EuchaSpavinaw Watershed Management Team

1

Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed Management Team
John Everett, J.D., P.E. Special Master
Presentation by Feb. 3, 2005 NELPI
2
EXAMPLE SITE
Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed 415 Sq. Mi.
Spavinaw Creek
Spavinaw
Eucha
3
Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed Management Team

• City of Tulsa and TMUA v. Tyson Foods in
  Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed
• FEDERAL Lawsuit, US District Court, Northern
  District of Oklahoma
• ISSUE Spreading of Poultry Litter on Land As
  Fertilizer
• in excess amounts resulting in
  transport of Phosphorous in water runoff
• and attached to sediment into Lake
  Eucha, allegedly causing excess
• algal growth and taste and odor
  problems in Tulsas drinking water supply.
• Settlement Agreement by the Parties as trial
  scheduled to begin, July 2003
• Moratorium on Spreading of Poultry Litter until
  NMPs written
• Appointment of Special Master to Implement the
  Settlement Agreement
• Hiring and Training 4 Watershed Management Team
  Members (end 2003)
• Development of a new Phosphorous Index by OSU and
  UArk PI Teams
• Creation of Non-Profit Org. To Identify Potential
  Assistance and Solutions
• Limitations and Compliance Schedule for Decatur
  WWTP

4
Phosphorous Index

• Method and Rule To Determine Allowable Amount of
  Litter That May Be Spread
• Every Application Site in Watershed Must Have a
  new Nutrient Management Plan
• That Applies the Phosphorous Index and
  Specifies The Amounts and Conditions
• Under Which Litter May be Spread as Fertilizer
• NMPs Must be Written By Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed
  Management Team
• The PI was to be jointly developed by 4 member PI
  Team (2 from OSU 2 from UArk)
• PI was due Jan 1, 2004 if unanimous agreement by
  OSU and UArk
• NO AGREEMENT BY OSU AND UARK PI Team WAS POSSIBLE
  DUE TO
• Differing interpretations of requirements of the
  Settlement Agreement
• Meaning of Risk Based
• Meaning of Agronomic Requirements for growth
• Meaning of Least amount of total Phosphorous
  
• Differing Preferences in Approach Qualitative
  Risk v Quantitative Model

5
Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed Phosphorous Index

• After Hearing By Court in February 2004 on
  Proposed PIs, the Court Ordered
• Implement Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed Phosphorous
  Index (ESPI by UArk)
• Add upper STP Threshold of 300 mg/kg as cutoff
• Implement Goal of Spreading no more than 2/3 of
  Annual Litter Production
• ( Maximum 53,000 tons of estimated 80,000 tons
  annual production)
• Run Pasture Phosphorous Management (PPM by OSU)
  in tandem
• Request PI Team Continue to Work on further
  evaluation of results toward
• a unanimous PI approach
• ESPI used to determine Allowable Amount of Litter
  To Apply
• PPM used to estimate amount of P leaving edge of
  field, but does not control
• Court Order Signed February 16, 2004
• Poultry Growers Desperate For Spring Cleanout
  after Moratorium
• Landowners and Cattle Growers Relied on Litter
  Fertilizer
• E/SWMT Delivered first NMP on March 9, 2004

6
E/SWMT RESULTS 2004
1. Current Growers in Watershed Database
(Varies) 147 Peterson Farms 11 Cargill 34
Tyson Industries 4 Georges 23 Simmons
Foods 1 Moark (Voluntary) 18 Cobb-Vantress

• 2. Court Order Signed February 16, 2004
• E/SWMT Delivered first NMP on March 9, 2004
• Evaluated 1200 Fields gt24,000 acres
• Sampled Litter for Soluble Reactive Phosphorous
  and Total Phosphorous
• Sampled 1000 Fields for STP (Soil Test
  Phosphorous), other parameters
• Held Grower Public Meetings and Spreader
  Calibration Workshops
• Ongoing Cooperation as requested by Phosphorous
  Index Development Team (OSU and UArk PI Teams)
• Performed ESPI and PPM evaluations
• Consulted with every Grower/Landowner Applicant
  For NMPs (not all needed or wanted an NMP) and
  wrote NMPs (200)
• Met and negotiated with ODAFF, NRCS, ASWCC, OKCC

7
E/SWMT RESULTS 2004

• SUMMARY
• E/SWMT wrote 200 Plans (some plans were merely
  to ship litter out of the Watershed)
• Potentially allowing spreading of up to 28,286
  tons of chicken litter
• on up to 19,812 total eligible acres.
• The remainder was planned to be shipped out of
  the Watershed.
• Documentation of all shipped amounts for 2004 is
  still being collected.
• The ESPI Plan allowable amount of up to 28,286
  tons compares to the Courts goal of no more
  than 53,000 tons being spread in the Watershed
  in 2004.
• Average allowable litter application rate of 1.03
  ton/acre to 1.43 ton/acre compares to reported
  historical rates of 3.0 to 4.5 ton/acre
  (roughly 1/3 of the historical rates)

