Some Insight Into Oregon GWMAs Presented to: Lower Yakima Valley - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Water Quality Program

Some Insight Into Oregon GWMAs

Presented to: Lower Yakima Valley GWMA Advisory Committee Presented on: February 21, 2013 Presented by: Phil Richerson Nonpoint Source Hydrogeologist Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 700 SE Emigrant, Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 278-4604 Richerson.Phil@deq.state.or.us

Water Quality Program

• What is a GWMA in Oregon?
• How does it work?
• What is the goal?
• Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs
• How is success gauged?
• Where is the nitrate coming from?
• Physical Setting (soils and hydrology)
• BMPs being followed
• Nitrate concentrations and trends
• Current status
• Lessons Learned

Today’s Topics

Water Quality Program

What is a GWMA? Oregon’s Groundwater Protection Act requires DEQ to declare a GWMA if groundwater contamination (resulting from nonpoint source activities) exceeds certain trigger levels. In most cases, the trigger level is 50% of a federal drinking water standard. In the case of nitrate, the trigger level is 70%

• f the 10 ppm federal drinking water

standard (i.e., 7 ppm).

Water Quality Program

How Does an Oregon GWMA Work?

• An Action Plan is developed by a

local Citizen Advisory Committee with DEQ and ODA oversight.

• The Action Plan details a voluntary

program led by a “lead agency”.

• The goal of the plan is to reduce

nitrate to less than 7 mg/l.

• If the goal is not met, regulatory

measures may be considered.

Water Quality Program

How Many GWMAs Are There?

Water Quality Program

Malheur County

Oregon

Annex Vale Nyssa Ontario

Oregon Idaho

Approximate Scale (miles)

5 10 15 20

Weiser

95

Bully Creek Owyhee Willow Creek Snake River S n a k e R i v e r Snake River 201

84

20

Vale Nyssa Adrian O n t a r i

• Fruitland

Payette

20 26 26 201 201 201

20

Explanation

Major Road River or Major Creek

Ontario

City Groundwater Management Area Boundary

95

Lytle Blvd Scale (miles) 5

Location and Boundary of the Northern Malheur County Groundwater Management Area

The boundary of the Groundwater Management Area starts at the mouths of the Malheur and Owyhee Rivers where they converge with the Snake River and extends to the uppermost irrigation canals. 84 River

River

Adrian

Annex

Water Quality Program

Lower Umatilla Basin GWMA

• 550 square mile area
• Declared in 1990
• Nitrate in groundwater > 7 mg/l
• Nonpoint source pollution
• Contributions from multiple land uses

7 3

84

COLUMBIA RIVER UMATILLA ORDANCE DEPOT BOARDMAN BOMBING RANGE

82

395 395 7 3 SR 207 S R 2 7 SR 320

Echo Hwy

Boardman Irrigon Umatilla Hermiston Stanfield Echo

Approximate Scale (miles) 1 2 3

5N 4N 3N 25E 26E 27E 28E 29E

Westland Rd Bombing Range Rd

COLD SPRINGS RESERVOIR

Threemile Canyon Sixmile Canyon

Tower Rd K u n z e R d W i l s

• n

R d

CARTY RESERVOIR

24E 23E 3N 4N

Umatilla County Morrow County Morrow County Gilliam County

LUB GWMA Boundaries North: Columbia River South: 2N/3N Township Boundary East: 29E/30E Range Boundary West: 22E/23E Range Boundary (also the Morrow / Gilliam County line)

S t a n f i e l d L

• p

R d

Water Quality Program

Pendleton Hermiston Boardman Irrigon Umatilla Stanfield Echo Ione Pilot Rock Lexington

Legend

Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area Ordnance Basalt Critical Groundwater Area Ordnance Gravel Critical Groundwater Area Butter Creek Critical Groundwater Area Ella Butte Classified Groundwater Area Stage Gulch Critical Groundwater Area

ODEQ = Oregon Department of Environmental Quality OWRD = Oregon Water Resources Department

10 10 5 Miles

• Most overdraft is in the deeper basalt aquifer,

(focus of 4 of 5 OWRD Restricted Use Areas). Most nitrate contamination is in the shallow alluvial aquifer (focus of GWMA)

Overlap of LUB GWMA and Critical Groundwater Areas

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

Physical Setting Soils

NMC soils consist almost entirely of well-drained silt

• loams. The vast majority of soils have permeability rates

from moderately slow to moderate. pH is typically >7 and can be >9. LUB soils consist of well-drained fine sandy loams and sandy loams. The soils are low in clay and nutrients, contain little organic matter, with a pH range from 6.5 to 7.8 in the near surface and up to 9.0 in deeper soil.

