring and oversight, and funding sources. To identify issues 

pertaining to section 319-funded projects and to develop the survey 

questions, we reviewed state annual reports and interviewed 

headquarters and regional agency officials and subject-matter experts.

We selected an initial simple random sample from EPA’s Grants 

Reporting and Tracking System out of a universe of 1,584 projects. We 

selected projects that received section 319 funding; were completed 

between January 1, 2004, and June 9, 2011; and involved implementing 

conservation practices or remediation techniques, rather than, for 

example, projects that focused primarily on planning or monitoring. After 

drawing the initial sample, we removed duplicates and excluded projects 

that we learned were statewide, because such projects did not always 

involve implementing conservation practices or remediation techniques. 

We also excluded projects from North Dakota and South Dakota because 

some incomplete projects and some that never started in these states 

were listed as complete in EPA’s Grants Reporting and Tracking System. 

After obtaining contact information for the sampled projects, we also 

excluded those projects for which knowledgeable officials were no longer 

available. After making these adjustments, we estimated that the number 

of projects meeting our criteria was 1,273. For those project managers 

who had more than 2 projects sampled, we randomly selected 2 projects 

for the survey in order to reduce respondent burden. After these 

adjustments, the final number of projects in the sample was 524.1

 

1

The initial random sample was 618. After adjustments were made to the eligible survey 

population, the random sample was 524 managers of projects. 

The 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

results of our survey are generalizable to the population of section 319 

projects that meet our criteria. That is, they are not generalizable to 

projects, for example, that did not implement conservation practices or 

those that were completed before January 1, 2004.

The survey was conducted using self-administered electronic 

questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. While developing the 

survey questions, we conducted two rounds of pretests with section 319 

project managers over the phone. We conducted six first-round 

exploratory pretests with managers to help develop the scope of the 

questionnaire and key concepts. After refining our concepts and 

questions, we pretested a draft version of the questionnaire with five 

project managers. We conducted pretests to check that (1) the questions 

were clear and unambiguous, (2) terminology was used correctly, (3) the 

questionnaire did not place an undue burden on agency officials, (4) the 

information could feasibly be obtained, and (5) the survey was 

comprehensive and unbiased. We made changes to the content or format 

of the questionnaire after each pretest according to the feedback we 

received. A draft of the questionnaire was also reviewed by independent 

GAO survey experts, and we revised the questionnaire to reflect that 

review.

We contacted survey respondents by sending the survey through an email notification to each. We e-mailed each potential respondent a unique 

password and username to ensure that only members of the target 

population could participate in the survey. The survey data were collected 

from September 2011 through November 2011. We sent follow-up e-mail 

messages to those who had not responded by the deadline to our original 

e-mail. We then telephoned all remaining nonrespondents for whom 

contact information was available, beginning in October 2011. We 

received a total of 298 responses, accounting for an overall unweighted 

response rate of 57 percent. Estimates produced from the sample of 

projects are subject to sampling error. We express our confidence in the 

precision of our results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This interval 

would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples 

we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each 

of the confidence intervals in this report includes the true values in the 

study population. Additionally, to encourage honest and open responses, 

we pledged in the introduction to the survey that we would report 

information in the aggregate and not report data that would identify a 

particular respondent. This report does not contain all the results from the 

survey; the survey and a more complete tabulation of the results are 

provided in a supplement to this report (see GAO-12-377SP). To 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

eliminate data-processing errors, we independently verified the computer 

program that generated the survey results.

In addition to tabulating and analyzing the frequencies of survey 

responses, we conducted a content analysis of all of the open-ended 

narrative responses received to survey questions 33, 34, and 35. We 

analyzed the content of the 180 responses to question 33 and the 106 

responses to 34 to identify the types of challenges faced and reasons for 

grant revisions and extensions. Question 33 was coded using the 

following categories: property access, lack of identified project sites, staff, 

weather, budget, technical, the National Environmental Policy Act, 

administrative barriers, coordination, other, exempt, and unclear. Projects 

coded as exempt included those for which no challenge was encountered 

or the project was found to be outside of the scope of the sample. 

