EPA, USDA
(Continued from Page A2O)
Under the strategy, the criteria
for requirement of the NPDES per
mit seems to be based more upon
the water quality in the watershed
in which the farm sits, rather than,
or in addition to, operational
soundness of the farm.
While high density operations
with little-to-no suitable land for
manure use are now to be required
to have NPDES permits, under the
Joint Strategy small farms could
easily be added to the list of farms
for which a CNMP and NPDES
permit would be required.
It was explained that, given a
situation in which a watershed has
water quality problems that appear
to be caused by too many nutrients,
and given that there are numerous
small farms in the watershed not
otherwise required to have nutrient
management plans, those farm
may well be “temporarily” consid
ered as CAFOs and be required to
have 5 CNMP and an NPDES
permit.
In that situation, the proposal would first
require those small farms to be required to follow
regulations as though they were considered an
actual CAFO.
After five years, without any environmental
problems or unresolved accidents, those farms
could potentially be considered a “good opera
tor” and no longer be required to follow strict
CAFO regulations and permitting.
According to the proposal, ”... the NPDES
permit issuing agency may, after conducting an
on-site inspection, designate an animal feeding
operation (AFO) of any size as a CAFO, based on
a finding that the facility ‘is a significant contri
butor of pollution to the waters of the United
States.’
“A facility with 300 animals units or less,
however, may not be designated as a CAFO
under this authority unless pollutants are dis
charged from a man-made device or are dis
charged directly into waters passing over, across
or through the facility or that otherwise come
into direct contact with the confined animals.”
Also of concern and subject to permitting are
those operations considered to have “unaccept
able conditions,” meaning the farms have man
made or other types of direct discharge of animal
waste to waters, or have waters that come into
direct contact with animals.
Other issues seemed to have be touched upon
in the strategy.
For example, while Pennsylvania’s Depart
ment of Environmental Protection has been
working to curb fear of its Citizens Voluntary
Water Quality Monitoring program, the federal
AFO strategy could place the monitoring prog
ram at further risk by potentially assigning grea
ter value to the data collected.
The Pa.DEP citizens’ voluntary water quality
monitoring program provides for non
professional and retired professional citizens to
collect raw water quality data from select sites
along water courses. The data collection is not
much more involved than what is done by own
ers of swimming pools.
The work supplements DEP’s regular field
work. Though DEP has the responsibility to
monitor water quality, it doesn’t have the money
or manpower to monitor the state’s water quality
alone.
However, agricultural opposition to the prog
ram is based on the assumption that data col
lected by the government will become data used
by the government against farmers.
The real intent of the water quality data collec
tion program is to create a baseline of know
ledge, similar to weather data collection from
volunteers. It was not set up to be a collection
source for regulatory enforcement data, though it
is conceivable that volunteer data collection
could trigger an alarm requiring followup by pro
fessionals and experts.
It is not clear what value the federal AFO
strategists would place on such volunteer moni
toring programs.
MILK
Where's your mustache? ”
Officials Present AFO Strategy, Listen To Comments
According to the USDA/EPA
joint strategy, “In cases where
water quality monitoring esta
blishes that pollution from an indi
vidual facility with fewer that
1,000 animal units, or a collection
of facilities ... is signficiatnly con
tributing to, or is likely to signific
antly contribute to, impairment of
a waterbody and nonattainment of
a (waterbody’s) designated use,
the (livestock) facility or collec
tion of facilities should be a priori
ty for the NPDES permitting
program.”
In other words, under the
strategy, water quality monitoring
data could be used to require a
farm to be considered an environ
mental threat, and force the owner
to aquire a federal permit and oper
ate according to a federally
approved plan.
DelVecchio and Lape reviewed
the seven “strategic issues” of the
proposal, all detailed in the
document.
The first issue deals with a lack
of qualified people to help develop
CNMPs, and a lack of a specific
program to train those people.
Under this first issue, there are
four goals: increase the number of
certified specialists; ensure plans
are implemented under the gui
dance of qualified specialists;
attain consistent quality of plan
development and implementation;
and make sure by 2008 that all
AFO owners have plans developed
by a certified specialist.
The agencies are to: review the
existing certification programs to
see which could be used to fulfill
federal certifications; they are to
encourage the private sector to
provide technicians and consul
tants; increase funding to do so;
train contractors who are to install
devices and practices outlined in a
farm’s plan; provide computer
modeling to assist plan writing;
and develop agreements with
third-party vendors to serve as
consultants similar to what the
Certified Crop Advisors program
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, November 28, 1998-A25
has done.
The second issue emphasizes
the position of the two federal
agencies -- that farm owners are
responsible for any pollutants
released from their farms.
The goal of that issue is to make
sure all livestock operations have
approved nutrient management
plans by 2008.
Among actions stated to reach
goal is the development of
national standards for farm conser
vation policies and practices;
development of a federal guide for
what should be in CNMPs; the use
of USDA EQIP funds to spend on
providing financial assistance for
developing and implementing
plans (as well as the USDA CRP
program and other related funding
sources within USDA and the
EPA).
Another issue is the variability
of requirements in the existing
NPDES program. A goal is to
develop comprehensive state
CAPO permitting regulations, and
then revise those regulations as
time progresses.
The objective is to get states to
offer permits on a watershed basis,
depending on the situation of that
watershed. General watershed per
mits or individual permitting are to
be encouraged depending upon the
likelihood of pollution.
The first permits are to be con
sidered Round 1 permits. After
five years, the entire permitting
program is to be reviewed, and
possible revised.
This issue includes a number of
concerns that are best considered
in reading the actual document.
A fourth strategic issue involves
research and technology and how
to share it and deliver it in order to
expect its use.
Among the many subissues that
are contained within this fourth
issue is the proposal for establish
ing a nutrient management infor
mation warehouse on the Internet.
According to the document,
(Turn to Page A 27)