USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Draft
Unified National Strategy
for
Animal Feeding Operations
September 11,1998
-------
-------
C/5DA/EPA Draft Untfied National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) prohibit discrimination in their programs and activities on the basis of
race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally,
discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by
statutes enforced by USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities
who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD) or the
EPA Office of Civil Rights at (202) 260-4575.
To file a complaint of discrimination to USDA, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-
9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint to EPA, write to EPA, Office of
Civil Rights, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460, or call (202) 260-4575 (voice) or (202) 260-
3658 (TTY). USDA and EPA are equal opportunity providers and employers.
Note: This document presents USDA and EPA's strategic plan for addressing the environmental
and public health impacts associated with AFOs. It is not a substitute for existing Federal
regulations and it does not impose any binding requirements on USDA, EPA, the States, Tribes,
localities, or the regulated community. USDA and EPA's strategies for addressing AFOs may evolve
and change as their understanding of the issues increases through further work and receipt of
additional information.
Page i
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Uhified National AFO Strategy
September 11, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Guiding Principles
2.0 AFOS AND WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
2.1 Characteristics of AFOs
!
2.2 Water Quality and Public Health Risks
3.0 THE NATIONAL GOAL AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION FOR AFOS
3.1 Defining the Goal and Performance Expectation
3.2 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning
i
3.3 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Components
I
3.4 Technical Assistance for CNMPs
4.0. RELATIONSHIP OF VOLUNTARY AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
!
4.1 Voluntary Program for Most AFOs
!
4.2 Regulatory Program for Some AFOs i
43 Land Application of Manure
4.4 Priorities for the Regulatory Program
4.S CAFO CNMPs
4.6 Smaller CAFOs Can Exit the Regulatory Program
4.7 Good Faith Incentive
5.0 STRATEGIC ISSUES
Overview of Strategic Issues
Strategic Issue #1 Building Capacity for CNMP Development and Implementation
Strategic Issue #2 Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-based Programs
Strategic Issue #3 Implementing and Improving the Existing Regulatory Program
1
1
2
2
2
4
5
5
6
7
9
Q
10
13
IS
15
17
18
18
19
19
19
21
25
Page ii
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
Strategic Issue #4 Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation, Compliance Assistance, and
Technology Transfer 33
Strategic Issue #5 Encouraging Industry Leadership 35
Strategic Issue #6 Data Coordination 37
Strategic Issue #7 Performance Measures and Accountability 38
6.0 ROLES 39
Page iii
-------
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11. 1998
1.0 Introduction and Guiding Principles
1.1 Introduction
Over the past quarter century, the United States has made tremendous
progress in cleaning up its rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. In 1972, the Potomac
River was too dirty to swim in, Lake Erie was dying, and the Cuyahoga River was so
polluted it burst into flames. Many rivers and beaches were little more than open
sewers. Today, water quality has improved dramatically and many rivers, lakes, and
coasts are thriving centers of healthy communities.
The improvement in the health of the nation's waters is a direct result of a
concerted effort to enhance stewardship of natural resources and to implement the
environmental provisions of Federal, State, Tribal and local laws. Pollution control
and conservation programs have stopped billions of pounds of pollution from fouling
the Nation's water, doubling the number of waters safe for fishing and swimming.
Despite tremendous progress, 40 percent of the Nation's waterways assessed
by States still do not meet goals for fishing, swimming, or both. Pollution from
factories and sewage treatment plants has been dramatically reduced, but runoff from
city streets, agricultural activities, including animal feeding operations (AFOs), and
other sources continues to degrade the environment and puts drinking water at risk.
A strong livestock industry (of which AFOs are a part) is essential to the nation's
economic stability, the viability of many rural communities, and the sustainability of a
healthful and high quality food supply for the American public.1 USDA and EPA
recognize that farmers and ranchers are primary stewards of many of our nation's
natural resources, have played a key role in past efforts to improve water quality, and
will be important partners in implementing measures to protect the environment and
public health.
In February of this year, President Clinton released the Clean Water Action Plan
(CWAP), which provides a blueprint for restoring and protecting water quality across
the Nation. The CWAP describes over 100 specific actions to expand and strengthen
existing efforts to protect water quality. It also identifies polluted runoff as the most
important remaining source of water pollution and provides for a coordinated effort to
reduce polluted runoff from a variety of sources. As part of this effort, the CWAP calls
for the development of this USDA-EPA unified national strategy to minimize the water
quality and public health impacts of AFOs.
1 The livestock industry accounts for half of all sales in U.S. agriculture today (source: USDA, Economic Research
Service. "Key statistical indicators of the food and fiber sector". Agricultural Outlook. March, 1998: 32).
Page 1
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy
September 11, 1998
1.2 Guiding Principles
This USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
reflects several guiding principles:
f
(1) Minimize water quality and public health impacts from AFOs.
(2) Focus on AFOs that represent the greatest risks to the environment and
public health.
(3) Ensure that measures to protect the environment and public health
complement the long-term sustainabilify of livestock production in the
United States.
(4) Establish a national goal and environmental performance expectation for
all AFOs,
i
(5) Build on the strengths of USDA, EPA, State and Tribal agencies, and
other partners and make appropriate use of diverse tools including
voluntary, regulatory, and incentive-based approaches.
(6) Foster public confidence that AFOs are meeting their performance
expectations and that USDA, EPA, local governments, States, and Tribes
are ensuring the protection of water quality and public health.
i
(7) Coordinate activities among the USDA, EPA, and related State and Tribal
agencies and other organizations that influence the management and
operation of AFOs.
[
i
(8) Focus technical and financial assistance to support AFOs in meeting the
national performance expectation established in this Strategy.
2.0 AFOs and Water Quality and Public Health Risks
2.1 Characteristics of AFOs
i
For purposes of this Strategy, AFOs are agricultural enterprises where animals
are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure
and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Feed is
brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in
pastures or fields.
Page 2
-------
aSDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy
September 11, 1998
Approximately 450,000 agricultural operations nationwide confine animals.2
USDA data indicate that the vast majority of farms with livestock are small. About 85%
of these farms have fewer than 250 animal units (Alls).3 An AU is equal to roughly
one beef cow, therefore 1,000 AUs is equal to 1,000 beef cows or equivalent number
of other animals.4 Of these, in 1992 about 6,600 had more than 1,000 AUs and are
considered to be large operations.
As a result of domestic and export market forces, technological changes, and
industry adaptations, the past several decades have seen substantial changes in
America's animal production industries. These factors have promoted expansion of
confined production units, with growth in both existing areas and new areas;
integration and concentration of some of the industries; geographic separation of
animal production and feed production operations; and the concentration of large
quantities of manure and wastewater on farms and in some watersheds.