Projects were coded as unclear if it was unclear whether a challenge was 

encountered or if the nature of the challenge was unclear. Question 34 

was coded using the following categories: time, budget, location, project 

scope or specifications, other, exempt, and unclear. Projects coded as 

exempt included those for which no grant extension was required or the 

project was found to be outside of the scope of the sample. Projects were 

coded as unclear if the length of the extension was unclear. Question 34 

was coded to reflect the number of months of the grant extension; unclear 

and exempt categories were also used. We also analyzed the 129 

responses to question 35, which was coded to reflect the number of 

months of the grant extension, including use of unclear and exempt 

categories. Coding was performed independently by two coders; team 

members then met to discuss the coding categories and reached 

consensus on the final coding category assignment for each response. 

Measures of interrater reliability were calculated before codes were 

reconciled and found to be sufficiently high for the purposes of this 

analysis. The numbers of responses in each content category were then 

summarized and tallied.

To examine the extent to which EPA oversees the section 319 program 

and measures program effectiveness in reducing the adverse impacts of 

nonpoint source pollution on water quality, we obtained from EPA’s 10 

regional offices information on the nature and extent of their oversight of 

state programs, including the extent to which they examine states’ project 

selection processes, annual plans, and program objectives and the 

criteria they use to annually award funds. In addition, we examined 

section 319’s statutorily required reporting requirements, which EPA uses 

as national measures of program effectiveness. We evaluated the water 

quality benefits derived from projects that address these measures, 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

compared with the water quality benefits of projects that address other 

EPA-approved measures of state program effectiveness, primarily by 

reviewing EPA documents and interviewing state nonpoint source 

program officials. We also obtained annual reports from 42 states’ 

nonpoint source management programs and reviewed 25 of them to 

determine how they reported the achievements of section 319-funded 

projects during the most recent fiscal year for which the report was 

available.

To examine the extent to which key agricultural conservation programs 

complement EPA’s efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution, we 

analyzed data on USDA’s conservation practices funded under the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program that have been implemented in 

watersheds where states have allocated section 319 funds. We obtained 

these data from the Program Contracts System, known as ProTracts, 

which is used to manage Natural Resources Conservation Service 

conservation program applications, cost-share contracts, and program 

funds. We also examined USDA reports on the effectiveness of 

conservation practices, including those produced by the Conservation 

Effects Assessment Project. To assess the reliability of this database, we 

performed electronic data testing for missing data, outliers, and obvious 

errors. In addition, we interviewed knowledgeable agency officials and 

compared summary information from the database with published reports. 

On the basis of this assessment, we determined that ProTracts data were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We also interviewed USDA officials 

in the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Office of Science and 

Technology.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2010 through May

2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 58 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix.

See comment 1.
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 59 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

See comment 5.

See comment 4.

See comment 3.

See comment 2.
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 60 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 61 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 62 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 63 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

The following are GAO’s comments on the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s letter dated April 16, 2012. 

1. EPA stated that our report should better align with the generally 

positive finding that over 70 percent of watershed projects 

accomplished all of their originally identified objectives. As EPA 

suggested, we made several changes to our report to put the 70 

percent figure in context. In response to the EPA comment are two 

additional considerations. First, the fact that 72 percent of projects 

eventually achieved their goals does not suggest that they all did so in 

either a timely fashion or without significant complications. For 

example, as we state in our report, almost half of the projects that 

achieved their goals did so after encountering significant challenges 

that prevented them from finishing on schedule, staying on budget, or 

achieving the desired levels of pollution reduction. Second, we did not 

intend to arbitrarily identify a specific pass/fail threshold for the 

success of surveyed projects or intend to suggest that 70 percent is 

an acceptable or unacceptable share of projects that achieved 

originally proposed goals. Instead, for those projects that did not 

achieve their originally proposed goals and for those that did so while 

encountering challenges, we described the challenges that projects 

most often faced—and their main causes—to provide information that 

may assist EPA and the states in developing or modifying project 

selection criteria or, through other means, better ensure that projects 

receiving section 319 funds in the future will have a high likelihood of 

achieving pollution reduction and other project goals.

