Barrett Farms
Broiler Producers Council
Rt 5 Box 126
Idabel, OK 74745
Mr. Derek Smithee
3800 N. Classen Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Re: Official Comments Interim Revision Oklahoma Water Quality Standards
Dear Mr. Smithee:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment 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 LIMITED WATERSHEDS
SB 1170 required the Office of the Secretary of the Environment (OSE) to identify "nutrient limited" watersheds within the state. It is obvious from the context of the statute that these watersheds 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 limited" watersheds and is empowered to prohibit application of poultry litter within "nutrient limited" watersheds. It is obviously logical that the legislature, in passing SB1170, intends "nutrient limited" watersheds to be those that are degraded by the land application of poultry litter. Therefore, watersheds that are designated "nutrient limited" should be only those watersheds 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.
Furthermore, there is only one source of nutrients that is regulated in Oklahoma, the land application of nutrients from AFO's. Point source dischargers are not restricted as regards nutrient concentrations of effluent. No best management practices (BMP) are mandated for the timber industry, irrigated crop production, non-irrigated crop production, cow-calf operations, 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 a watershed as "nutrient limited", it is imperative that sources of nutrient loading be identified before the designation is applied.
For these reasons, I recommend that waters with a trophic state index (TSI) of 62 or greater be designated "nutrient susceptible" rather than "nutrient limited" until sources of nutrient loading are identified. This action will in no way affect the protocols and processes proposed for inclusion in the OWQS. It merely reserves the use of the term "nutrient limited" for a more responsible application.
NUTRIENT THREATENED WATERSHEDS
SB 1170 does not require the designation "nutrient threatened" and it should not be proposed in the revision of OWQS. The list of "nutrient threatened" watersheds is to be used only for priority ranking. This is the same purpose stated by OSE in developing the current 303d list which resulted in 70 Oklahoma stream segments being labeled as "CAFO impaired" by EPA Region 6. OSE also claimed priority ranking as justification of the current Unified Watershed Assessment Report that is now being used by EPA to identify, for the purpose of permitting, watersheds threatened by concentrations of AFOs. These examples show that the stated purpose of a list can easily be ignored by agencies other than the originator of the list.
Furthermore, all Oklahoma lakes possess a trophic status. To rename that status with a label such as "nutrient threatened" unnecessarily places blame for a naturally occurring phenomenon, eutrophication, on one cause, nutrients. I recommend that the proposed "nutrient threatened" designation be rejected, as it is unnecessary, misleading, and subject to misuse.
NUTRIENT VULNERABLE WATERSHEDS
SB 1170 does not require the designation "nutrient vulnerable" and it should not be proposed in the revision of OWQS. All lakes are vulnerable to beneficial use impairment if nutrient loads become high enough. Lakes with an average turbidity of less than five Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) are naturally clear and worthy of observation. However, there is no need to designate the lake as "nutrient vulnerable". There is no reason to think that a lake of such pristine condition as suggested by an average turbidity of less than 5 NTUs will suddenly become overloaded by excess nutrients. If it has not happened, there is no reason to think that it is about to happen. Furthermore, the land use activities within a watershed should be considered as one factor contributing to the high quality of the water, not as a threat to water quality.
As further objection to the proposed designation of "nutrient vulnerable", I offer the following points:
· "Nutrient vulnerable" is used in SB 1170 to denote groundwater areas in which application of poultry litter should be prohibited.
· "Nutrient vulnerable" was recently suggested by OSE as an appropriate label for a watershed to justify that it serve as a target for the watershed specific CAFO permit.
· "Nutrient vulnerable" suggests that the lake is impacted by nutrients when the lake is not impacted by nutrients. (e.g. Broken Bow Lake is proposed for the "nutrient vulnerable" designation even though the water quality does not come close to criteria conditions for nutrients.)
· If a label must be provided for a lake possessing very little turbidity, then it should be labeled accurately. (e.g. Exceptionally Clear Water (ECW), Well Managed Watershed (WMW))
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