8
Overview of E/SWMT Activities and General
Results (Through End 2004)
Important Note The values shown above are
based on ESPI and PPM calculations developed for
PI comparative purposes. Actual NMP Plan
allowable rates in some cases are less than the
ESPI rate due to imposition of other controls
(OK-590 Standard or 300 mg/kg STP Threshold). In
addition, some applicants were only allowed ESPI
application rates significantly less than 1.0
ton/acre. In many of these cases (as yet
unknown) the applicant decided not to apply the
low allowable litter rate due either to
infeasibility or insufficient nitrogen value.
Consequently, the cumulative numbers shown above
represent the upper bound of the allowable litter
application in 2004 actual rates when data is
finally collected is expected to be some small
percentage less than the amounts indicated above.
9
Observations and Comments (Not approved by
Anyone)
10
0.037 mg/l
I have no information on the current water
quality conditions or results of ongoing Spavinaw
stream monitoring. By most accounts it would be
unreasonable to expect significant changes in
the first several years and if any apparently
significant changes are observed, they might be
transient and related to other variables.
11
Definition of Litter and Nutrients A.13. "Litter
" or "Poultry Litter" means all byproducts
associated with the confinement of poultry,
including excrement, feed waste, and bedding
materials.   A.15. "Nutrients" means poultry
Litter, and any other animal waste, manure, or
commercial fertilizer containing phosphorous.
Definition of PI   A.17. "PI" means the risk
based Phosphorous Index developed to govern the
terms and conditions under which Nutrients may be
land applied in the Watershed, as further
described in Section D of this Agreement, and
includes the numerical index system represented
thereby, the target objective or index necessary
to limit the land application of Nutrients, as
described therein, and any other associated
requirements, limits, or guidelines pertaining to
the land application of Nutrients as prescribed
by the PI developers. 
The PI Team has been co-opted and charged with an
enormously important and difficult task. PI
research and development is a leading-edge
scientific, academic, industry undertaking. I
frequently challenge the PI Team to make
management decisions and unanimous
recommendations that, as scientists, they are
not accustomed to making and for which they have
not completed their desired scientific
research. Justifiably, they frequently object.
12
Watershed Phosphorous Index   D.1. A new
phosphorous risk-based index ("PI) shall be
developed to govern the terms and conditions
under which any Nutrients may be land applied in
the Watershed. Although the PI, as developed or
with modification, may have broader application
or be of interest to other watersheds or parties
not involved in the Watershed, the PI shall be
developed particularly for the existing physical,
geological and hydrological conditions and
characteristics of the Watershed and the stated
goals and intent of this Agreement.  (Both ESPI
and PPM were in their own manner developed for
the E/S Watershed, but neither has been fully
calibrated and documented through field research
for the watershed to satisfy the Court or the
entire PI Team. Various Parties and PI Team
members might take exception to the wording of
this comment.)
13
Watershed Phosphorous Index (The Crucial
Language)
D.2. The PI shall be developed to achieve the
least amount of total phosphorous loading
reasonably attainable from each Application Site
to the Water Supply from all sources of
phosphorous on each such Application Site while
still meeting the agronomic requirements for the
growth of grasses, crops and other desirable
plant life.
If you were on the PI Team, how would you
interpret this crucial text? Note that ESPI
looks at Soluble P as a method of controlling the
least total amount of P, or does the language
absolutely require Total P as the
methodological parameter. Is loading onto the
field, or is it loading from each Application
Site to the Water Supply? How is transport
potential to be considered? Can more P be loaded
onto a site if the potential loading from the
site to the Water Supply is less for some
reason? What does reasonably attainable mean?
How is it measured? What are the agronomic
requirements for growth to be met? Phosphorous
only? Most fields are not deficient in P, so
would eliminate almost all litter. Nitrogen is
the real agronomic requirement for growth, but if
litter were allowed to be applied to meet the
full nitrogen requirement, then we would be back
to the historical rates and would be applying
excessive amounts of P. What about the practice
of stockpiling several years need for P to get
one full years nitrogen requirement?
14
Statement of Intent   C.1. It is the intent of
this Agreement to (1)... and (2) to ensure
that nutrient management protocols are used in
the Watershed to reduce the risk of harm to
Plaintiff's Water Supply due to the Land
Application of Nutrients and The City of
Decatur's WWTP discharge, while at the same time
recognizing the right of the Poultry Defendants
and their Growers to continue to conduct poultry
operations in the Watershed within such protocols
and the importance of clean lakes, safe drinking
water and a viable poultry industry to the
economies of Northeast Oklahoma and Northwest
Arkansas.
What are the measures for the stated values? How
do we measure these variables? Where is the
data? What is the balance point? Who decides? How
does the PI Team utilize this language? Also
note how the balance point and the measure might
be very different in this lawsuit involving a
private water rights/watershed issue, compared
to other watersheds having other public issues
and specific applicable norms.
15
Nutrient Management Plans and Grower
Contracts   G.1. ... Upon receipt of such
application, the assigned WMT member shall
personally visit the applicant's property to
properly evaluate the property and farming
operations for the purpose of preparing the NMP
and assigning an appropriate PI number. A new
written NMP shall be prepared by the WMT member
as soon as practicable after approval of the PI.
The WMT (...) shall retain the original of the
NMP deliver a copy to the applicant send a copy
to the Poultry Defendant with whom the Grower has
contracted, and send a copy to the
Plaintiffs.   G.2 All NMPs prepared by the WMT
shall be in substantially the same format and
contain such information, recommendations and
requirements as have generally been contained in
NMPs or other WMPs or similar documents
previously prepared by County Conservation
District, Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) offices and/or Cooperative Extension
offices. The NMP shall contain a PI number for
each pasture, crop land, or other tract of
property owned or farmed by the Grower or
Landowner that is part of an Application Site and
shall also explicitly contain all restrictions
imposed by any applicable state law, rule, or
regulation. This Agreement, the Court Orders
entered into the Case, the NMPs, the PI, and all
applicable state laws, rules and regulations
shall be construed together to give effect to
each other whenever possible provided that the
NMP, PI, this Agreement and the Court Orders
shall control over any conflicting law, rule or
regulation to the extent that the former provide
more stringent or restrictive protocols which are
more protective of the Watershed and the risk of
excessive nutrient loading to the Water Supply.
(We tread across a lot of jurisdictional
boundaries, toes, and industry providers, all of
whom have lent their full cooperation and
understanding, for which we say , Thank you.)
16
Other Observations