2. EPA stated that we should not broadly characterize projects that use 

adaptive management (i.e., projects in which some issues cannot be

identified in advance but rather need to be addressed after a project is 

under way) as facing "preventable challenges." EPA noted in 

particular that it is not feasible for grant applicants to obtain landowner 

buy-in in advance of project selection. We acknowledge the difficulty 

that EPA and the states face in trying to reduce nonpoint source water 

pollution and protect threatened waters using primarily voluntary 

methods and that numerous unforeseen factors can affect the 

success of project implementation. Our survey results showed, 

however, that the chief reason why some projects did not achieve 

their originally proposed goals was because third-party buy-in was not 

secured in advance. Moreover, a key component of EPA’s strategy 

under the section 319 program is to have states lay the groundwork in 

advance, using “indirect” projects (e.g., education and outreach 

GAO Comments
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 64 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

activities) to obtain local support so that direct implementation projects 

can succeed. The experiences of some states, such as Ohio, have 

shown that where rigorous project selection criteria have been put in 

place—such as requirements to secure landowner participation in 

advance—the quality of projects has increased over time (as 

measured by the ability of project applicants to actually implement 

their projects as intended), and local partners have been more 

effective in meeting such requirements.

3. EPA stated it was concerned by our statements about EPA data 

indicating that section 319 funds paid for conservation practices "to be 

put in place in isolation" and that it did not believe the analysis 

supported this conclusion. The draft report had acknowledged that 

EPA's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) data do not 

provide a complete picture of multi-agency efforts to implement 

conservation practices. In response to EPA’s comment, we revised 

the report to further acknowledge that, for the properties reflected in 

our analysis of GRTS data, complementary practices may have been 

installed by NRCS, landowners, or others. Notwithstanding the 

incompleteness or the GRTS data, however, our field work showed 

that section 319-funded projects to reduce agricultural runoff were 

ineffective because the proper suites of companion practices were not 

always installed. We noted that environmental protection officials from 

several of the states we visited told us that they had often 

encountered this problem with section 319-funded projects to reduce 

agricultural runoff. 

4. EPA cites a requirement in its guidelines that a watershed-based plan 

be in place before funding implementation projects for impaired 

waters, as adding further assurance that in selecting projects, "water 

quality problems are analyzed at a watershed scale, critical areas are 

identified, and a suite of necessary practices are identified and 

implemented through the plan." We acknowledge the guidelines' 

requirement for a watershed-based plan and its value. Nonetheless, 

despite the good intentions behind such watershed-based plans, EPA 

does not have regulatory authority to compel either the 

implementation of the plans or the suites of practices described within 

them, particularly on agricultural land. That choice is ultimately left to 

the landowners within the plans’ geographic areas. Thus, while having 

a watershed-based plan could help promote positive outcomes, the 

plan in and of itself is no guarantee that its requirements will be 

fulfilled. 
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 65 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

5. EPA stated that our allusion to the persistence of nonpoint source 

pollution, "particularly given more than 20 years of funding for the 

Section 319 program," does not account for the pervasiveness, 

variety, and magnitude of nonpoint source pollution nationwide 

relative to the federal funding levels and scope o the section 319 

program. We acknowledge the massive scope of the nation's nonpoint 

source water pollution problem and that its persistence and 

pervasiveness is not something that EPA alone can be expected to 

solve with Section 319 funding alone. We have adjusted the text 

accordingly. At the same time, we believe that the funding levels 

allocated to the section 319 program are not insignificant and that the 

improvements suggested in this report can enhance the program’s

contributions toward alleviating the nation's nonpoint source pollution 

problem. 
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 66 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 67 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

See comment 5.

See comment 4.

See comment 3.

Now on pages 41, 42, 

and 46.

Now on page 46.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 68 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

See comment 7.

See comment 6.

Now on page 41.

Now on page 42.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 69 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

See comment 9.

See comment 8.

Now on page 42.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 70 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

See comment 11.

See comment 10.

Now on page 45.

Now on page 44.

Now on page 46.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 71 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

See comment 13.

See comment 12.

Now on page 49.

Now on page 46.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 72 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

See comment 15.

See comment 14.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 73 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

Now on page 28.
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 74 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Agriculture’s 

letter dated April 20, 2012. 

1. NRCS commented on what it referred to as “several inaccuracies" that 

remained after the draft report was sent to USDA for comment. As 

discussed in the Agency Comments section of this report, in 

examining NRCS information, we concluded that the EQIP data 

provided by USDA do not contain site-specific information on the 

extent to which alternative mitigation measures are employed when 

nutrient management plans are not used. We continue to believe, as 

we state in the report, that without examining such information, neither 

we nor NRCS could determine that certain practices are not having 

unintended effects on water quality. 

