Number 83    		                        May 1997         		              ISSN 1062-9149

PROJECT SPOTLIGHT

Monitoring of both land treatment and water quality is necessary to document the effectiveness of nonpoint source pollution controls in restoring water quality. The Section 319 National Monitoring Program, administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is designed to support watershed projects throughout the country that meet a minimum set of project planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation requirements. The requirements are designed to lead to successful documentation of project effectiveness with respect to water quality protection or improvement. The National Monitoring Progr am projects comprise a small subset of nonpoint source control projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. The following article continues a series describing these projects.

Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Oregon)
Section 319 National Monitoring Program Project

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Labs

Project Synopsis

The Upper Grande Ronde Basin (695 square miles) is located in the Columbia Intermontane Central Mountains of northeast Oregon. The Grande Ronde River traverses forest and grazing lands draining into the Snake River, a major tributary of the Columbia River . Land ownership in the Upper Basin is 53% private and 47% federal. The Upper Grande Ronde Section 319 National Monitoring Program project is located on a mixture of private and public lands, most of which are within the ceded lands of the Confederated Tr ibes of the Umatilla Indian Reserva- tion (CTUIR), a culturally significant area.

The region in which the project is located is characterized by rugged mountains in the headwater areas. Temperature and precipitation vary with elevation, which ranges from 2,300 to 7,800 feet. The semi-arid climate is characterized by warm, dry summers a nd cold, moist winters. At elevations above 5,000 ft, mean annual precipitation is greater than 50 inches (Bach, 1995).

Slopes vary throughout the basin, being relatively gentle in the valley and steeper (some as high as 90%) in the upper parts of the watershed (Bach, 1995). The combination of slope, rainfall, and snowpack can lead to large runoff events in the mid and upp er elevations.

Historically, the watershed has been important for anadromous fish production; however, over the past 25 years fish numbers have been declining. Land use activities, including grazing, timber harvest, road construction, and hydroelectric power production have been cited as contributing to degradation of habitat for fish and other aquatic species. Several fish species that occur in basin waters are listed by federal or state agencies as endangered or sensitive: the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon, the Bull trout, and the Snake River summer steelhead.

Water temperature and loss of physical habitat have been identified by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) as the most important factors affecting spring Chinook salmon and steelhead populations (Hafele, 1996). An important cause of increased stream temperatur e is loss of riparian vegetation due to grazing practices and channel modifications. It has been estimated that land use activities have significantly reduced stream shading (Hafele, 1996). As a result of these and other water quality violations (primaril y pH), the Grande Ronde is listed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) as water quality limited.

In 1993, ODEQ initiated a monitoring program to evaluate basin biological communities and physical and chemical factors affecting them. The program has been designated as an EPA Section 319 National Monitoring Program project. The monitoring effort target s five subbasins within the Upper Grande Ronde Basin. A paired watershed approach is being used to document changes in stream temperatures and aquatic communities as a result of best management practice (BMP) implementation in treatment and control subbas ins. Water quality and aquatic habitats in both subbasins has been significantly degraded. Upstream/ downstream sites have been monitored in both of the subbasins to evaluate changing land use along individual streams. Three additional subbasins represent ing a range of water quality and habitat conditions are being used as controls.

Habitat, macroinvertebrates, fish, and water quality are being monitored. Significant measures of success will be a reduction in maximum summer temperatures, improved habitat for aquatic life, and increased biotic index scores for fish and macroinvertebra tes.

The Upper Grande Ronde Basin 319 National Monitoring Program project has evolved through local, state, and tribal cooperation and is a major component of the Grande Ronde Watershed Enhancement Project, a cooperative effort of ODEQ, EPA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Union County Soil and Water Conservation District. In 1995, a watershed assessment was completed by ODEQ (Bach, 1995). ODEQ is currently carrying out a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study and developing waste load allo cations for the basin. The USFS has developed a restoration plan for anadromous fish in the Upper Grande Ronde Basin (Hafele, 1996). Stream habitat restoration activities will be implemented on McCoy Creek in cooperation with the landowner and CTUIR.