In terms of production, the total number of animal units (AUs) in the U.S.
increased by about 4.5 million (approximately three percent) between 1987 and 1992.
During this same period, however, the number of AFOs decreased, indicating a
consolidation within the industry overall and greater production from fewer, larger
AFOs.5
400,000
300,000
S3 200,000 --
100,000 --
Animal Feeding Operations
Figure 1: Industry Consolidation of Cattle, Dairy, Hog, Layer, Broiler and Turkey Animal Feeding
Operations
2 General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues,
June 1995.
3USDA-ERS. 1992 Farm Costs and Returns Survey
4 USDA and EPA currently use slightly different definitions for an animal unit, largely for the pork and poultry
animal types.
5 General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues,
June 1995
6 General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues,
June 1995
Page 3
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy
September 11, 1998
Table 1. Increase in the Average
Number of Animal Units per Operation
(1978-1992)
Cattle
Dairy
Hog
Layer
Broiler
Turkey
56%
93%
134%
176%
148%
129%
Data source: Animal Agriculture:
Information on Waste Management and
Water Issues, General Accounting
Office, 1995.
2.2 Water Quality and Public Health Risks
i
t
i
Despite significant progress in reducing water pollution, serious water quality
problems persist throughout the country. Recent State reports of water quality
conditions indicate that:
Of the rivers and, streams surveyed (53 percent of all perennial stream miles)
36% were partially or fully impaired and another 8% were threatened;
i
Of the surveyed lakes (40 percent of all lake acres) 39% were partially or fully
impaired and another 10% were threatened; and
i
Of the estuaries surveyed by coastal states (72 percent of all estuarine waters)
38% were impaired and another 4% were threatened;
i
Of the Great Lakes shore miles surveyed (94 percent of all shore miles) 97%
were impaired and another 1% were threatened. 7
Based on this monitoring information, States have identified about 15,000
Individual waterbodies in 1996 that did not meet clean water goals.
i
While many diverse sources contribute to water pollution, States report that
agriculture is the most widespread source of pollution in the nation's surveyed rivers.
In the 22 States that categorized impacts from specific types of agriculture, animal
operations impact about 35,000 river miles of those miles assessed.
7 U.S. EPA 1998. National Water Quality Inventory - 1996 Report to Congress, Washington, DC.
Page 4
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
AFOs can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health, mainly
because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate.8 Manure
and wastewater from AFOs have the potential to contribute pollutants such as
nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), sediment, pathogens, heavy metals,
hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment. Excess nutrients in water
can result in or contribute to eutrophication, anoxia (i.e., low levels of dissolved
oxygen), and, in combination with other circumstances, have been associated with
outbreaks of microbes such as Pfiesteria piscicida.
Pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium, have been linked to impairments in
drinking water supplies and threats to human health. Pathogens in manure can
create a food safety concern if manure is applied directly to crops at inappropriate
times. In addition, pathogens are responsible for some shellfish bed closures.
Nitrogen, in the form of nitrate, can contaminate drinking water supplies drawn from
ground water. Nutrients can also cause toxic algal blooms which may be harmful to
human health.
While there are other potential environmental impacts associated with AFOs
(e.g., odor, habitat loss, ground water depletion), this Strategy focuses on addressing
surface and ground water quality problems. This Strategy will indirectly benefit other
resources.
3.0 The National Goal and Performance Expectation For AFOs
3.1 Defining the Goal and Performance Expectation
USDA and EPA's goal is for AFO owners and operators to take actions to
minimize water pollution from confinement facilities and land application of manure.
To accomplish this goal, this Strategy establishes a national performance expectation
that all AFOs should develop and implement technically sound and economically
feasible Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) to minimize impacts
on water quality and public health.
8 EPA, 1998, National Water Quality Inventory -1996 Report to Congress; Hunt, P.O., et al. 1995. Impact of
animal waste on water quality in an eastern coastal plain watershed. IN: Animal Waste and the Land-Water
Interface. Kenneth Steele, Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 589 pp.; Ackerman and Taylor, 1995, Stream
Impacts due to Feedlot Runoff. IN: Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface: South Dakota Association of
Conservation Districts, SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 1996, Final Report- Animal Waste Management Team; EPA Office of the Inspector General,
March 1997, Animal Waste Disposal Issues, Audit Report No. E1XWF7-13-0085-7100142
Page 5
-------
USDA/EPA Draft'Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
3.2 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning
in general terms, a CNMP identifies actions or priorities that will be followed to
meet clearly defined nutrient management goals at an agricultural operation. Defining
nutrient management goals and identifying measures and schedules for attaining the
goals is critical to reducing threats to water quality and public health from AFOs.
CNMPs should address, at a minimum, feed management, manure handling
and storage, land application of manure, land management, record keeping, and
management of other utilization options. While nutrients are often the major
pollutants of concern, the plan should address risks from other pollutants, such as
pathogens, to minimize water quality and public health impacts from AFOs. CNMPs
should include a schedule to implement the management practices identified.
In addition to protecting water quality and public health, CNMPs should be site-
specific and be written to address the goals and needs of the individual
owner/operator, as well as the conditions on the farm (e.g., soils, crops). Plans
should also be periodically reviewed and revised in cases where a facility increases
in size, changes its method of manure management, or if other operating conditions
change. CNMPs should encourage and facilitate technical innovation and new
approaches to manure and nutrient management. Development and implementation
of CNMPs is the ultimate responsibility of the AFO operator, with assistance as
needed from certified industry staff, government agency specialists, private
consultants and other qualified vendors.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical
Guide (FOTG) is the primary technical reference for the development of CNMPs for
AFOs. It contains technical information about utilization and conservation of soil,
water, air, plant, and animal resources. The FOTG used in an individual field office is
localized to consider particular characteristics for the geographic area for which it is
prepared. The FOTG is divided into five sections:
Section I General Resource References - References, maps, price bases,
typical crop budgets, and other information for use in understanding the field
office working area or in making decisions about resource use and resource
management.
Section II Soil and Site Information - Soils are described and interpreted to
help make decisions about land use and management. In most cases, this
will be a electronic database.
t
Section III Conservation Management Systems (CMS) - Guidance for
developing conservation management systems. A description of the resource
considerations and their acceptable levels of quality or criteria.
Page 6
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
Section IV Practice Standards, Specifications and Supplements - Contains
standards and specifications for conservation practices used in the field office.
The standards contained in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices
(NHCP) may be supplemented to reflect local conditions. The NHCP contains
standards and specifications for over 150 conservation practices, many of
which are applicable to CNMPs for AFOs. These standards are based on
sound science and over 65 years of NRCS experience. New standards can be
added to this handbook using a procedure outlined in the handbook that
includes a public review/input process. Practice standards establish the
minimum level of acceptable quality for planning, installing, operating, and
maintaining conservation practices.