2. NRCS commented on our finding that from 2005 to 2010 the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program funded nearly 8,000 

practices that—if implemented in isolation—can increase nonpoint 

source pollution. Specifically, in its letter, the agency stated that 

“NRCS does not implement practices in isolation. In fact, NRCS 

analysis of its Environmental Quality Incentives Program data show 

an average of four practices funded per contract.” We acknowledge 

that NRCS does not fund practices in isolation and have revised the 

report to clarify this statement. Nonetheless, our statement is correct 

in that the nearly 8,000 practices we identified have the potential to 

have a negative effect on water quality if, depending on site-specific 

conditions, the proper companion practices are not installed along 

with them. We note in the report that NRCS generally funds multiple 

practices per contract—an average of 4, according to NRCS’ letter—

but that this figure does not shed light on the type of practices that are 

being installed and whether the additional practices properly mitigate 

the potentially negative effects on water quality. It was for this reason 

that we recommended that NRCS analyze available information, 

which may involve obtaining site-specific information from field offices, 

to determine the extent to which appropriate mitigation measures are 

implemented when nutrient management plans are not in use. 

3. NRCS stated that we misinterpreted the agency’s use of its 

conservation practice physical effects (CPPE) assessments, noting 

that, “The CPPE matrix is a generalized, national tool that provides a 

first approximation of potential effects for each practice...

Interpretation of the effects of individual practices using the CPPE 

matrix is not appropriate for assessing overall effects of site-specific 

GAO Comments
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 75 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

conservation plans.” We acknowledge that USDA generally 

implements suites of practices as part of site-specific conservation 

plans and have made changes in the report to clarify this point. 

Nevertheless, as NRCS’ letter states, the CPPE matrix provides an 

“approximation of potential effects” for each practice and, as such, 

can give an indication of the kind of effects that can occur if sitespecific conservation plans are not implemented as intended. For 

instance, NRCS’ letter further states, “If a potentially negative effect is 

identified, then the conservation planner is alerted to this possibility so 

that they know to plan any site-specific mitigating practices to ensure 

positive outcomes.” In our field work, we found indications that sitespecific mitigating practices were not always implemented when 

practices with potentially negative effects on water quality were 

installed. In an effort to determine whether the instances we observed 

were anecdotal or more prevalent, we then examined EQIP data but 

found these data not sufficiently detailed to determine if appropriate 

site-specific mitigation practices were also implemented. 

4. NRCS commented on our finding that USDA data showed that 

nutrient management plans had not been funded for use on properties 

in about two-thirds of the 800 watersheds, stating that “this 

information is misleading and inaccurate...Although nutrient 

management is a frequently used approach for enhancing water 

quality, it is not the only practice used for mitigating water quality 

issues.” We disagree that this information is misleading and 

inaccurate. In meetings in July and August 2011, NRCS officials 

stated that nutrient management planning was the agency’s primary 

method for ensuring that those practices intending to conserve one 

resource (e.g., soil) do not inadvertently harm another resource (e.g., 

water). As we stated in our draft report, nutrient management plans 

are the mechanism that field planners often use to ensure water 

quality is protected on a property in an impaired watershed, and such 

plans might direct field planners to propose one or more of the 80 

conservation practices that can improve water quality, according to 

NRCS officials. Our draft report also acknowledged that where 

nutrient management plans are not in place, other conservation 

planning procedures exist. For example, field planners might propose 

alternative mitigation measures—which would likely include one or 

more of the 80 conservation practices that can improve water 

quality—without requiring a landowner to adhere to a formal nutrient 

management plan. As we state in the report, because of limitations in 

the precision of EQIP data, the extent could not be ascertained to 

which alternative mitigation measures were in place for the roughly 
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 76 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

two-thirds of watersheds where nutrient management plans were not 

funded and where the data also showed that practices had been 

funded that could potentially degrade water quality. 