Pre-Project Water Quality

Important beneficial uses of the streams that drain the watershed include cold water fish migration, spawning, and rearing; domestic and agricultural water supply; primary and secondary contact recreation; and wildlife habitat. The designated beneficial u ses of concern in the basin include anadromous populations of spring/summer Chinook salmon, summer steelhead, and resident populations of Bull trout.

Most water chemistry violations (primarily pH) in the basin occur in the main stem of the Grande Ronde. Water chemistry results indicate that no significant water chemistry problems were observed for 10 study sites in the project based on 16 variables. Mo nitoring of habitat conditions indicates a range of habitat conditions in the five creeks. Problem areas include channelized banks, little riparian vegetation, and shallow pools and riffles.

Water temperature is a significant factor affecting both water quality and biological communities in the Grande Ronde. Temperature in the basin has been characterized by placing continuous recording thermographs at the top and bottom of each stream reach selected for bioassessment. For the Grande Ronde Basin the water temperature standard is based on the 7-day mean of the daily maximums, which should not exceed 17.8oC for cold water species when salmonids are not spawning or 12.8oC during salmonid spawnin g and incubation. The 17.8oC temperature maximum applies to the study sites during July, August and September. This maximum temperature was exceeded at all sites. The sites on three of the creeks generally exceeded the standard throughout the sampling per iod.

Project Water Quality Objectives

Project objectives are to

• improve salmonid and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in McCoy Creek by restoring habitat quality and lowering stream temperatures and

• quantitatively document a cause-and-effect relationship between improved habitat, lower water temperatures, and improved salmonid and macroinvertebrate communities.

Differences in fish and macroinvertebrate communities and pre-project water quality results suggest that the above objectives can be achieved. The results of snorkel surveys for fish completed during the summers of 1994 and 1995 highlight several interest ing factors. Rainbow trout were present in all streams, including Meadow and McCoy Creeks, where summer temperatures exceed 25oC, well above the acceptable range for trout. Temperature measurements indicate a 5oC gradient was present in pools as shallow a s 18 inches. These areas of temperature refugia appear to be critical for fish survival.

Fish communities at Meadow and McCoy creeks were dominated by warm water red-sided shiner and dace. These species were scarce or completely absent at the other study sites, presumably because of cooler water temperatures. It is expected that fish communit ies will shift from one dominated by red-sided shiner and dace to one dominated by trout in the McCoy reaches if water temperatures can be lowered by restoration work. Macroinvertebrate results from 1993 show a similar pattern to fish surveys and temperat ure results. It is expected that if temperatures in McCoy Creek can be improved through habitat restoration, macroinvertebrate and fish communities will respond favorably.

NPS Pollution Control Strategy

The nonpoint source treatment will consist of stream channel and riparian restoration activities on the lower reach of McCoy Creek. Lower McCoy Creek is characterized by channelized banks, little riparian vegetation, and shallow pools and riffles. Streamb ank stabilization and riparian revegetation represent the minimal restoration to be implemented. Increasing the width-to-depth ratio and restoring the wet meadow conditions should increase riparian canopy and shading. More intensive restoration activities may be used to restore the old channel network and allow the stream to meander along its old bed. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation will coordinate the restoration work in cooperation with ODEQ.

Water Quality Monitoring Design

A paired watershed approach is being used for the McCoy Creek (treatment) and Dark Canyon (control) subbasins to document changes in stream temperatures and aquatic communities due to BMP implementation. Upstream/downstream monitoring sites will be used in both subbasins. Three other control subbasins represent a range of water quality and habitat conditions.

Variables being monitored are habitat, fish, macroinvertebrates, pH, continuous water temperature, specific conductivity, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, total organic carbon, total solids, suspended solids, total and ort ho phosphate, nitrate + nitrite, total nitrogen, and turbidity. Covariates include continuous air temperature, discharge, shading and solar input, time of travel, slope or gradient, and width/depth measurements.