Section V Conservation Effects - Contains Conservation Practice Physical
Effects (CPPE) matrices which outline the impact of practices on various
aspects of the five major resources - soil, air, water, plants, and animals.
3.3 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Components
USDA and EPA agree that the following components should be included in a
CNMP, as necessary. The specific practices used to implement each component
may vary to reflect site-specific conditions or needs of the watershed.
Feed Management - Where possible, animal diets and feed should be modified to
reduce the amounts of nutrients in manure. For example, enzymes such as
phytase can be added to animal diets to increase the utilization of phosphorus.
Greater utilization of phosphorus by the animal reduces the amount of phosphorus
excreted and produces a manure with a nitrogen-phosphorus ratio closer to that
required by crop and forage plants.
Manure Handling and Storage - Manure needs to be handled and stored properly
to prevent water pollution from AFOs. Manure and wastewater handling and
storage practices should also consider odor and other environmental and public
health problems. Handling and storage considerations should include:
Divert clean water- Siting and management practices should divert clean water
from contact with feed lots and holding pens, animal manure, or manure
storage systems. Clean water can include rainfall falling on roofs of facilities,
runoff from adjacent lands, or other sources.
Prevent leakage - Construction and maintenance of buildings, collection
systems, conveyance systems, and storage facilities should prevent leakage of
organic matter, nutrients, and pathogens to ground or surface water.
Provide adequate storage - Dry manure, such as that produced in certain
poultry and beef operations, should be stored in production buildings, storage
Page 7
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
I
i
facilities, or otherwise covered to prevent precipitation from coming into direct
contact with the manure. Liquid manure storage systems should safely store
the quantity and contents of animal manure and wastewater produced,
contaminated runoff from the facility, and rainfall. Location of manure storage
systems should consider proximity to waterbodies, floodplains, and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
i
i
Manure treatments - Manure should be handled and treated to reduce the loss
of nutrients to the atmosphere during storage, to make the material a more
stable fertilizer when land applied or to reduce pathogens, vector attraction and
odors, as appropriate.
i i
i
Management of dead animals - Dead animals should be disposed of in a way
that does not adversely affect ground or surface water or create public health
concerns. Composting, rendering, and other practices are common methods
used to dispose of dead animals.
i
Land Application of Manure - Land application is the most common, and usually
most desirable method of utilizing manure because of the value of the nutrients
and organic matter. Land application should be planned to ensure that the proper
amounts of all nutrients are applied in a way that does not cause harm to the
environment or to public health. Land application in accordance with the CNMP
should minimize water quality and public health risk. Considerations for
appropriate land application should include:
i
Nutrienttbalance - The primary purpose of nutrient management is to achieve
the level of nutrients required to grow the planned crop by balancing the
nutrients that are already in the soil and from other sources with those that will
be applied in manure, biosolids and fertilizer. At a minimum, nutrient
management should prevent the application of nutrients at rates that will
exceed the capacity of the soil and planned crops to assimilate nutrients and
prevent pollution. Soils and manure should be tested to determine nutrient
content.
I
i
Timing and methods of application - Care must be taken when land applying
manure to prevent it from entering streams, other water bodies, or
environmentally sensitive areas. The timing and method of application should
prevent the loss of nutrients to ground or surface water and to minimize loss of
nitrogen to the atmosphere. Manure application equipment should be
calibrated to ensure that the quantity of material being applied is what is
planned.
Land Management - Tillage, crop residue management, grazing management,
and other conservation practices should be utilized to minimize movement to
surface and ground water of soil, organic materials, nutrients, and pathogens from
lands where manure is applied. Forest riparian buffers, filter strips, field borders,
Page 8
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
contour buffer strips, and other conservation buffer practices should be installed to
intercept, store and utilize nutrients or other pollutants that may migrate from fields
to which manure is applied.
Record Keeping - AFO operators should keep records that indicate the quantity of
manure produced and ultimate utilization, including where, when, and amount of
nutrients applied. Soil and manure testing should be incorporated into the records
management system.
Other Utilization Options - In vulnerable watersheds, where the potential for
environmentally sound land application is limited, alternative uses of manure,
such as the sale of manure to other farmers, composting and sale of compost to
home owners, and using manure for power generation may need to be
considered. All manure utilization options should be designed and implemented
to reduce the risk to all environmental resources and must comply with Federal,
State, Tribal and local law.
3.4 Technical Assistance for CNMPs
AFO owners and operators may seek technical assistance for the development
and implementation of CNMPs from qualified specialists, including staff from Federal
agencies such as the NRCS, State, and Tribal agricultural and conservation agency
staff, Cooperative Extension Service agents and specialists, Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCDs), integrators, industry associations, other AFO
operators, and private consultants. Qualified specialists should assist in
implementation and provide ongoing assistance through periodic reviews and
revisions of CNMPs, as appropriate.
The successful implementation of this Strategy depends on the availability of
qualified specialists from either the private or public sectors to assist in the
development and implementation of CNMPs. Measures to expand technical
assistance resources are discussed more thoroughly in Section 5.0, Strategic Issue
#1.
4.0. Relationship of Voluntary and Regulatory Programs
Voluntary and regulatory programs serve complementary roles in providing AFO
owners and operators and the animal agricultural industry with the assistance and
certainty they need to achieve individual business and personal goals, and in
ensuring protection of water quality and public health. The regulatory program
focuses permitting and enforcement priorities on high risk operations, a small
percentage of all AFOs (see Figure 2). For most AFOs, however, a variety of voluntary
Page 9
-------
USDA/EPA Draft-Unified National AFO Strategy
September 11, 1998
i
programs provide the technical and financial assistance'to help producers meet
technical standards and remain economically viable.
95%
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Animal Feeding Operations Expected to be
Regulated Under the Clean Water Act
4.1 Voluntary Program for Most AFOs
\
Voluntary programs provide an enormous opportunity to help AFO owners and
operators and communities address water quality and public health concerns
surrounding AFOs. For the vast majority of AFOs, voluntary efforts will be the principal
approach to assist owners and operators in developing and implementing CNMPs.
and in reducing water pollution and public health risks associated with AFOs. While
CNMPs are not required for AFOs participating in voluntary programs, they are strongly
encouraged as the best possible means of managing potential water quality and
public health impacts from these operations. For those CNMPs that are developed as
part of a State, Tribal, or Federal voluntary technical or financial assistance program,
the responsible agency, in consultation with the local Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, will approve the plan to ensure that it is sufficient to meet requirements for
participation in such programs. AFO owners and operators will be full partners in the
development and implementation of CNMPs through voluntary programs and will
agree to implement those plans before receiving financial assistance.
