IMAGE
Planning and Managing a Successful Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Project
The Rural Clean Water Program Experience

Significant progress has been made in reducing water pollution caused by point sources since the Clean Water Act was passed. However, much work remains to be done to reduce nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants that impair the quality of streams, rivers, lakes, ground water, and other bodies of water throughout the United States.

Many local government officials, as well as citizens, are becoming increasingly interested in taking action to address local water quality problems caused primarily by nonpoint source pollutants. There is also a heightened awareness that water quality problems do not occur in isolation; many activities within a watershed affect the quality of water resources. Surface and ground waters are frequently connected, so management strategies aimed at protecting water quality must often be designed to address the impacts of human activities on a watershed basis for both surface water and ground water.

This fact sheet is designed to provide information to local and state government officials and staff, concerned citizens, educational and technical assistance agencies, landowners, and farmers interested in protecting or restoring water quality. Specific steps are outlined for:



Designing a Successful Voluntary Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Project

Choose a Viable Project


The first step in planning a successful nonpoint source pollution control project is to identify a water resource with water quality needing restoration or protection. Focus on a water resource that is valued by the community and a problem that is neither too complex nor too difficult to solve in a reasonable amount of time. Talk to or formally survey community members who live and work in the vicinity of the water resource. Find out whether they believe that there is a water quality problem and if it is of concern to them. For example, find out if the water quality problem impairs recreational uses, such as fishing, swimming, or boating, or aesthetic enjoyment of the water resource.

If the source of the water quality problem is not clear, or if the source is one that cannot be affected by changes in project participants' behavior (for example, if the source is a point source versus agricultural runoff), there may be dissension within the community about the cause of the problem, how best to resolve it, or the value of a NPS pollution control project. Documentation of the problem and its source can help a community come together to support a project designed to address a water quality problem (see next section). If, however, consensus about the existence of a problem cannot be reached, or agencies cannot work effectively together, a project is unlikely to be successful. In such cases, limited resources for addressing water quality problems may be better spent on a different project or program.

If project funds are restricted to one source of nonpoint source pollutants, such as agricultural sources, avoid choosing a watershed that contains major point sources or other nonpoint sources. Pollutants from point sources can mask improvements in water quality brought about by implementation of best management practices (BMPs) aimed at reducing NPS pollution, thus making it difficult to document the benefits of a nonpoint source pollution control project. Other approaches designed to reduce both point and nonpoint source pollutants, such as total watershed management, can be very effective if adequate technical and financial resources are available.

Select a watershed of a size that matches the level of available funding for the project; if funds for installing BMPs are limited, treating most or all of a small watershed (or a subwatershed within a large watershed) will likely result in greater water quality improvements than treating a small land area in a large watershed.

Document the Water Quality Problem


Clearly document the water quality impairment or threat, and the source(s) of the problem. For example, a popular swimming beach at the community lake may have algal blooms (rapid growth of algae) at certain times of year. The results are color changes, odor, and fish kills, which impair swimming and other uses of the lake for recreation. To plan an effective approach to this problem, the specific pollutant(s) causing the blooms must be identified and the source(s) determined. Are nutrients causing the problem? If so, is there too much nitrogen or phosphorus? After identifying the pollutant, find out where it is coming from. Possible sources of nutrients include runoff from animal operations, over-application of fertilizer, septic tank drain fields, sediments in the lake bottom, or discharges from a treatment plant or industry. The source(s) of the water quality problem must be identified before action is taken, so available resources can be targeted to the critical area. Trying to address a problem without knowing the source can result in wasting limited funds and human resources and losing support for future projects.

Existing water quality and other relevant data, such as soils, geology, land use, and weather (and assistance in interpreting such data), should be requested from appropriate agencies, such as the state water quality agency; U.S. Geological Survey; local health department; county planning department; and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA - Consolidated Farm Services Agency, USDA - Extension Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Soil and Water Conservation District.

If adequate information about the problem and its source(s) has not already been collected, seek technical and financial assistance in designing a water quality monitoring program. Relevant state and federal programs are discussed in the section entitled Obtain Funding.

An effective approach to identifying the exact nature of the problem and its source(s) is to implement a problem identification and assessment monitoring program lasting from six to 18 months. Monitor sites suspected of contributing pollutants or stressors during both baseflow and storm conditions, especially during the seasons when the highest amount of the pollutant enters the water and during the season when water quality problems have been noticed. For example, in winter and spring there is often a great deal of runoff which carries nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants. A walk through the watershed may help identify problem areas with regard to habitat. Creel surveys can identify fishery problems.

Before initiating a project, write a problem statement that: 1) states what the impaired water use is, 2) identifies the location of the problem, 3) specifies the pollutant(s) or stressor(s), and 4) identifies the major or suspected source(s). A written problem statement documents the problem for future reference and clearly conveys the problem and source to participants and community members, thereby contributing to consensus about the problem and the approach being taken to resolve it.