Water quality monitoring is conducted from April through October. Air and water temperature are measured continuously at each site throughout the monitoring season. Habitat and macroinvertebrate surveys are conducted three times per year. Fish snorkel s urveys are carried out once per monitoring season. Methods used to identify sites are based on a modified Hankin and Reeves procedure (Hafele, 1996). Habitat and macroinvertebrate assessment procedures follow Oregon's biomonitoring protocols.

Time of travel data, to be used in temperature modeling, were collected in 1996 and will be collected again after habitat restoration work is completed. In 1996, pool volumes and detailed temperature refugia measurements were collected. Photo and video do cumentation taken at all study sites during summer low flows will provide before and after documentation of habitat conditions.

Water Quality Data Management & Analysis

Water quality data are stored and maintained locally by ODEQ, and also in USEPA's STORET database. The NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS) will also be used for data storage and reporting. Data will be shared among participating agencies. Data ana lysis will involve performing statistical tests for detecting trends in water and habitat quality and aquatic communities.

Importance of the Project

There has been little quantitative documentation of the effects of habitat restoration on stream temperatures and aquatic communities. The Upper Grande Ronde Basin project will provide useful information on the effects of riparian restoration on fish and macroinvertebrate habitat.

For Further Information

Administration and Water Quality Monitoring

Rick Hafele, Biomonitoring Supervisor
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
1712 S.W. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97201
Tel: 503-229-5983; Fax: 503-229-6924
Internet: rick.hafele@state.or.us

Land Treatment

Mike Purser, Forest Hydrologist
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 638 Pendleton, OR 97801
Tel: 503-278-5206; Fax: 503-276-0540

References

Bach, L.B. 1995. River Basin Assessment: Upper/Middle Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Watershed Health Program.

Hafele, R. 1996. National Monitoring Program Project Description and Preliminary Results for the Upper Grande Ronde River Nonpoint Source Study. Draft. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

EXTENSION EXCHANGE

Livestock Waste Management in North Carolina:
Challenges and Opportunities

INTRODUCTION

Waste management is recognized as an important environmental and social issue for several reasons. First, poultry and livestock waste can have negative impacts on surface and ground water quality unless it is properly managed. Second, the public is incre asingly concerned about odor and other nuisance issues associated with animal waste. Finally, concerns have been raised about the increasing size and vertical integration of modern poultry and livestock operations.

The political context for waste management is also important. To address public concerns about water quality, the N. C. General Assembly enacted regulations in 1993 that require many livestock and poultry producers to implement waste management practices . Swine and cattle operations with more than a specified number of animals are required to develop and implement "certified" plans for proper waste management. Poultry producers are required to take steps to ensure sound litter management.

The regulations place responsibility for developing and using waste management plans with the agricultural community. Flexibility is provided for farmers to adapt best management practices (BMPs) to site-specific conditions. Effective and acceptable BMPs are available for minimizing environmental impacts of waste. Not all producers, however, may be able to afford recommended BMPs. Others may not be willing or able to use some practices. Thus, it is important to understand what farmers are doing and think ing about waste management.

This article summarizes a project examining attitudes of and waste management practices used by a random sample of 1,059 North Carolina livestock and poultry producers (Hoban and Clifford, 1995). The project was designed to (1) determine and describe th e types of waste management practices being used, (2) determine the factors that can influence producers' willingness and ability to use waste management practices, (3) assess producers' attitudes about and general understanding of waste management practi ces and government regulations, and (4) recommend new or expanded education or assistance programs.

SELECTED RESULTS

Waste Management Practices

When properly conducted, land application is an effective waste management practice to prevent nonpoint source pollution from animal operations. Over two-thirds of all respondents reported using land application of waste. Dairy producers were most likely to land apply, followed by poultry and swine producers. Among the swine producers, those with 1,000 or more animals were significantly more likely to land apply than producers with fewer animals. Swine producers who were under contract with an integrate d company were almost twice as likely to land apply as were those not raising swine under contracts. One-third of all respondents, primarily poultry producers, said they sold or gave away all or some of their waste for use off the farm.