The voluntary approach is built on the ethic of land stewardship and
sustainability. A sustainable society requires a sustainable environment-one
depends upon the other. For generations, most producers have maintained
agricultural productivity in harmony with a healthy land-the essence of land
stewardship. Today, agricultural producers still have the responsibility to be good
Page 10
-------
CJSDA/EPA Draft Unffied National AFO Strategy , September 11, 1998
stewards of the land under their care. The voluntary develo'pment and implementation
of a CNMP provide AFO operators with a way to embrace this stewardship ethic.
USDA and EPA are proposing in this Strategy incentives to further the voluntary
development and implementation of CNMPs.
Implementing voluntary programs requires the support of local leadership and
full participation in planning and implementing conservation activities. Partnerships
with Federal and State agencies, groups, SWCDs, Resource Conservation and
Development (RC&D) Councils, private landowners; and between local leadership
and science-based technical assistance are essential to success. Locally led
conservation efforts, environmental education programs, and financial and technical
assistance all help to build the land stewardship ethic that is fundamental to the
success of a voluntary approach.
Locally Led Conservation - It is hard to overstate the importance of effective,
locally led actions through the SWCDs in achieving national natural resource quality
goals. This is particularly true for AFOs. USDA and EPA have a commitment to locally
led conservation as one of the most effective ways to help individual landowners and
communities achieve their conservation goals. Informed citizens are fundamental to
making informed choices. Thus, locally led conservation is a logical complement to
an investment in environmental education. Through the locally led approach,
individuals can see how their actions fit with those of their neighbors.
Partnerships with grassroots organizations such as SWCDs, RC&D Councils,
and others that promote the use of CNMPs, can help attain the goal of this Strategy.
Through the locally led process, natural resource concerns are identified and
proposals for local priorities are developed. SWCDs convene a local work group
comprised of the district board members and key staff, NRCS staff; Farm Service
Agency county committees and key staffs; and Cooperative Extension Service and
other Federal, State, and local agencies interested in natural resource conservation.
The SWCDs gather community input and bring the views of these local interests to
work groups. These local work groups have the ability to identify problems and
develop solutions locally. Also, they have knowledge of what resources are available
to plan and implement the CNMPs.
Environmental Education - One of the best ways to help AFO operators or
owners to participate in voluntary programs to reduce the potential impact of their
operations on the environment is through education and outreach. There may be
many well-managed AFOs, carefully following best management practices developed
in the past, that are unintentionally contributing to water quality or other environmental
degradation because of lack of access to the newest information. The agricultural
research system continues to advance our understanding of the potential impacts of
animal agriculture on the environment. USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS),
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES); EPA; State
and Local governments; Land Grant Colleges and Universities and other institutions
of higher learning; and the private sector are all actively involved in communicating
Page 11
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
i
i
knowledge gained through the agricultural research system to AFO owners and
operators.
Through an aggressive environmental education and outreach effort, USDA
and EPA believe that awareness of possible problems can be heighterted and
producers will be able to identify practices that may be contributing to water quality
problems. Once producers have an understanding of potential problems and
solutions, they can take a proactive role in developing their CNMP through the
voluntary program.
Technical And Financial Assistance Programs - There are numerous sources
of technical and financial assistance, such as USDA, EPA, SWCDs, RC&D Councils,
State agencies, and the private sector, to assist AFO owners and operators in
developing and implementing CNMPs. Through technical assistance, owners and
operators can receive help in developing CNMPs and implementing solutions.
Financial cost-share and loan programs can help defray the costs of
approved/needed structures (e.g., waste storage facilities for small operations) or to
implement other practices, such as installation of conservation buffers to protect
water quality. An increasing number of States have financial assistance programs
that supplement or enhance Federal assistance.
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), NRCS's base conservation
program, is a potential tool in helping landowners develop CNMPs. The Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), and
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are assisting AFOs across the
Nation in nutrient management. The Small Watershed Protection Program (PL 83-
566) provides comprehensive resource management planning on a watershed basis
to assist local land users in addressing water quality concerns related to AFOs.
RC&D assists States and local units of government in planning, developing, and
implementing programs for resource conservation and development. Plans address
water quality, community and economic development, and other concerns of interest
to the local citizens. The Conservation Buffer Initiative and the Watershed Survey and
Planning Program also offer opportunities to assist livestock producers in managing
their potential environmental risks.
AFO owners and operators may also participate in other State and Federal
programs to improve water quality and to develop and implement polluted runoff
abatement activities, including State cost-share programs and EPA Section 319
nonpoint source grants and the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program authorized
under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Using all USDA, EPA, and other Federal State and
local programs together as tools helps leverage resources to help AFO owners and
operators in voluntarily addressing water quality and public impacts.
Page 12
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy
September 11, 1998
4.2 Regulatory Program for Some AFOs
The Federal CWA provides general authority for water pollution control
programs, including several programs related to animal feeding operations (AFOs). A
number of primarily large AFOs (i.e. about 2,000 facilities) have been issued permits
under section 402 of the CWA. These permits, called National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") permits, include conditions to limit pollution problems.
In 42 States and the Virgin Islands, these NPDES permits are issued by States under
authorization from EPA. These permits are generally written to implement national
minimum standards (referred to as effluent guidelines) for large AFOs established in
regulations. (A summary of the existing feedlots effluent limitations guidelines is
included in Figure 3). NPDES permits for AFOs must also include conditions that
assure attainment of any applicable State- or Tribe-established water quality
standards. These standards include designated uses, water quality criteria to protect
these uses, and an antidegradation policy. Best management practices necessary to
ensure compliance with the CWA, such as those included in CNMPs, may be
imposed in NPDES permits. Where water
quality standards are not attained, response
actions are defined through the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) process under Section 303(d)
of the Act and implemented through revised
NPDES permits and other measures.
The existing provisions of the CWA and
related EPA regulations provide authority for
including a significant number of AFOs in the
permit program beyond those that now have
permits. These statutory and regulatory
authorities related to AFOs are described below
along with the approach EPA will follow in setting
priorities for carrying out these authorities.
EPA's Effluent Limitations .Guidelines
fr V for CAFOs * * *-
The effluent,limitation allows no^, "*
discharge§to'Watere\of th'e US. except
when %hrorilc or'cafestrophtc^torm
events .cause an ovirflo^kfrom a"
facility designed contracted,, an .. »
FigureS: EPA's Effluent
Limitations Guidelines for CAFOs
The CWA provides that no person may
"discharge" a pollutant except in accordance with a permit issued under section 402
of the Act. A "discharge" is defined as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable
waters from any point source." The term "pollutant" is broadly defined in the CWA and
includes animal waste and related material.
