Nonpoint Source Water Pollution: Greater Oversight and Additional Data Needed for Key EPA Water Program
Published: 2012-05-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. Guidelines  issued by EPA in 2003 for implementing section 319 draw particular  attention to the potential benefits of working closely with the U.S.
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,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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  farming has resulted in toxic runoff, and mining has produced leaching of  heavy metals and acid mine drainage.
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.
subsections: section_title: Clean Water Act’s Approach to Addressing Nonpoint Source Pollution
paragraphs: 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. 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   For example, at that time, a majority of EPA  water quality problems.regions identified nonpoint sources as the principal remaining cause of  water quality problems.
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.
section_title: EPA Guidance to States in Developing Their Section 319 Programs
paragraphs: 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.
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  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 watershed- based 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. These guidelines followed a  substantial increase in appropriated funds. Key features of the guidelines  include the following:
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.
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.
States are encouraged to leverage section 319 funds with projects  from other federal programs that have water quality objectives,  including USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).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.
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. 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  source pollution control and, according to EPA, can introduce significant  uncertainty in how and when projects are implemented.
section_title: States Have Funded Many Successful Projects but Also Some That Encountered Preventable Challenges
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: States Have Funded Projects Addressing Varied Categories of Nonpoint Source Pollution
paragraphs: 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 funded section 319 projects that supported a mix of direct and  indirect approaches to help restore, protect, or prevent further  degradation of water quality. Direct approaches generally involved  projects implementing conservation practices or other corrective actions  to directly reduce or eliminate pollutants entering a water body. Common  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).
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  help restore, protect, or prevent further degradation of water quality. 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):
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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:
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  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.
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.
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.
section_title: States Have Also Funded Some Projects that Encountered Preventable Challenges
paragraphs: 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.These projects were generally unable to implement the desired number or  type of conservation practices or to implement them in the originally  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).
The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is (23, 34).
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. 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 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.
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  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. According to EPA officials  and USDA research, 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  intended water quality benefits, according to state environmental  protection officials we spoke with.
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.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.
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  fencing, riparian buffers, stream crossings, 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.
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  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). (The data do not reflect instances  where additional practices may have already been in place before the  fencing was installed.)
In 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). 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  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. 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   Funding  program enrollment assistance to agricultural crop producers.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.
Similarly, West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection used  section 319 funds for several projects aimed, in part, at enrolling  landowners in USDA’s CRP and Conservation Reserve Enhancement  Program (CREP). 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.
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.   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   But EPA  source program goals and priorities, according to the report.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.
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  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  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.
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   The report goes on to say that this  projects for section 319 funding. 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.
The report notes that 20 states’ project selection processes explicitly take into  consideration a project’s feasibility for successful implementation.
section_title: EPA’s Oversight and Measures of Effectiveness of States’ Programs Have Not Consistently Ensured Projects Likely to Yield Measurable Water Quality Outcomes
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: EPA’s Regional Offices Have Varied in Their Oversight of States’ Nonpoint Source Management Programs
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  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,  whereas Region 1 has not encouraged any of its states to update their  plans since 1999. 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   As a  nonpoint source management program plans since 1999 or 2000.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  how they are to fulfill their regulatory oversight responsibilities for the 319  program.
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. 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.
Region 4 states include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North  Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. modifications to the state programs’ annual goals. 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. 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.
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. 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  determination because states would then not receive funds to address a  significant water quality problem.
section_title: EPA’s Primary Measures of Effectiveness May Not Fully Demonstrate Program Goal Achievements
paragraphs: 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   According to several  targeting such pollutants have been implemented.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  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.
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  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. 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.
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.
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  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).
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  to better reflect environmental outcomes. 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. 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.
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  reducing nonpoint source pollution. Since 2000, states have removed  more than 350 water bodies from their lists of impaired waters.
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.
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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the key  agricultural conservation program that can complement EPA’s efforts to  reduce nonpoint source pollution. 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.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   Nonetheless, certain conservation practices under the  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.
subsections: section_title: NRCS Soil and Water Conservation Practices and Procedures Are Intended to Prevent Certain Practices from Adversely Affecting Water Quality
paragraphs: Under EQIP, NRCS funds conservation practices throughout the nation  that are intended to reduce nonpoint source pollution and, among other  things, soil erosion. 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.
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.
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. 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  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. 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.
section_title: Instances of Potential Water Impacts Raise Questions about the Extent of Adherence to Procedures, but NRCS Data Are Too Highly Aggregated to Resolve Them
paragraphs: 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 site- specific 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  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.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.
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.
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. These 8,000  practices were funded in about 820 watersheds.
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  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.
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  conditions.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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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. The  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 e- mail 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  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,  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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  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.   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.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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  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 site- specific 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 site- specific 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  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  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 “site- specific 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  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 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. Rather than drawing “inferences that exceed the  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.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.