LUB soils are coarser and drain faster

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

Physical Setting Hydrology

NMC GWMA includes everything from the uppermost irrigation canal downhill to the Snake and Malheur Rivers. Much of the area is flood plain. LUB GWMA contains some flood plains but also substantial amounts of uplands. The average depth to water is deeper in the LUB than in NMC.

NMC groundwater likely moves faster than LUB groundwater.

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

Nitrate Sources

The 1995 technical report titled “Hydrogeology, Groundwater Chemistry, & Land Use in the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area” identified five significant sources of nitrate loading to groundwater: (1) Confined Animal Feeding Operations, (2) Irrigated Agriculture, (3) Land Application of Food Processing Water (4) Septic Systems (rural residential areas), and (5) Umatilla Chemical Depot Washout Lagoon

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

Nitrate Sources

Traditional irrigated agriculture is the largest source

• f nitrate in groundwater in the NMC GWMA.

Other sources of nitrate include CAFOs, land application of food processing wastewater & septic systems.

Irrigated agriculture is the largest source of nitrate in both GWMAs.

Water Quality Program

Nitrate Loading Estimate DEQ (with input from ODA and OSU) produced an estimate of nitrate loading to identify source categories in which changes in management practices have the greatest potential to improve groundwater quality on a regional scale.

Water Quality Program

Over two-thirds of the GWMA is zoned for agricultural use

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program Assumed Efficiency Percent of Nitrogen Leached to Groundwater

• 2% = lawns and

CAFO waste on dry land crops

• 3.5% = good and excellent quality pastures
• 5% = food processors
• 10% = irrigated agriculture
• 50% = gardens
• 80% = poor quality pastures
• 85% = on-site systems
• 100% = Depot washout lagoon

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program

The sources of nitrate identified in the 1997 LUB GWMA Action Plan contribute significantly different amounts of nitrogen to groundwater, and can be classified into three tiers differing by approximately an order of magnitude: Tier One – Irrigated Agriculture (81.6%) Tier Two – Pastures (8.1%), food processors (4.6%), and

• n-site septic systems (3.9%).

Tier Three - Lawns (0.9%), CAFO waste applied to dry land crops (0.7%), vegetable gardens (0.3%), and the Depot Washout Lagoon (0.09%)

Nitrate Loading Estimate Conclusions

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

Nitrate Sources

CAFOs in the LUB GWMA: 12 permitted facilities 172,100 animal permitted 126,860 animals last reported CAFOs in the NMC GWMA: 43 permitted facilities 76,150 animals permitted CAFOs in the SWV GWMA: 9 permitted facilities 6,485 animals permitted

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

BMPs being followed

BMPs tailored to each source of nitrate Irrigated Agriculture: It is recognized that any solution to reducing nitrogen in the groundwater must reduce nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation water application rates. BMPs recommended to address nitrate contamination include those to manage the amount, form, placement, and timing of applications of plant nutrients.

Nutrient management and water management are the keys to success.

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

BMPs being followed

CAFOs: Use both Structural and Management BMPs Structural BMPs include:

• Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure.
• Composting of manure solids.
• Composting of a mix of manure solids/straw/waste feed/ dead animals.
• Liquid waste storage lagoons
• Liquid waste evaporation ponds
• Solid waste storage facilities
• Liquid feed storage facilities
• Solid feed storage facilities with leachate/storm water collection systems
• Physical barriers /diversions (curbs, berms, walls, etc.) to keep manure and process

wastewater inside the facility and clean stormwater on the outside of the facility

• Vegetated treatment areas (aka filter strips)
• Covered manure storage areas
• Gutters on buildings to keep clean rainwater away from manure.
• Manure treatment (additives or aeration)
• Manure collection, transfer and application systems.

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

BMPs being followed

CAFOs: Use both Structural and Management BMPs Management BMPs include:

• Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP) required for all permitted facilities. AWMP includes a

federal CAFO Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan minimum requirements.

