In mid-December we submitted public comments to the Oklahoma Water Resources Board in response to surface water proposals. Following are comments we have submitted in response to groundwater proposals. The public comment period ends with a public hearing at 10:00 AM January 21 in OKC.
The groundwater proposals consist primarily of a "groundwater vulnerability map" showing groundwater aquifers thought to be vulnerable to nutrient contamination. Since phosphorus is only slightly soluble in water the nutrient of concern is nitrates which are readily dissolved and move through groundwater with ease. Of the 30 hydrogeologic basins in Oklahoma, 22 are slated to be designated "nutrient vulnerable". One of the aquifers determined to be highly vulnerable is the Boone aquifer, which includes much of the poultry industry located in the NE corner of Oklahoma. The Arkansas River Basin aquifer is proposed as Very Highly Vulnerable. Also of interest to the poultry industry and to McCurtain County is the Antlers aquifer, which stretches from South Central Oklahoma into Arkansas, bisecting McCurtain County. This aquifer is proposed, as Moderately Vulnerable. The Red River Basin aquifer is proposed as Very Highly Vulnerable and will also affect the McCurtain County poultry industry.
Existing sampling data is scarce. Some aquifers such as the Rush Springs aquifer in western Oklahoma are verifiably contaminated by nitrate levels in exceedence of 10 mg/l, which is the maximum concentration considered by EPA to be safe in drinking water. For other aquifers such as the Antlers aquifer, existing sampling data VERIFIES that nitrates pose NO threat to the groundwater. In these cases the data has been ignored and the designation has been applied subjectively.
SB 1170 specifies that the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture "encourage the transfer of poultry waste out of the designated nutrient-limited watersheds and nutrient-vulnerable groundwater as designated in the most recent Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards." ODA is further empowered by SB 1170 to "prohibit" the application of poultry litter in these areas.
Mr. Derek Smithee
3800 N. Classen Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
VIA FACSIMILE: 405.530.8900
Re: Official Comments Interim Revision Oklahoma Water Quality Standards
Dear Mr. Smithee:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit additional comments on proposed revisions of the Oklahoma Water Quality Standards. (OWQS) You and your staff have done an outstanding job of addressing the needs of all stakeholders in your efforts to revise the standards. Please keep in mind that these standards exist to protect water resources that belong ultimately to the people of the state, rather than to state agencies and that land use restrictions arising from the implementation of OWQS will affect individual citizens of this state.
NUTRIENT VULNERABLE GROUNDWATER
SB 1170 required the Office of the Secretary of the Environment (OSE) to identify "nutrient vulnerable groundwater" areas within the state. It is obvious from the context of the statute that these areas were to be identified for one reason only. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture (ODA) is directed by the statute to encourage the removal of poultry litter from all "nutrient vulnerable groundwater" areas and is empowered to prohibit application of poultry litter within "nutrient vulnerable groundwater" areas. It is obviously logical that the legislature, in passing SB1170, intends "nutrient vulnerable groundwater" areas to be those that are degraded by the land application of poultry litter. Therefore, areas that are designated "nutrient vulnerable groundwater" areas should be only those areas for which adequate data confirms that the application of poultry litter is degrading the quality of the water.
As all animal feeding operations in the state of Oklahoma are now regulated and required to operate within the guidelines of an animal waste management plan (AWMP), developed by the United States Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), it must be assumed that no runoff is allowed from land application sites. Therefore, it must be assumed that no degradation of water quality is caused by poultry litter, land applied as prescribed by NRCS guidelines. Jack Ferguson in Tulsa stated this position to be that of EPA Region 6 on the 16th of November 1998.
Nitrates applied as commercial fertilizer to irrigated (cultivated) fields in the Rush Springs Basin pose a bigger threat to groundwater than nitrates applied as poultry litter to pastureland (according to NRCS guidelines) in the Antlers basin. NRCS guidelines for poultry litter application are based on phosphorus because phosphorus is present in excess of plant needs. The phosphorus nitrogen ratio of plant needs is about 1:10. The phosphorus nitrogen ratio of poultry litter is about 1:1. Therefore, nitrogen from poultry litter should be completely utilized allowing no leaching into groundwater and posing no threat to groundwater.