Several questions measured the effectiveness of waste management practices. Equipment calibration can ensure that proper amounts of waste are applied to fields. Just over a third of those who land applied had calibrated their equipment during the past f ive years. Calibration was most common among poultry and swine producers.

Some fields require various types of management practices to control water quality problems. The data in this study did not allow us to determine the actual need for such practices that particular producers may have on their land. With that disclaimer i n mind, results showed that over half of the producers who land applied reported that they had buffer strips, terraces, or other water quality control practices installed on the fields where they apply waste. This was highest for dairy producers. Among swine producers, over half of those with more than 250 animals had such practices, compared to only one-third of those with smaller operations. Most of those who land applied said they had reduced fertilizer costs by using waste on their land. Poultry and dairy producers were significantly more likely to have reduced fertilizer costs. Larger-scale swine producers were much more likely to report reduced fertilizer use than were those with fewer animals.

Waste Management Planning

One of the keys to effective waste management is a written waste management plan. Only about one third of all the livestock and poultry producers reported having a written plan for waste management and utilization. Swine and dairy producers were most li kely to have a plan. The differences between all three size classes of swine producers are significant. Three quarters of those with 1,000 or more animals had a written plan, compared to about half of those with between 250 and 999 animals. Few swine p roducers with less than 250 animals had a written plan. Producers who raised swine under contract were almost three times as likely to have a plan as those not under contract.

Effective waste management planning also requires technical information about the nutrient value of both soil and waste material. Two thirds of all producers reported having had their soil tested for nutrients during the previous five years. The number r eporting soil tests was higher for dairy and beef cattle producers. Just over a third of all producers reported having had their waste tested for nutrients during the previous five years. Beef producers were much less likely to report such testing than t he other groups. Swine producers under contract were more likely to report having had their waste tested.

WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Many factors influence producers' willingness and ability to successfully implement waste management practices. This is particularly true for practices that are relatively new or unfamiliar. The most important stated influence on producers' waste manageme nt decisions involved the ability of the practice to control water pollution. Over two-thirds of the whole sample said that was "very important." The next most important influences reported were cost of the practice and the ability to grow profitable cro ps. Some significant differences were noted among the various groups of producers.

Another important influence on producers' decisions about the use of waste management practices is the amount of information available from various sources. Producers get useful information primarily from four sources: farm magazines and newspapers, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Cooperative Extension Service, and other producers. Almost two-thirds of all producers said they either needed little or no more information. Swine and dairy producers were more likely to see the need for addi tional information than were poultry and beef producers.

Results indicate satisfaction with current practices and general reluctance to change. When asked directly, most respondents said they did not plan to make any changes in the way they manage waste. The intention to change was highest among dairy and swin e producers. Smaller-scale swine producers appeared less likely to change relative to the mid-sized and larger groups. Most said they were "very satisfied" with their current waste management system in terms of water pollution and odor control. Dairy pro ducers tended to be least satisfied, followed by swine producers, especially those not under contract.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Differences Among Producer Groups

The groups of producers clearly differ in their attitudes and behaviors. Such differences reflect unique characteristics of each type of operation. Many poultry growers seem to have already settled on the type of waste management system they use. Severa l reasons for this can be suggested. Most growers have dry litter management systems and are not required to have a certified waste management plan; but they are required to keep records about their litter application. Almost the entire poultry industr y in North Carolina is vertically integrated. Many of the growers' decisions are set by the company with whom they contract. Many have their houses cleaned and waste hauled by contractors, which further removes them from waste management decision-making. Among poultry producers, turkey growers seem to be the most informed and more likely to be using the recommended practices for controlling water pollution.