• The Grower Community initially felt left out
  and were apprehensive. Their
• livelihood and professionalism were in question.
• 2. Most Poultry Growers are quite professional,
  responsive, and serious about
• complying with the settlement agreement. Thanks
  to the professionalism of
• the 4-member E/SWMT, there is a good level of
  acceptance and cooperation.
• Cattle growers and other non-poultry grower
  landowners were surprised to find
• one of their most important sources of
  fertilizer suddenly either unavailable or
• under serious restrictions (both timing and
  supply).
• Most growers utilized sales of their litter to
  pay for clean-outs and re-supply of
• bedding material. Although there is still a
  market, the confusion, timing, and
• logistic issues make currently make it difficult
  for growers to obtain value from
• their litter (sometimes they have to pay to have
  it hauled away).
• Short turn-around times for clean-outs for
  growers are critical, therefore the
• effectiveness and efficiency of the E/SWMT to
  timely collect litter and soil
• samples, get the results and write plans is an
  important element of success.

17
Other Observations

• 6. NMPs have to be written for specific
  application sites based on specific soil
• tests and specific litter source analyses.
  This means that growers and landowners have to do
  much more fore-planning.
• The logistics of matching up growers with litter
  with landowners needing litter at specific,
  narrow time windows is beyond the scope of the
  E/SWMT, but we try.
• There are fewer clean-out service providers,
  haulers, and spreaders than before. These
  services are critical to the growers compliance.
  By and large they are not directly within the
  framework of the settlement agreement, yet their
  cooperation and documentation is critical.
• There numerous incipient business efforts focused
  on providing in-house composting, centralized
  composting, full service litter brokering to
  markets truly needing litter for the P value,
  etc., that eventually will solve the
  supply/demand/timing/logistics issues. They do
  not currently exist. The non-profit
  organization set up by the settlement agreement
  is doing the lead work in this arena. There are
  also private initiatives beginning to develop and
  the integrator companies are working on longer
  term solutions.

18
Other Observations

• Apparent decreasing trend in soluble and total P
  in litter from early
• 2004 to latter 2004. No one know why or if it
  is real. Insufficient
• understanding of what controls soluble P and
  Total P levels in litter and how it changes over
  time, storage, composting. Similarly with
  volumetrics and weights. This makes it difficult
  to account for all litter tonnage.
• The PI Team is generally recommending a
  continuation in 2005 of the settlement protocols
  that were approved by the Court for 2004. The PI
  Team is very interested in fully evaluating the
  2004 data together with 2005 data and in pursuing
  their independent and collaborative field
  research programs for PI development in the
  watershed.
• The UARK PI Team is still expecting to provide
  additional BMPs for utilization with their ESPI
  for fields at or near the PI Threshold of 55.

19
Other Observations Expectations for 2005

• Increased emphasis on volumetric measurement and
  estimation
• of produced litter, transported litter volumes,
  weights,
• and calibration of spreaders.
• Increased emphasis on real-time record keeping
  and attestations
• by the growers, rather than reliance on service
  providers who report
• elsewhere at years end. Although this is not a
  specific requirement
• of the settlement agreement, the Parties all
  want this information as
• as accurately and timely as possible.
• The settlement agreement envisions eventual
  transition to employment
• of E/SWMT members by state agencies. Currently
  in negotiation.
• Increased emphasis on BMPs to lower predicted P
  transport.
• Begin to utilize PPM predictions to identify
  (relative) high risk fields for P
• transport and add that evaluation into NMP
  planning to lower the predicted
• risk, in addition to ESPI. This will be as a
  management tool, not a control requirement.

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
John Everett, J.D., P.E. Watershed Engineering
Design, PLC
30
Q A
Comments
Thanks, The End