The term "point source" as defined in the CWA includes any "discernible,
confined and discrete conveyance" and specifically includes a "concentrated animal
feeding operation" (CAFO). Thus, a discharge from a CAFO is prohibited except in
accordance with an NPDES permit.
The term "animal feeding operation" or AFO is defined in EPA regulations as a
"lot or facility" where animals "have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or
Page 13
-------
USDA/EPA Draft-Unified National AFO Strategy September 11. 1998
I
maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12 month period and crops,
vegetation, forage, growth or post harvest residues are not sustained in the normal
growing season over any portion of the lot or facility."
The regulations define a "concentrated animal feeding operation" or CAFO as
an animal feeding operation where more than 1,000 "animal units" (as defined by the
regulation) are confined at the facility; or more than 300 animal units are confined at
the facility and:
[
Pollutants are discharged into navigable waters through a manmade ditch,
flushing system, or other similar man-made device; or
i
! I
Pollutants are discharged directly into waters that originate outside of and
pass over, across, or through the facility or come into direct contact with the
confined animals.
Poultry operations that remove waste from pens and stack it in areas exposed
to rainfall or an adjacent watercourse have established a crude liquid manure system
for process wastewater that may discharge pollutants. These facilities are CAFOs
and therefore point sources under the NPDES program if the number of animals
confined at the facility meets the regulatory definition at 40 CFR Part 122. Appendix B
or if the facility is designated as a CAFO.
The regulations also provide, however, that no animal feeding operation is a
CAFO as defined above if it discharges only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour or larger
storm event.
In addition, the NPDES permit issuing agency may, after conducting an on-site
inspection, designate an animal feeding operation of any size as a CAFO based on a
finding that the facility "is a significant contributor of pollution to the waters of the
United States." A facility with 300 animal units or less, however, may not be
designated as a CAFO under this authority unless pollutants are discharged from a
man-made device or are discharged directly into waters passing over, across or
through the facility or that otherwise come into direct contact with the confined
animals.
Another regulatory program which addresses AFOs is the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program which is implemented under the authority of Section 6217
of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of 1990. Section 6217
requires the 29 States and territories with NOAA-approved Coastal 2:one Management
Programs to develop enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement nonpoint
source controls, known as management measures. Two management measures
address facility wastewater and runoff from smaller AFOs, and another management
measure addresses nutrient management on farms. In CZARA areas permitted
CAFOs are covered by the NPDES program while other AFOs would be covered by the
CZARA management measures. EPA and NOAA should encourage States to
Page 14
-------
C/SDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy 'September 11, 1998
consider the priorities of this Strategy when implementing their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs.
4.3 Land Application of Manure
EPA and USDA recognize that manure and other animal waste from CAFOs is
commonly applied to the land. Proper land application of these resources has
agricultural benefits, but improper land application can cause water quality and
potential public health impacts.
As noted above, the addition of pollutants from a discrete conveyance (e.g.
natural channel or gullies) to the waters is regulated under the CWA as a point source
discharge. At the same time, the Act exempts "agricultural stormwater discharges"
from the definition of a point source. EPA has in the past, and will in the future,
assume that discharges from the vast majority of agricultural operations are
exempted from the NPDES program by this provision of the Act. The agricultural
stormwater exemption, however, does not apply in a small number of circumstances
that meet the following criteria:
The discharge is associated with the land disposal of animal wastes (e.g. manure
or other animal waste) originating from a CAFO (which is defined as a point
source in the CWA and is regulated as a point source); and
The discharge is not the result of proper agricultural practices (i.e., in general, the
disposal occurred without a CNMP developed by a public official or a certified
private party or in a manner inconsistent with the CNMP).
NPDES permits should assure that the animal waste from the CAFO will be
utilized properly and require reporting on whether the permittee has a CNMP and
whether it is being implemented properly.
4.4 Priorities for the Regulatory Program
The NPDES permit program authorized by the CWA will be used to address the
relatively small number of AFOs that are now causing water quality or public health
problems or that pose a significant risk to water quality or public health. EPA and
USDA believe that AFOs in several situations are CAFOs and should be priorities for
NPDES permitting:
Significant Manure Production - Large facilities (those with greater than 1000
animal units) produce quantities of manure that are a risk to water quality and
public health whether the facilities are well managed or not. Because the
amount of manure stored is so large, a spill while handling manure or a
breach of a storage system can release large quantities of manure and
Page 15
-------
USDA/EPA Draff Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
|
wastewater into the environment causing catastrophic water quality impacts
and threatening public health. Land application of large volumes of waste
requires very careful planning to avoid water quality and public health impacts.
Of the estimated 450,000 animal feeding operations, only about 6,600
facilities had over 1,000 animal units as of 1992. Due to increases in'the
number of large facilities over the past six years, EPA and USDA believe that as
many as 10,000 such facilities may exist today. EPA and USDA expect to
update this estimate based on newer information. Based on size alone, these
facilities are considered to be CAFOs and therefore are "point sources" subject
to having an NPDES permit if they cause the addition of pollutants to waters.
EPA believes that virtually all CAFOs with over 1,000 animal units are covered
by the permit program and are a priority for permit issuance.
i
i ' |
Unacceptable Conditions - Some facilities have unacceptable conditions that
pose a significant risk of water pollution or public health problems. Specifically,
facilities that have man-made conveyances that discharge animal waste to
waters or have a direct discharge to waters that pass through the facility or
come into direct contact with animals represent a significant risk to the
environment and public health and are a priority for permit issuance. (As noted,
AFOs with 300 or fewer AUs are CAFOs subject to permitting only where they
have been designated as CAFOs by the permitting authority.)
There is insufficient data on which to base an estimate of the number of
AFOs that have unacceptable conditions. EPA and USDA expect, however, that
many, if not most, AFOs that now have unacceptable conditions will voluntarily
address their unacceptable conditions to avoid the requirement to have a
permit under the NPDES program.
Significant Contributors to Water Quality Impairment - In cases where water
quality monitoring establishes that pollution from an individual facility with fewer
than 1,000 animal units or a collection of facilities including those with fewer
than 1,000 animal units is significantly contributing to, or is likely to significantly
contribute to, impairment of a waterbody and nonattainment of a designated
use, the facility or collection of facilities should be a priority for the NPDES
permitting program.
Aggregate Water Quality Impacts on a Watershed Scale - EPA and
USDA encourage States to use existing watershed assessment processes
to determine whether a collection of AFOs is causing or contributing to
watershed impairment. States should identify such watersheds for priority
CAFO permitting. For example, the Clean Water Action Plan provides for a
Unified Watershed Assessment Process to identify watersheds that are not
meeting clean water and other natural resource goals.