The swine industry has come under the most public criticism for waste management. It is not surprising, then, that the swine producers seem to be very concerned about and generally in compliance with the regulations. Many were also looking for ways to i mprove their own waste management. Swine producers seem to have the most to gain from improved waste management practices, especially given the fact that almost all their waste is stored and used on their farm. Larger swine producers seem most willing to change and receptive to more information and assistance. They also tend to be least satisfied with their current situations. Those under contract appeared to be motivated to practice sound waste management by the company for whom they raise swine. Many contracts, in fact, specify the types of waste management expected. Dairy producers as a group seem to be most aware of and concerned about waste management issues. Like the swine producers, dairy farmers (especially those with larger herds) appear willin g to change and are receptive to information and assistance. This may be due to the fact that they have a tradition of being more closely regulated, mainly from the standpoint of public health related to their dairy production facilities. Because milk is produced on the dairy farm, public health agencies and the dairy industry have long recognized the relationship between cleanliness on the farm and the safety of dairy products. On the other hand, in commercial swine and poultry production, no edible pro ducts are actually derived until the animals have left the farm. Therefore, cleanliness in the swine and poultry houses is less likely to be directly related to the quality of the finished food products.

Implications for Policies, Education, and Research

At the time of the survey, North Carolina livestock and poultry producers seemed to be reasonably satisfied with their existing animal waste management. Almost half claimed to have no need for additional information or technical assistance. Most producer s seemed to see little reason to change their current practices. Many producers, however, had probably not yet realized the full implications of the state regulations.

Although it is too early to evaluate the impacts of the regulations, survey results do indicate that the recently enacted rules are having an impact on those producers who are required to comply. For example, those swine and dairy producers with more ani mals than the numbers specified by law were better informed about waste management and tended to have more appropriate waste management practices. They also tended to anticipate a greater influence of the rules on their own waste management practices.

This research should help dispel the popular myth that larger-scale, "corporate" farms are less concerned about the environment than smaller-scale, "independent" operations. The general trend is for larger scale producers to be doing a significantly bette r job of waste management. Smaller scale producers may be more in need of assistance and information. Unfortunately, they also appear less likely to recognize the need for such assistance. The industry, Extension Service, and government agencies need to make a special effort to promote sound waste management among all producers, not just those affected by the regulations.

Results of this research provide some guidance for Extension educational programs on waste management. Although many producers do not think they need more information, results indicate that they could benefit from more education. Educational efforts can build awareness of waste management problems and understanding of management practices. Programs should also help producers understand the potential implications of public policies and social issues.

Education and technical assistance efforts should be targeted to smaller scale producers and others who are resistant to change. Farm magazines and newspapers may prove to be a particularly effective way for reaching all types of producers. Extension sp ecialists and others should contribute articles on waste management to such publications. Other farmers can also influence producers' waste management decisions.

Future research needs to evaluate the extent of compliance and the impacts of the regulations on producers. Since the survey was conducted, important developments have influenced animal waste management. In response to several significant animal waste sp ills, the N. C. General Assembly and Governor have called for more aggressive inspection of waste lagoons and stronger penalties for livestock and poultry operations that do not manage waste in compliance with an approved management plan. As a result, pro ducers are likely to be much less complacent than they were at the time of the survey and more willing to upgrade their management practices. Results of this project provide important baseline information against which future progress can be evaluated. < p> The more we can learn about the social aspects of waste management, the better we will be able to ensure that production agriculture will continue to play an important role in our economic system. At the same time, social science research can help ensure that public concerns, such as water quality and odor, will be addressed in a more effective, efficient, and equitable manner.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Thomas J. Hoban and William B. Clifford
Campus Box 8107, NC State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8107
Thomas J. Hoban: email: tom@server.sasw.ncsu.edu
William B. Clifford: email: william_clifford@ncsu.edu

REFERENCES

Hoban, T. J. and W. B. Clifford. 1995. Managing North Carolina's Livestock Waste: Challenges and Opportunities. Dept. Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 27p.

