Pa. State Grange Prepares
(Continued from Page A 1)
In addition to member sug
gested policies and issues, the
committees can also work t on
issues that come to light in the
interim.
Further, the state Master can
task the committees to address
issues of concern.
The Pennsylvania Slate Grange
has 420 local organizations, and is
represented in 66 of the state’s 67
counties (not Philadelphia).
State policy then directs the
Grange’s state lobbying efforts.
Because the policy is developed
this way, state policy is local poli
cy, and local issues become state
issues.
Jesse Wood, chairman of the
State Grange Agriculture and
Environmental Issues Committee,
said that at this time the committee
had no resoltions to present, but
would recommend some policy
statements and might have some
resolutions for consideration in
time for the convention.
Wood said there are two main
issues of concern before the com
mittee: a proposal by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
for states to adopt regulations con
trolling the operations and nutrient
management of “concentrated ani
mal feeding operations” (CAFOs);
and a potential policy role with
regards to focus and operations of
the state Animal Health
Commission.
As far as the EPA’s CAPO prop
osals, Pennsylvania’s Department
of Environmental Protection has
issued a proposal for changing and
adapting the state’s Nutrient Man
agement Act regulations and its
permitting program under the fed
eral National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) in
order to fulfill the intent of the
EPAs CAPO regulations.
According to Woods, “We do
not specifically have policy on
large (livestock) operations, but
we have stated that the Grange
docs not separate small farms from
large farms. All fanning activities
should be within the scope of the
laws and regulations governing
their operations.”
According to Wood, Included in
the EPA CAPO proposal is that
CAFOs with 301 to 1,000 animal
equivalent units (roughly, one ani
mal unit equals the weight of an
adult cow) and a potential to dis
charge to surface water must have
a nutrient management plan with a
contingency plan for emergencies.
Those operations are to be be
regisertred with DEP and must
have an erosion and sedimentation
control plan for earth disturbances
and for acreage where manure will
be applied.
For earth disturbances greater
than S acres, an NPDES permit for
storm water discharges will be
needed. Wood said. “When this is
completed, a general permit will
be issued.”
Of potential concern is the fact
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, October 3, 1998-A37
To Tackle
that the permitting process allows
for a public comment period.
For those operations with more
than 1,000 animal units, the prop
osal is that they will need a special
CAFO NPDES permit Included is
to be a nutrient management plan,
an erosion and sedimentation con
trol plan for eather disturbances
and acreages where manure would
be applied, another NPDES permit
for storm water discharges for
earth disturbances of greater than 5
acres, a water quality management
Part D permit for having a manure
storage facility, a preparedness
and prevent contigency plan, and
public participation.
“The Grange will look at deve
loping policy (about the EPA
CAFO rules adoption in Pennsyl
vania) using this type of approach
(through the compliance proposal
from DEP to EPA) versus a legi
slative or regulatory proposal.
“Obviously, this proposed
document will have significant
Issues
impact on a number of farmers,”
Wood said. “The question is
whether or not DEP should be able
to impose this type of strategy
through policy decisions or should
it undergo the scrutiny of a more
formal process through the Gener
al Assembly.
“Another concern we have to
address is whether or not all of the
CAFOs should become part of a
public participation process,” he
said. “Should farmers be required
to have public access to their plans
and have the public become part of
the permit process?”
As far at the Animal Health
Commission, Wood said the
Grange already has policy support
ing the efforts of the Animal
Health Commission.
However, he added, “The Com
mission is undergoing a process to
look at its strengths and weaknes
ses and ultimately determine how
to better serve the agricultural
community.
“We must be a part of
the process to make sure
the new laboratory sys
tem is functioning and
serving our producers,
veterinarians and
consumers.”
John Courtney, chair
man of the Environmen
tal and Conservation
Sub-Committee,
addressed the DEP citi
zens volunteer monitor
ing program.
The citizens volun
teer monitoring prog
ram has been ongoing
for years, as the state has
not been able to afford
staff to continuously
gather data about its
many streams across the
state. Such data includes
temperature and flow,
but can also include tur
bidity, oxygen levels or
other parameters as
equipment and volun
teer expertise allows.
Twenty years ago, the
best the state could do
on its own was monitor
stream conditions one
day every 10 years.
Since data collected
at that rate is useless, the
raw field data collected
through volunteers is
seen as a benefit in help
ing to monitor possible
changes in stream
quality.
However, the prog
ram has become con
troversial with the state
DEP proposal to formal
ize it
(Turn to Page A3B)
Gas
Stoves^Wf
AND
Fireplaces
1060 Division Highway
322 East, Ephrata, PA 17522
1 Block East of HI. 222
(717) 733-4973
800-642-0310
www bowmansstove com
Mon Tuts Wed 10 to 6 Thurs
Fn tOloe Set 10lot