• Nutrient management (NRCS 590) net nutrient application cannot exceed crop removal. Lists

right time, place, amount (rate) and form of nutrients are applied.

• Operation and maintenance(O&M) of all structural BMPs. Only proper operation of structural

BMPs delivers the designed water quality improvements.

• Crop, forage and pasture / range management.
• Irrigation water management. No over irrigation that flushes nutrients below the crop root zone.
• Soil, crop, manure and compost sampling to determine if permittee is achieving compliance.
• Ground water sampling.

Waste collection/storage/treatment, nutrient management, and water management are the keys to success.

Water Quality Program

Compare and Contrast Two GWMAs

How is Success Gauged?

The NMC GWMA Action Plan specifies 4 ways to gauge success: Specific measures of improving water quality:

• 1. area-wide concentration of 7 mg/l
• 2. trend analysis showing 7 mg/l by 2000,
• 3. decreasing area-wide trend, &
• 4. Adoption of Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Water Quality Program

Summary of Three Trend Analyses

Analysis #1 (1991 through 1999) Area-wide nitrate concentrations are flat (no longer increasing). BMPs are being implemented. Analysis #2 (1991 through 2005) Area-wide nitrate concentrations are decreasing. Analysis #3 (1991 through 2009) Area-wide nitrate concentrations are still decreasing.

BMPs were adopted early. Decreasing area-wide trend came later.

Water Quality Program

There are now 8 increasing & 21 decreasing trends 34% of stations have averages of 7 ppm or less

Water Quality Program

There continues to be a statistically significant downward area-wide trend. THIS IS GOOD!

Water Quality Program

The area-wide trend was flat for several years before it started to decline.

Water Quality Program

There are more indications of improving water quality than worsening water quality.

The most important indicators (area-wide trend, # of increasing trends, and # of decreasing trends) are all in the “Improving Water Quality” column.

The report concludes: the third measure of Action Plan success has been met continued (perhaps expanded) BMP implementation is needed to attain and maintain improvements

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program

The fact that some locations exhibiting worsening trends are in the upper portions of the GWMA highlights the importance of continued, and perhaps expanded, implementation of BMPs

Change in Nitrate Trends

Location at which nitrate levels worsened since the previous analysis (i.e., the nitrate trend either increased steeper or declined less steeply).

13 locations exhibited declining water quality.

Location at which nitrate levels improved since the previous analysis (i.e., the nitrate trend either increased less steeply or declined steeper).

24 locations exhibited improving water quality.

Water Quality Program The people at the OSU Experiment Station, OSU Extension, SWCD, Watershed Councils, and the local growers themselves

Who Deserves Credit for this Success?

because they are the ones that have identified, promoted, and implemented the BMPs. DEQ’s role has been to provide financial aid for BMP research and outreach, and to analyze the data.

Water Quality Program

Gauging Success in LUB GWMA

The 1997 Action Plan identifies specific ways to gauge success as well as the parties to conduct the assessment. Measurable goals for each nitrate source are at 4, 8, & 12 years after Action Plan adoption. The 1st and 2nd evaluations of Action Plan success concluded “sufficient progress has been made to continue the voluntary nature of the Action Plan”. The first formal evaluation including the area-wide trend was scheduled for early 2010.

Water Quality Program

Analysis of Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations The Action Plan developed in 1997 calls for decreasing nitrate trends throughout most of the GWMA by the end of 2009. To assess the decreasing trend goal as well as the general nitrate concentrations, DEQ evaluated nitrate data from the following sources:

Water Quality Program

Analysis of Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations

• GWMA well network (~38 wells)
• Food Processor Wastewater Application Sites (141 wells)
• Three Mile Canyon Farms monitoring wells (15 wells)
• Public Supply wells (3 wells)
• Depot Landfill wells (5 wells)
• 1992 & 2009 Synoptic Sampling Events (107 wells)
• Real Estate Transaction database (372 wells)

Water Quality Program

Trends at LUB GWMA Well Network

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program

Slope (ppm/yr) Confidence Level Oct 1991 thru Nov 1998 7 0.098 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 1999 8 0.080 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2000 9 0.075 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2001 10 0.066 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2002 11 0.062 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2003 12 0.050 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2004 13 0.040 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2005 14 0.037 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2006 15 0.032 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2007 16 0.025 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2008 17 0.023 99% Oct 1991 thru Nov 2009 18 0.018 99% Timeframe Years of data Area-Wide Trend

Area-Wide Trend Over Time

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program

The groundwater system is complex. No consistent geographic pattern is evident. Large differences can occur in relatively short distances.

Water Quality Program

The groundwater system is complex. No consistent geographic pattern is evident. Large differences can occur in relatively short distances.

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program

Conclusions from Recent Documents Nitrate levels in the LUB GWMA are high and trends are not declining. Irrigated agriculture is the largest potential source of nitrogen.

Water Quality Program

Current Status – LUB GWMA

The LUB GWMA Committee recently approved the Third Evaluation of LUBGWMA Action Plan Success. It calls for a continued voluntary approach and recognizes the need for additional research, outreach, and documentation of current practices. It is currently being signed by the directors of DEQ and Oregon Dpt of Agriculture. The LUB GWMA Committee is beginning to work on a Second LUBGWMA Action Plan and an Outreach / Communications Plan

Water Quality Program

Current Status – LUB GWMA

There is still work to be done to figure out how to use fertilizer and water more efficiently on crops grown in the LUB GWMA including:

• wheat,
• corn,
• potatoes, and
• onions.

Utilizing fertilizer and water more efficiently can reduce the amount of nitrogen leached to groundwater while still allowing acceptable crop quality and yield. Research work is also needed to evaluate the significance

• f soil nitrogen carryover from year to year due to

variations in nitrogen mineralization.

Water Quality Program

Current Status – NMC GWMA

I am scheduled to complete the fourth trend analysis of nitrate concentrations in the coming months using data collected through 2012. OSU Experiment Station staff will likely be awarded a 319 grant to document BMP implementation as well as evaluate why growers do or do not adopt certain practices.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

The key to reducing nitrate contamination from irrigated agriculture is to control both nutrient application and water application. Apply the minimum amount of nutrients and water when and where the plants need it. Utilizing fertilizer and water more efficiently can reduce the amount of nitrogen leached to groundwater while still allowing acceptable crop quality and yield.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

The key to reducing nitrate contamination from CAFOs is to control waste collection/storage/treatment as well as nutrient application and water application.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

If possible, set up a system to document BMP implementation as it happens (e.g., North Platte NRD in Nebraska) It is difficult to go back and figure out what was done. It is difficult to find an acceptable keeper of the data.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

Sample frequently for five years (or until you build up ~30 data points per well) then re-evaluate sample frequency. It takes about 30 data points to calculate a trend with a decent level of confidence.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

It is better to have purpose-built wells rather than relying on existing private wells. Well owners can move, die, change their mind, or move their pump. Purpose-built wells likely have shorter screen lengths and are closer to the water table so they are a better gauge of nearby activities.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

If relying on existing private wells, focus sampling

• n non-winter months.

Several private wells in both well networks are “winterized” and not available for sampling for a few months.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

Keep sampling procedures and analytical procedures as consistent as possible. Use the same sampling team, procedures, and equipment as long as possible. We’ve shown different analytical methods can produce non-comparable data sets.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

Keep statistical procedures as consistent as possible. We’ve shown different statistical techniques used

• n the same data set can produce different results.

Maintaining consistency in statistical techniques ensures any change noted is a water quality change.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

Use the Seasonal Kendall technique to evaluate trends at individual wells. Use the Regional Kendall technique to evaluate area-wide trends. This technique is a non-parametric procedure (meaning it does not require any specific frequency distribution like a normal distribution) and is also forgiving of outliers, missing data, and seasonality. Use LOWESS to gain insight into changes within the data set (i.e., “mini trends”).

Water Quality Program

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

Identify key research needs early and pursue them vigorously. It can take years of research to quantify baseline conditions (e.g., a four-year crop rotation) It can take many more years of research to identify appropriate BMPs.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

Take the problem seriously and actively pursue remedies. Even if you don’t think nitrate in drinking water is a health issue, realize it is a financial issue. Public water suppliers cannot deliver water that exceeds drinking water standards. Cities and community systems have had to drill new wells and/or treat their water.

Water Quality Program

Lessons Learned

Engage all stakeholders early and maintain interest level. Groundwater is “out of sight, out of mind” for many people. Groundwater remediation is a long term

• proposition. It can take years to see the

results of changes in land use reflected in groundwater quality.

Water Quality Program

Any Questions?