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

Qualifications: Masters or Ph.D. degree in agricultural or biological engineering, natural resources, water resources management, civil engineering, soil science, hydrology, forestry, or other environmental field is required. Course work and profe ssional experience in hydrology; wetland science and management; water quality; nonpoint source pollution control; biological monitoring; water resource and regulatory management; water quality monitoring design; GIS; statistics; and stormwater management is desirable. Strong writing, oral communication, and organizational skills are essential. Applicants should demonstrate a strong interest in inter-disciplinary education, research, and outreach to address water quality protection issues.

Send resume, transcripts, and list of 3 references by May 31, 1997 to: Dr. Jean Spooner, Group Leader, NCSU Water Quality Group, Box 7637 - NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7637, Tel: (919) 515-3723, Fax: (919) 515-7448, email: jean_spooner@ncsu.edu

MEETINGS - 1997

Water Resources, Education, Training, and Practice: AWRA 1997 Annual Symp: June 29-Jul 3, Keystone Resort, CO. AWRA, 950 Herndon Pkwy, Ste 300, Herndon, VA 22070-5528, Tel: 703-904-1225, Fax: 703-904-1228, email: AWRAHQ@AOL.COM

Coastal Zone '97 - Charting the Future of Coastal Zone Management: Jul 20-26, Boston, MA.Jessica Cogan, Tel: 202-260-7154, Fax: 202-260-9960, email: cogan.jessica@epamail.epa.gov

Soil and Water Conservation Soc - 52nd Annual Conf- Managing Ecosystems on a Watershed Basis: Jul 22-25, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. SWCS, 7515 NE Ankeny Rd, Ankeny, IA 50021-9764, Tel: 515-289-2331 or 800-THE-SOIL, Fax: 515-289-1227, email: swcs@swc s.org, web site: http://www.swcs.org

American Soc Agric Engineers - International Annual Mtg: Aug 10-14, Minneapolis, MN. ASAE Society Services Group, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659, Tel: 616-429-0300, Fax: 616-429-3852, email: hq@asae.org

5th Symp on Biogeochemistry of Wetlands: Sept 16-19, London, UK. Royal Holloway Inst for Environmental Research, Royal Holloway Univ of London, Huntersdale, Callow Hill, Virginia Water, GU25 4LN, UK, Tel: 44-0-1784-477404, Fax: 44-0-1784-477427, em ail: rhier@rhbnc.ac.uk, web site: http://www.vms.rhbnc.ac.uk/~uhfa060/POSTER.HTM

WEFTEC '97 International Conf: Oct 18-22, Chicago, IL. Water Environment Federation, Tel: 800-666-0206

AWRA 33rd Annual Conf & Symp: Oct 19-23, Long Beach, CA. AWRA, 950 Herndon Pkwy, Ste. 300, Herndon, VA 22070-5531, Tel: 703-904-1225, Fax: 703-904-1228, email: awrahq@aol.com

Internet Resources

There is a list of water-related calls for papers and meeting announcements on the World Wide Web at:

http://www.inform.umd.edu:8080/EdRes/Topic/AgrEnv/Water/Water-Related _Events/meetings.txt

EDITOR'S NOTE

NWQEP NOTES is issued bimonthly. Subscriptions are free (contact: Publications Coordinator at the address below or via email: wq_puborder@ncsu.edu). A publications order form listing all publications on nonpoint source pollution distributed by the NCSU Water Quality Group is included in each hardcopy issue of the newsletter and is also available at: http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/bae/programs/extension/wqg/issues/pub_order.html.

Your views, findings, information, and suggestions for articles are welcome.

Judith A. Gale, Editor
Editor, NWQEP NOTES
Water Quality Extension Specialist
NCSU Water Quality Group
Campus Box 7637, NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27695-7637
email: notes_editor@ncsu.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Production of NWQEP NOTES is funded through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Grant No. X818397. Project Officer: Steven A. Dressing, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, Office of Water, USEPA (4503F), 499 South Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20460, Tel: 202-260-7110, Fax: 202-260-1977, email: dressing.steven@epamail.epa.gov, Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS