Livestock-Influenced Water Quality Risk Assessment Tool

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (U.S. EPA 2003) released new guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO/AFO) in 2003. Under the new guidelines, affected CAFOs will be required to develop a nutrient management plan, implement practices to manage manure in an environmentally safe manner, conduct soil and manure testing, and keep a variety of records. The changes in the federal rule resulted in a need in Washington to provide livestock producers with an assessment tool that would help them evaluate their operation and management relative to the facility's risk of negatively affecting water quality, especially via point-source pollution.

This article describes a livestock-influenced water quality risk assessment tool that was developed to assist livestock producers with conducting a self-assessment of their operation and management in relation the risk of negatively impacting water quality. A major goal in developing the assessment tool was to assist livestock producers with information that would:

1. Contribute to an operation's sustainability;
2. Assist with adoption of best management practices (BMPs); and
3. Maintain a non-CAFO designation.

The tool was developed as a partnership (Livestock Nutrient Management Education Partnership - LNMEP) including the Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State conservation districts, Washington State Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Washington State University (WSU) Extension, Washington Cattlemen's Association, and Washington State Dairy Federation.

Assessment Tool Development

The livestock-influenced water quality risk assessment tool was based on previous assessment tools (Kansas Livestock Environmental Stewardship, Utah State University Water Quality Extension, and University of Wyoming Extension) as well as the experience of the LNMEP members. The tool was designed with the following objectives:

1. Ensure relevance to all livestock species;

2. Provide an assessment of relative risk;

3. Recommend suggested BMPs;

4. Provide visual (pictorial) examples of practices and conditions; and

5. Encourage the producer to contact their local conservation district staff for assistance with BMP implementation.

In addition, it was decided that the assessment tool be made available in paper format and an interactive Microsoft Excel^TM spreadsheet version.

The assessment tool was organized as follows:

Section 1--Directions for use of Assessment Tool

Section 2 and Step 1--Determine if the livestock or poultry operation is an Animal Feeding Operation

Section 3 and Step 2--Risk assessment

Section 4--List of contact information for all conservation district staff and Washington State University Extension livestock educators

Section 5--Photo Gallery--Summary of all pictures used to depict conditions at livestock operations that would result in low or high relative risk of negatively impacting water quality

Section 6--Acknowledgements

Section 7--Summary list of suggested BMPs and NRCS practice standard code numbers

Risk Assessment Format

The risk assessment tool was organized as a series of 29 questions divided into three categories. The three categories were:

1. Proximity of Confinement Area to Water, Confinement Condition factors, or Factors Related to Non-AFO Operations (15 questions)

2. Factors Adopted to Reduce Risk (10 questions)

3. Other Management Factors (4 questions)

The paper version of the risk assessment tool was constructed in a four-column format (Table 1). The first column lists the assessment question, the second and third columns are for selection of a response to the question of higher or lower risk, and the fourth column lists the suggested BMPs to consider adopting if the risk is rated higher. Pictures in the Photo Gallery section are provided to assist with a visual interpretation of the context of each question and potential management conditions or practices.

The Excel^TM version of the livestock-influenced water quality risk assessment tool is similar in design to the paper version. A major difference is that the Excel^TM version is interactive, with buttons to navigate within the spreadsheet. In addition, when a given question is answered as higher risk, the suggested BMP is linked as a response.

Web Site

The livestock-influenced water quality risk assessment tools in paper and Excel^TM are available at the following Web sites:
http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/dairy/joeharrison/
http://animalag.wsu.edu

Summary

A livestock-influenced water quality risk assessment tool was developed to assist livestock producers with evaluating of their operation and management relative to a facility's risk of negatively impacting water quality. The tool can be used to conduct a self-assessment or used in cooperation with a technical service provider to make a site-specific assessment. Advantages of the tool are that it contains visual examples of site-specific conditions to assist with interpretation of practices or conditions that may positively or negatively impact water quality. In addition, the assessment tool results in a set of recommended BMPs for the livestock producer to implement to protect water quality.

References

Kansas Livestock Environmental Stewardship Online Assessments. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2004, from: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/kles/Assessments/

Electronic-Field Office Technical Guide. (n.d.) Retrieved December, 2004, from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation - Final Rule. (February 12, 2003). Retrieved December, 2004, from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm

AFO/CAFO Information. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2004, from Utah State University Water Quality Extension's Web site: http://extension.usu.edu/cooperative/waterquality/index.cfm/cid.813/tid.1728/#ac

Evaluating Confined Livestock Operations. (n.d.). Retrieved December, 2004, from: http://www.uwyo.edu/CES/Drought/AFO/evaluating.htm