Define Objectives and Goals


Well-defined objectives and goals clearly convey the purpose of the project to potential participants and the public. Objectives and goals also provide a basis for evaluating the project.

Objectives define the overall direction or purpose of the project. Establish objectives that focus the project on achieving water quality changes or meeting water quality standards. Be sure that objectives are measurable and achievable. For example, a workable objective might be "re-opening shellfish beds in Green Creek estuary by 1998."

Goals provide milestones to be met during the course of a project. Establish quantitative goals that provide a way to measure progress. For example, progress toward the goal "reduce the phosphorus load to Blue Reservoir by 45%" can be measured, while achievement of the goal "reduce pollution in the reservoir" is more difficult to evaluate. Set specific goals early with assistance from local agencies, project participants, and community representatives.

Objectives and goals must be tailored to available resources and to the nature of the problem. For example, expecting to reduce eutrophication in a reservoir when the project watershed supplies only 10% of the phosphorus load is unrealistic, as is a goal of reducing nutrient loss from a 500,00-acre watershed with 1,200 producers when resources consist of a $50,000 budget and two staff members.

Involve the Community


Public support and a high rate of participation are key in voluntary nonpoint source projects because of the widespread nature of NPS pollution. The following actions can increase participation:

Obtain Funding


Obtain funds to support each aspect of the project. Cost-share funds that can be used to assist participants in installing BMPs are often critical to the success or failure of a voluntary nonpoint source project. Funding for pre-, during-, and post-implementation water quality monitoring and educational activities is also important.

State cost-share funds may be available to support implementation of agricultural or forestry BMPs for nonpoint source pollution control. Federal programs offering cost-share funds for forestry or agricultural BMPs may be available through the USDA - Consolidated Farm Services Agency. Section 319 funds allocated to each state by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be available from a state's water quality agency (nonpoint source program) to support nonpoint source pollution control projects.

Several EPA publications provide information on federal programs for watershed protection (EPA, 1993) and how state and local governments have funded nonpoint source pollution control programs (EPA, 1992).

Clarify Agency Roles and Administer the Project Effectively


Cooperation and coordination among local, state, and federal agencies are essential. Potential participants within the project area must receive clear messages about the project, its purpose, and its value. Conflicting messages from local, state, or federal agencies participating in a project can result in a low rate of participation. Clearly define each agency's role and how agencies will interact to avoid confusion, duplication of efforts, or competition. Urge agency administrators to support the project and encourage inter-agency cooperation. If key agencies cannot agree on the value of a proposed project, or if turf battles seem unresolvable, consider an alternative project choice.

Designate a project manager to coordinate the project and assess progress. Ideally, the project manager should have a background in water resources and project management.

Establish a local coordinating committee, consisting of project participants, agency personnel, and community leaders, to support the project. The committee should set direction, set objectives and goals, assure adequate public involvement, enlist agency assistance, oversee information and education activities, determine priorities for water quality monitoring, and develop plans for critical area selection, choice of BMP systems, and linkage of land treatment and water quality data.

Define the Critical Area


Apply BMP systems to those areas where land treatment will have the greatest effect. Where available, pre-project water quality monitoring and modeling can be used to identify or refine the critical area -- the land area contributing most to the problem. In the absence of such resources, critical areas can be roughly defined based on distance to the water body and its tributaries, or other location or land use characteristics. Within the critical area, significant pollutant sources (such as animal operations, farm fields, or forestry operations) can be prioritized for BMP installation based on the expected impact of each source on the water body.

Choose a Land Treatment Approach


Encourage participants to implement systems of BMPs. Systems of practices often control loss of a pollutant from the critical area more effectively than a single BMP. Resources for assistance in identifying systems to effectively address a particular water quality problem and source include Extension Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts staff.

Design a Water Quality and Land Treatment Monitoring and Evaluation Plan


Water quality and land treatment monitoring and evaluation provide essential tools for assessing project effectiveness. Team members who will conduct and interpret the monitoring effort must be involved from the beginning of the project, not added as an afterthought.

When limited resources are available for monitoring BMP effectiveness, visual observations such as fewer algal blooms, clearer water, or increased recreational use can be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of the project. Monthly monitoring of a few key factors (such as dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a) can provide useful information.

When funds are available for more extensive water quality monitoring, essential tasks and elements include:



Assessing Project Effectiveness

Evaluate data with project objectives and goals clearly in mind. A consistent improving trend in water quality after BMP system implementation may provide evidence needed to attribute water quality improvements to land treatment.

Consider interviewing (pre- and post-project) participants and people who were eligible but chose not to participate in the project to assess the effectiveness of education efforts.

Report successes and failures periodically to provide feedback to project participants and agency staff on the results of their efforts. Make results available to the community to enhance public education and contribute to more effective management of water quality problems in the future.

Keys to Success

Choose a Viable Project