Furthermore, there is only one source of nutrients that is regulated in Oklahoma, the land application of nutrients from AFOs. Point source dischargers are not restricted as regards nutrient concentrations of effluent. No best management practices (BMP) are mandated for the timber industry, construction sites, urban runoff, road construction, or recreational activities. As AFOs are the nutrient source most likely to be unfairly affected by the designation of an area as a "nutrient vulnerable groundwater" area, it is imperative that sources of nutrient loading be identified before the designation is applied.
Your agency has proposed a "groundwater vulnerability map of Oklahoma" using the DRASTIC method of assessment. This method was developed by EPA as a system for evaluating groundwater vulnerability to pollution. As stated in documentation provided by the OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD (OWRB) December 14, "no attempt has been made to calibrate the DRASTIC results to field data." This is in direct contradiction to your repeated assertions that Oklahoma water quality standards (OWQS) shall be based on valid scientific data. In fact, your agency has been unable to provide to us any sampling or field data to substantiate your proposal that the Antlers aquifer is vulnerable to nitrate concentrations. From all the data provided to us by OWRB, we find that sampling of the Antlers aquifer by the Oklahoma Geological Survey in McCurtain County is limited to only three samples collected since 1951. These three samples were collected in 1970 and not one indicates nitrate concentrations approaching EPA standards of 10 mg/l. Data collection from the Antlers aquifer in Choctaw County is also restricted to 1970 or before and data has not been collected from the Antlers aquifer in Bryan County after 1951. How can the OWRB declare this aquifer "nutrient vulnerable" based on this Oklahoma Geological Survey data? Even more telling is the data collected by OWRB from 1986-1992. Yearly sampling of the Antlers aquifer indicates NO sample concentrations approaching 10 mg/l. Why was this data not used to "calibrate" the DRASTIC results? We also requested current sampling data from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture (ODA). ODA has been collecting samples from monitoring wells associated with Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for some time and has extensive groundwater data. However, ODA sampling has identified no nitrate concentrations approaching 10 mg/l in the Antlers aquifer. Why was ODA sampling data not considered as OWRB developed the proposed nutrient vulnerable groundwater map???
Perhaps the answer lies with statements made December 14 by your staff member, Noel Osborne, lead developer of the proposed groundwater vulnerability map. She stated that adequate data exists to indicate that the Rush Springs aquifer, located west of Oklahoma City, is threatened by nitrate concentrations in exceedence of 10 mg/l. She also stated that since the Rush Springs aquifer has a DRASTIC vulnerability rating of "moderate", it and all other Oklahoma aquifers of a "moderate" vulnerability rating should be designated as "nutrient vulnerable". This appears to be "calibration" of the DRASTIC method by field data from one aquifer while ignoring existing data from other aquifers with a comparable DRASTIC rating. Is this a demonstration of the proper use of "valid scientific data"?
We have been told by OWRB staff that the groundwater vulnerability map was developed "absent of source" or without consideration of prevailing land use. While this appears to be an unbiased approach, it is the wrong approach in this situation. It is unfair for the Antlers aquifer to be designated "nutrient vulnerable" because the Rush Springs aquifer exhibits elevated levels of nitrates. Using the "absent of source" logic, one can also assert that the Rush Springs aquifer is NOT "nutrient vulnerable" because the Antlers aquifer has a similar rating and data shows no elevated nitrate levels in that case.
For these reasons, we recommend that aquifers with a DRASTIC rating of less than 120 (very low through moderate vulnerability classes) NOT be designated "nutrient vulnerable" unless and until sources of nutrient loading are identified. This action will reserve the use of the term "nutrient vulnerable" for a more responsible application.
PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF NON-OFFENDERS
We recommend that certain procedures be included in the revisions that will assure the opportunity for a property owner to demonstrate that he is not contributing to a potential or confirmed impairment of water quality by land application of poultry litter. Documented evidence of compliance with an AWMP developed by NRCS should be adequate to exempt a property owner from land use restrictions arising as a result of being located within a watershed with a nutrient related designation. This exemption should protect the landowner from restrictions implemented by other agencies as well as by OWRB.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Barrett
Barrett Farms
Member, Broiler Producers Council
cc: Jeff Rabon, Oklahoma State Senator
Terry Matlock, Oklahoma State Representative
The Honorable Dennis Howard, Commissioner of Agriculture
Marla Peek, Oklahoma Farm Bureau
Mason Mungle, Oklahoma Farmers Union