Community-driven science to address nutrient pollution: Lessons learned from across the US
On this page:
Excess nutrient release to the environment is a nonpoint source pollution issue in many US surface waters, and thus no single entity has complete jurisdiction to address and solve the problem. While it is within EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act to support nutrient reduction efforts, entities external to EPA are often responsible for implementation of specific practices and programs to reduce nutrient pollution. Effective implementation strategies for nutrient reduction are dependent on partnerships that include various federal, state, tribal, and local community agencies, and require effective communication and coordination.
Our research builds upon existing community-based projects designed to inform nutrient reduction efforts through interdisciplinary, cross-agency and cross-sector collaboration. We identify and share lessons learned through community-driven science to address nutrient pollution in Oregon, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Washington. The issues with excess nutrients these communities face vary in many ways including (1) dominant source sectors (wastewater, cultivated crops, animal operations, (2) triggers for remedial actions (nitrate contamination of drinking water, aquatic life impairment, and cyanobacterial blooms), (3) primary agencies responsible for management, and (4) socioeconomic and cultural factors. Partnership projects centered on achieving quantifiable reductions in nutrient concentrations and fluxes at watershed scales through coordinated research, nutrient reduction efforts, and effective science communication. We bring together these existing partnership experiences to identify best strategies for nutrient reduction and best practices for partnering in nutrient reduction efforts. Some early lessons learned from this work include importance of: (1) trust and influence when working with new stakeholders, 2) coordinated proposals for funding, research, meetings, tools and communication materials, 3) adaptively managing projects based on partner needs, 4) following through on mutually agreed upon commitments (set a goal, meet the goal), 5) having transdisciplinary perspectives to foster innovative approaches, and 6) anticipating the long-term nature of building relationships, trust, and agreement of partners. Common tools and approaches (Agricultural Conservation Practice Framework tools, source allocation pie charts, communication materials) will be compared across projects. We summarize recommendations for science collaboration strategies, social science information, economic cost considerations, and communication messages that feed into successful nutrient reduction efforts. Our experiences suggest that application of these lessons learned can expand partner networks, enhance understanding, and increase the willingness and ability to solve local nutrient problems should yield greater success in nutrient reduction efforts over the long run.