5. NRCS stated that because we did not “consider practices other than 

nutrient management,” we “understate the number of water quality 

improving practices that are in place on the landscape.” We are not 

questioning the number of water quality practices funded by NRCS; 

rather, it was the limitations of USDA’s data that prevented us, and 

NRCS, from identifying the full extent to which those water quality 

improving practices were implemented where they should be. Several 

state environmental protection officials we spoke with echoed this 

concern, telling us that because they do not have information on 

where NRCS funds practices, they do not know whether, and where, 

they need to use section 319 funds to implement mitigating practices 

to protect water quality or other practices to complement NRCS 

efforts. The agency’s summary data showing that “80 percent [of 

watersheds] had water quality improving practices” does not mean 

that such practices were always properly implemented with other 

companion practices to mitigate the effects of those practices that 

have the potential to degrade water quality. 

6. NRCS disagreed with our finding that soil conservation practices may 

sometimes adversely affect efforts to protect water quality. In 

addressing this issue above, we acknowledged that, in general, such 

practices have substantial environmental benefits, but that in certain 

instances, it is possible that certain conservation practices—including 

some designed to minimize soil erosion—can negatively affect water 

quality when the proper companion practices are not also implemented. 

7. NRCS provided information showing that under EQIP, the agency 

rarely implements conservation practices in isolation and instead 

funds “an average of four practices per contract.” We acknowledge, 

as previously stated, that NRCS rarely funds practices in isolation and 

have revised the report to clarify this statement. We also acknowledge 

that NRCS generally funds multiple practices per contract—an 

average of four, according to NRCS’ letter—but this number alone 

does not shed light on the type of practices that are being installed 

and whether the additional practices mitigate the potentially negative 

effects on water quality in the watersheds we analyzed. 

8. NRCS commented on how we used information in its conservation 

practice physical effects assessments, asserting that “The CPPE matrix 

is simply a very rough first approximation of effects that is most often 
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 77 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

used as a training tool ... and is not the only effects assessment tool 

used during site-specific conservation planning.” We acknowledge, as 

we have above, that the CPPE matrix is not the only tool used during 

site-specific planning and that field planners generally propose “sitespecific mitigating practices to ensure positive outcomes,” according to

NRCS’ letter. Nevertheless, in our field work we found some indications 

that site-specific mitigating practices were not implemented when 

practices with potentially negative effects on water quality were 

installed. As noted above, it is the limitations of the EQIP data available 

to NRCS in illuminating whether such instances were isolated 

occurrences, or indicative of a broader issue, that led us to recommend 

that NRCS analyze available information, which may involve NRCS 

obtaining site-specific information from field offices, to determine the 

extent to which appropriate mitigation measures are implemented 

where nutrient management plans are not in use, particularly in 

watersheds where states are spending section 319 funds. 

9. NRCS stated that we misinterpreted the agency’s CPPE matrix in 

describing underground outlet systems. This information, however, 

came directly from NRCS field office technical guides and other 

NRCS documents. We nonetheless added information, as NRCS 

suggested in its letter, to clarify that underground outlets “allow water 

to move more quickly and thus reduce the time that natural processes 

have to reduce nutrients or other agricultural chemicals.” 

10. NRCS stated that our example of stream crossings in Washington state 

is an exception and that “miles of exclusion fencing are contracted 

every year to keep livestock out of streams, and stream crossings are 

appropriately utilized to help attain those water quality benefits.” We 

acknowledge that the example from Washington State may well be an 

exception. Nevertheless, because of limitations in the availability of 

data, neither we nor NRCS could determine whether examples such as 

these were exceptions or more prevalent. As we stated earlier, it was 

for this reason, and to ensure that complete data are available to allow 

NRCS and others to assess whether the program has unintended water 

quality impacts, that we recommended that NRCS analyze information 

on the extent to which mitigation measures are implemented in 

situations where NRCS-funded conservation practices may negatively 

affect water quality (and particularly in watersheds where states are 

spending section 319 funds).

11. NRCS stated that our statement that 17 percent of conservation 

practices were types of individual conservation practices that could 
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 78 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

degrade water quality was misleading and conveyed an inaccurate 

message. Specifically, NRCS stated that this finding is (1) based on 

misuse of the CPPE matrix, and (2) does not report the number of 

practices actually installed in isolation. To respond to NRCS’ first 

point, as we stated above, we acknowledge that the CPPE matrix is 

not the only tool used during site-specific planning, but in our field 

work we found some indications that site-specific mitigating practices 

were not implemented when practices with potentially negative effects 

on water quality were installed. To respond to NRCS’ second point,

because of limitations in the precision of EQIP data, we could not 

ascertain the extent to which alternative mitigation measures were in 

place for the roughly two-thirds of watersheds where nutrient 

management plans were not funded and where the data also showed 

that practices had been funded that could potentially degrade water 

quality. Upon our request for information on alternative mitigation 

measures, NRCS officials told us that such information was 

documented and stored at the field level but that such information was 

not catalogued and available at the headquarters level. 

12. NRCS stated that we misinterpreted and misused the CPPE matrix. 

As we stated above, NRCS’ letter states that the CPPE matrix 

provides an “approximation of potential effects” for each practice and, 

as such, can give an indication of the kind of effects that can occur if 

site-specific conservation plans are not implemented as intended. In 

our field work, we found indications that site-specific mitigating 

practices were not always implemented when practices with 

potentially negative effects on water quality were installed. 

13. NRCS stated that we misinterpreted USDA statistics on the use of 

nutrient management plans and “violated a basic tenet of statistical 

analysis by inferring a conclusion that far exceeds the limitations of the 

data on which it is based.” We acknowledge, as we did in our draft 

report, that where nutrient management plans are not in place, other 

conservation planning procedures exist. Because of limitations in the 

precision of EQIP data, however, the extent could not be ascertained to 

which alternative mitigation measures were in place for the roughly twothirds of watersheds where nutrient management plans were not 

funded and where the data also showed that practices had been 

funded that could potentially degrade water quality. Upon our request 

for information on alternative mitigation measures, NRCS officials told 

us that such information was documented and stored at the field level, 

but that such information was not catalogued and available at the 

headquarters level. Rather than drawing “inferences that exceed the 
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 79 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

limitations of the data on which they are based,” as NRCS stated, we 

concluded that neither we, nor NRCS, could draw such inferences 

without additional information on the extent to which alternative 

measures are employed—or if site-specific conditions make them 

unnecessary—on these EQIP contracts when nutrient management 

plans are not used.

14. NRCS stated, “In summary, it is clear that this assertion is based on 

misinterpretation and subsequent misuse of the CPPE matrix, a lack of 

knowledge of the NRCS conservation planning process, inferences that 

exceed the limitations of the data, and a disregard for university and 

Federal research findings.” We disagree. Our draft report 

acknowledged the noteworthy goals and accomplishments of EQIP in 

mitigating the impacts on water quality of certain agricultural practices. 

In response to the NRCS comments, we revised the language in the 

draft report to further discuss the program’s benefits in finalizing the 

report. However, we found instances where NRCS conservation 

planning process did not mitigate certain practices’ effects at the 

ground level, and where water quality had been impacted as a result. In 

an effort to ascertain whether the instances we observed were 

anecdotal or more prevalent, we examined USDA data and other 

information, including the CPPE matrix, and concluded that neither we 

nor NRCS could draw such inferences without additional information on 

the extent to which alternative measures are employed on 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program contracts when nutrient 

management plans are not used. It was for this reason—and to ensure 

that complete data are available to allow NRCS and others to assess 

whether the program has unintended water quality impacts—that we 

recommended that NRCS analyze available information and obtain 

necessary site-specific information from field offices as necessary. 

NRCS would then be in a better position to determine the extent to 

which appropriate mitigation measures are implemented when nutrient 

management plans are not in use (and particularly in watersheds where 

states are spending section 319 funds). 

15. NRCS provided additional information on EQIP’s water quality benefits, 

specifically requesting that we include information from published 

studies on the benefits of agricultural conservation practices. The draft 

report cited EQIP’s contributions toward improving water quality, but we 

nonetheless added language as suggested on the program’s pollutant 

reductions in key watersheds and on NRCS reports describing the 

agency’s water quality improvement efforts. 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 80 GAO-12-335 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution

David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841, or trimbled@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Steve Elstein, Assistant 

Director; Nathan Anderson; Elizabeth Beardsley; Mark Braza; Ellen Chu;

Emily Eischen; Mitch Karpman; Jill Lacey; Dae Park; Kiki 

Theodoropolous; Jason Trentacoste; and Josh Wiener made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361251)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.