Page 16
-------
C/5DA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
In addition, States may consider identifying watersheds based on
CWA section 303(d) lists or on assessments conducted by the interagency
State technical committee. Such assessments may indicate, for example,
that a high proportion of waters are impaired because of nutrient or
pathogen problems attributable to animal manure or wastewater; that a
watershed has more manure generated than there is land available to land
apply manure in the watershed; or that water pollution associated with AFOs
poses a significant threat to public health as a result of contamination of
drinking water sources. EPA estimates that the number of AFOs that will be
subject to the permit program as a result of identified watershed
impairments to be between 1,000-3,000.
Site-specific Water Quality Impacts - Where the NPDES permitting
authority has evidence that an individual AFO or group of AFOs significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the designated use of an individual water
body, these AFOs should be a priority for permit issuance. Based on water
quality assessment information from States, the number of facilities that
meet these conditions is estimated to be between 1,000 - 3,000 facilities.
This section has described permitting and enforcement priorities for the
regulatory program based on existing CAFO regulations. EPA and USDA expect that
the total number of CAFOs in the situations described above that will be priorities for
coverage under NPDES permits will be in the range 15,000 - 20,000. About 2,000
CAFOs now have NPDES permits. EPA plans to refine and strengthen the existing
regulations during the next several years (see Section 5.0, Strategic Issue #3).
4.5 CAFO CNMPs
NPDES permits for CAFOs will include conditions and other requirements that
minimize the threat to water quality and public health and otherwise ensure
compliance with the requirements of the CWA. EPA will issue guidance on the
development of permits for CAFOs and will develop model permits. Among other
things, the guidance will provide that permits include conditions that ensure
compliance with national effluent guidelines applicable to CAFOs.
The EPA guidance will also recommend that CAFO permits require the
development of a CNMP and its implementation on a schedule established in the
permit. The guidance will incorporate NRCS's practice standards as the appropriate
practice standards for CAFO CNMPs. Where elements of the CNMP are included in a
NPDES permit, schedules for implementation of the practices or actions will be
consistent with requirements of the CWA (i.e., compliance schedules will be
consistent with State law and not exceed the five year term of the permit). Finally,
permits will include any more stringent conditions that the permitting authority
determines are necessary to meet State water quality standards.
Page 17
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Urtified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
[
CNMPs developed to meet the requirements of the NPDES permit program in
general must be developed by a person certified to develop CNMPs, a qualified State
agency official (e.g., cooperative extension agent), or by NRCS. Private parties may be
certified by State or nonprofit groups (e.g., the Certified Crop Advisor Program of the
American Society of Agronomy) approved by USDA, or certified directly by USDA
through EQIP.
The ultimate responsibility for developing and implementing CNMPs resides
with the CAFO owner and/or operator. If the CNMP is developed as a requirement of
the NPDES permit program, the CNMP should be consistent with this Strategy and the
regulatory agency will ensure that the CNMP meets the requirements of the CWA and
is being implemented. State or Federal enforcement agencies will work to ensure
compliance with permit requirements. !
I
4.6 Smaller CAFOs Can Exit the Regulatory Program
\
Smaller CAFOs (those with fewer than 1000 AUs) that are not located in
watersheds that are identified as impaired should be allowed to exit the permit
program after the end of the five-year permit term. To exit the program these facilities
must demonstrate that they have successfully addressed the initial condition that
caused them to be designated as CAFOs, are fully implementing their CNMP, and
offer evidence that they are in full compliance with their permit at the end of the permit
term.
4.7 Good Faith Incentive
I
In many cases, AFOs are taking early voluntary actions in good faith to manage
manure and wastewater in accordance with a CNMP. Some AFOs that are voluntarily
implementing a CNMP may, however, have a discharge that makes them subject to
the NPDES permitting program but does not cause them to be included in the
permitting priorities described above (i.e., AFOs with 301-1000 AUs that dp not
discharge through a man-made conveyance or directly into waters of the U.S. that
pass through their facility, and which are not significant contributors to nonattainment
of a designated use as determined through water quality monitoring). NPDES
permitting authorities will provide an opportunity for these AFOs to address the cause
of the discharge before designating them as CAFOs>.
Page 18
-------
USDA/EPA, Draft -Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
5.0 Strategic Issues
Overview of Strategic Issues
This USDA/EPA Unified National Strategy on Animal Feeding Operations
addresses seven major strategic issues:
Strategic Issue #1 - Building Capacity for CNMP Development and
Implementation
Strategic Issue #2 - Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-Based Programs
Strategic Issue #3 - Implementing and Improving the Existing Regulatory
Program
Strategic Issue #4 - Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation, Compliance
Assistance, and Technology Transfer
Strategic Issue #5 - Encouraging Industry Leadership
Strategic Issue #6 - Data Coordination
Strategic Issue #7 - Performance Measures and Accountability
Strategic Issue #1 Building Capacity for CNMP Development and Implementation
Description
The successful implementation of this Strategy depends on the availability of
qualified specialists from either the private or public sectors to assist in the
development and implementation of CNMPs. AFO owners and operators will need
substantially increased access to technical assistance from the private and public
sectors to support a strengthened regulatory program and, at the same time,
implement an accelerated effort to help owners and operators meet their stewardship
responsibilities through early, voluntary action.
Through prior or existing voluntary programs, NRCS has developed CNMPs for
AFOs. NRCS estimates that at least 300,000 AFOs need to develop CNMPs or revise
existing CNMPs to meet the performance expectation of this Strategy. EPA estimates
that between 15,000 to 20,000 operations will be considered CAFOs and be required
to develop and implement CNMPs as part of a permit.
Page 19
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy . September 11, 1998
Desired Outcomes
\
* Increase the number of certified specialists to develop CNMPs.
Ensure that CNMPs are implemented under the guidance of qualified specialists.
Consistent quality of CNMP development and implementation.
All AFO owners have a CNMP developed by a certified specialist by 2008.
j
Actions !
USDA and EPA will take the following actions, to the extent permitted by
available appropriations, to increase the supply of qualified technical speqialists
available to assist AFO owners and operators develop and implement CNMPs:
i
1, USDA and EPA will review available certification programs for those developing
CNMPs for AFOs to ensure technical adequacy and will provide training and
standards for these certification programs to improve their ability to certify CNMPs to
AFOs.
i
2. Facilitate and encourage participation of private sector consultants and technical
advisors through certification, training, and other activities to ensure private sector
sources of assistance can be effectively utilized by AFO owners and operators to
develop and implement CNMPs.
3. Increase funding within the USDA NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)
Program and Cooperative Extension System to increase technically qualified field
staff, train existing Federal and nonfederal staff, and provide enhanced technical
support for Federal and nonfederal technical advisors.
i
4. Explore options for training and certifying AFO operators to develop and implement
their own CNMPs.
5. USDA and EPA will facilitate the training of conservation contractors in the
Installation of practices specified in a CNMP.
6. USDA and EPA will provide assistance in the form of computer models or expert
systems to assist in the development of CNMPs. i
7. USDA and EPA will give priority to training those agencies and organizations that
deliver services at the local level. The voluntary program is delivered at the local level
through SWCDs, Cooperative Extension Service, USDA Service Centers, and the
private sector. These local service providers should also be fully informed of the
elements of the regulatory programs.
Page 20
-------
Lf5DA/EPA Draft Uhified National AFQ Strategy September 11, 1998
8. USDA and EPA will sponsor a national meeting to solicit ideas on how to build
capacity for the development and implementation of CNMPs.
9. USDA will develop agreements with third-party vendors similar to the 1998
agreement with the Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs will provide technical
assistance to agricultural producers in nutrient management, pest management, and
residue management. Any assistance provided under third party vendor agreements
will meet NRCS standards and specifications, or State standards if more restrictive.
10. USDA, EPA, and the States should each analyze the potential impact of this
Strategy on public and private resources and their availability to develop and
implement CNMPs.
Strategic Issue #2 Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-based Programs
Description
USDA and EPA agree that the release of pollutants to surface or groundwater
from an AFO is to be minimized regardless of size or management activity. It is the
ultimate responsibility of individual owners and operators, and the companies and
industries they are involved with, to minimize the release of pollutants from their
operations. Under this Strategy, most AFOs will minimize the risk of pollution by
voluntarily developing and implementing a CNMP.
Desired Outcomes
All AFOs develop and implement CNMPs by 2008.
Minimize pollution from AFOs to the greatest extent practical.
Ensure the maximum environmental benefit is obtained per public dollar
expended.
Ensure adequate financial incentives are available to minimize the economic
impact of implementing CNMPs.
Ensure that limited resource, minority, and other underserved producers have the
opportunity to participate fully in the voluntary programs.
Page 21
-------
USDA/EPA Draft IMfied National AFO Strategy September 11
1998
Actions
1. National Standards
i
1
Develop and Revise Practice Standards - To ensure that conservation policies and
practices are current and sufficient to address water quality risks associated with
AFOs, NRCS, in consultation with EPA and with input from States and other
stakeholders, will identify practice standards which need to be developed or
revised and propose a schedule for development or revision by November 1998.
The process of revising practice standards at both the national and local level
involves the public review of new or revised standards. The process should be
streamlined to the maximum extent possible.
j
2. Planning and Implementation
i
AFO CNMP Guidance - USDA's NRCS has national responsibility for conservation
planning policy and procedures and will provide guidance, in consultation with
EPA, by January 1999 that can be used by AFO owners, operators, and others to
develop a CNMP.
" ' ' ' i
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning requires that individuals,
including AFO owners and operators, qualified in the technical issues
associated with AFOs, should develop the CNMP. Good CNMPs are the result
of a process that ensures all elements of an operation are considered and that
causes of problems, rather than symptoms, are addressed. The CNMP
guidance will indicate what should be contained in the CNMP (such as aerial
photos or plan maps, planned conservation practices and schedule of
implementation, engineering designs for any constructed facilities for storing or
handling manure, records of soil and nutrient tests, appropriate rates of land
application to prevent the application of nutrients at rates that will exceed the
capacity of the soil and planned crops to assimilate nutrients and prevent
pollution, and records of practices and actions).
3. Outreach and Program Delivery
Fair and equitable treatment- USDA and EPA agree and will ensure through
aggressive outreach that the technical and financial assistance provided in the
voluntary efforts recommended by this Strategy will be available to persons without
regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political
beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. These outreach efforts are
already underway and will accelerate with the release of this Strategy.
4. Financial Assistance for CNMP implementation
Financial assistance can ease the burden on AFO owners and operators who
are implementing CNMPs. Financial assistance will be particularly important in
Page 22
-------
C/5DA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
helping existing AFOs improve the environmental performance of their operations.
Failure to fund these programs at the level the President has requested will
seriously constrain our ability to accelerate progress through voluntary action and
sometimes causes an economic hardship for AFOs. This is particularly true of
limited resource farmers.
The primary source of USDA assistance to AFO owners and operators is the
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), which was initiated in the. 1996
Farm Bill. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Small Watershed
Protection Program (PL 83-566) are also available to AFO owners and operators
meeting program eligibility requirements. EQIP has been funded at $200 million
in 1997 and 1998. Approximately 45 percent of the funds were spent in each of
these years to fund contracts with AFOs to develop and provide cost share
incentives to help implement CNMPs that consider most of the issues this
Strategy recommends be addressed in a CNMP. The requests for funds for AFOs
during each of those years was for approximately $230 million-three times the
amount available. The Administration has requested $300 million for EQIP for FY
1999.
The CRP provides farmers rental payments to set aside lands for various
environmental purposes. The continuous sign-up provision of CRP targets the
establishment of conservation buffers which are recognized as an important
component of a CNMP. A provision of CRP , referred to as the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) allows States to join with the Federal
government to increase rental rates paid to land owners by increasing funding for
the CRP program with State funds. USDA established the Conservation Buffer
Initiative in 1996 with the specific goal of establishing two million miles of buffers
by 2002. In 1998, approximately $500 million was expended through CRP to
establish an estimated 172,000 miles of buffers throughout the United States.
The PL 83-566 program received $86 million in FY 1997 and approximately $20
million was spent on 228 watershed plans that address water quality. A majority
of these watershed plans address AFOs.
EPA has two funds that can be partially used to help many AFOs meet the
performance expectation. The first is the 319 program, also known as the
Nonpoint Source Management Program. Under section 319 of the CWA, States,
Territories, and Tribes apply for and receive grants from EPA to implement
nonpoint source pollution controls. Over $670 million have been available from
this fund since 1990, with approximately 39 percent being directed toward
agricultural issues, including AFOs.
The second EPA fund is the Clean Water SRF , which is a program used to
make low interest loans (as low as zero percent) for important water quality
projects. Managed by the States, the SRF program in each State can fund
nonpoint source eligible implementation projects such as animal waste storage
Page 23
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
!
facilities. The SRF program is funding approximately three billion dollars in
projects each year with a cumulative total over the years of $20 billion. Since 1997,
the SRF program has funded over $650 million in nonpoint source-eligible
projects to clean up polluted runoff (including AFOs).
Currently, many States have cost-share programs that address water quality
issues. Funds from these programs are available to owners or operators to
assist in development and implementation of CNMPs. USDA and EPA strongly
support such programs.
i
i
Options to help provide Federal financial assistance to AFO operators to
develop and implement CNMPs include:
I
Continue and increase the USDA-EPA collaboration on AFO issues
particularly at the field level, to better target and leverage available
resources from all applicable programs to assist AFOs in addressing water
quality issues.
Target Federal financial assistance to existing AFOs who need to develop or
revise CNMPs to meet the performance expectation established by this
Strategy.
II ! " '. I
Significantly increase EQIP funding as requested in the President's budget
to meet the expressed demand from AFO owners and operators for
financial assistance.
i
Encourage AFO owners and operators to take full advantage of the CRP
program and establish conservation buffers as part of their CNMPs. Also
encourage States to collaborate with the Federal government through the
CREP provision of the CRP program.
* Encourage States to use 319 funding in implementing programs that
address management issues of AFOs. In particular, EPA will work with
States to target the requested increase in 319 funds to impaired
watersheds.
* EPA will work with States to increase the number and dollar amount of
loans made through the Clean Water SRF for priority projects to prevent
polluted runoff, with the goal of increasing the annual percentage of funds
loaned for this purpose to at least 10 percent (or about $200 million) by the
year 2001. EPA will also work with States toward the goal of increasing to
25 the number of States using integrated priority-setting systems to make
clean water funding decisions by the year 2000. EPA will work with States to
promote the use of these funds for AFO implementation measures.
Page 24
-------
C/SDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
Encourage States and Tribes to address AFO issues as they work with the
community to develop watershed restoration action strategies for priority
watersheds under the CWAP.
Develop a tool package of financial assistance programs that will be
available so that AFO owners, counties, SWCDs, and States can assess
options and understand how to receive financial assistance.
Strategic Issue #3 Implementing and Improving the Existing Regulatory Program
Description
The CWA provides that all "point sources" of water pollution that discharge or
add pollution to waters are subject to having a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit under section 402 of the Act. Section 502 of the
Act defines "concentrated animal feeding operations" or CAFOs as point sources.
EPA regulations provide detailed criteria for determining when an AFO is also a CAFO
subject to the NPDES permit program (see also Section 4.2 and 4.4 of this Strategy).
This Strategy clarifies the applicability and the requirements of the existing
regulatory program, identifies permitting and enforcement priorities, and describes
EPA's plans to strengthen and improve existing regulations. For those facilities
covered by the NPDES permitting program, CNMPs will identify steps to protect water
quality and public health and will be a key element of the permit.
Desired Outcomes
Minimize pollution from CAFOs to the greatest extent practicable.
Ensure the maximum environmental benefit is obtained per public dollar
expended.
Develop draft comprehensive CAFO permitting guidance and model permits by
October 1998 and final guidance by January 1999.
Develop comprehensive State CAFO permitting strategies beginning in early 1999.
Issue Round I NPDES permits to all CAFOs beginning in Spring 1999.
Revise the NPDES CAFO permitting regulations by December 2001.
Page 25
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
* Review and revise as appropriate the effluent limitation guideline for poultry and
swine by December 2001 and for beef and dairy by December 2002.
* Large CAFOs (greater than 1,000 AUs) have developed and are irnplementinq
CNMPs by 2003.
i
All CAFOs in States where EPA administers the NPDES program have developed
and are implementing CNMPs by 2003.
* Issue Round II NPDES permits to all CAFOs beginning in 2005.
* All CAFOs in NPDES authorized States have developed and are implementina
CNMPs in 2005.
Actions
1. Improve Implementation of the Existing CWA Permitting Program
.i
EPA will work with States to establish a two-phase approach to permitting
CAFOs. Round I of CAFO permitting will occur under EPA's existing CAFO
regulations. In Round II permits, core permit elements may be expanded to reflect
revisions to the effluent guideline, permit program regulations, and State-adopted
water quality standards for nutrients.
A Round I Permits
In Round I, EPA will work with NPDES-authorized States to issue Statewide
general NPDES permits to cover all CAFOs with greater than 1000 AUs and
CAFOs with between 300-1000 AUs that have unacceptable conditions. These
general permits will be issued starting in Spring 1999 and affected CAFOs will be
expected to submit a notice of intent to be covered by the permit. General permits
will require facilities to develop and implement CNMPs on a schedule identified in
the permit, develop record keeping procedures, and routinely report on the
implementation of the CNMP.
EPA and the NPDES-authorized States should use individual NPDES
permits in Round I for exceptionally large operations, new operations or those
undergoing significant expansion, operations with historical compliance
problems, or operations with significant environmental concerns. States have
flexibility in determining which CAFOs should have individual NPDES permits and
should address this topic in State CAFO permitting strategies (see Section 1D
below).
Page 26
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
Also in Round I, EPA will work with the States and'Tribes to issue
watershed general permits for facilities in selected watersheds, including those
identified as not meeting clean water goals. States are encouraged to develop
watershed general permits for watersheds where there are aggregate water
quality impacts from AFOs on a watershed scale (see Section 4.4).
Watershed general permits are based on existing EPA and State permitting
' authority. EPA's regulations on general permits (40 CFR 122.28) allow the
issuance of a single permit to cover facilities that share common elements (e.g.,
CAFOs) within a specific geographic area (e.g., watershed). To be covered under
a watershed general permit during Round I, AFOs with fewer than 1000 AUs need
to be individually designated as "significant contributors" of water pollution and
AFOs with fewer than 301 AUs also need to meet specific criteria (e.g., have a
man-made conveyance through which pollutants are discharged into navigable
waters or a direct discharge to waters passing through the facility).
These watershed general permits will allow for tailoring of NPDES permit
requirements to the needs of a watershed. Watershed general permits could also
tailor permit requirements to the realities of manure and wastewater management
practices in a given locality and promote more effective public participation than
would a Statewide general permit. Watershed general permits must be written to
reflect any TMDL developed for the watershed. EPA encourages permit writers to
use their best judgment in developing such permits.
States should also issue individual permits to individual facilities that are
significant contributors of water pollution to waters that do not attain water quality
standards, due in whole or part to AFOs.
B. Round II Permits
Round II permitting will include reissuance of Statewide general permits,
individual permits, and watershed general permits; will begin at the end of the five-
year permit term of Round I (i.e., about 2005); and will incorporate new
requirements resulting from revisions to the existing CAFO effluent guideline and
NPDES permitting regulations.
In addition to potential regulatory revisions that may affect CAFO permitting,
Round II CAFO permits will incorporate requirements that reflect ongoing activities
related to nutrient water quality criteria development. On June 25, 1998, EPA
announced a national strategy for the development of regional nutrient criteria.
The strategy describes the approach EPA will take for development of scientific
information related to nutrients and to working with States to ensure adoption of
nutrient criteria into State water quality standards. EPA will establish numeric
criteria for nutrients within three years of their issuance or by 2000, as specified in
the Clean Water Action Plan. EPA expects all States and Tribes to adopt and
Page 27
-------
I
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
implement numerical nutrient criteria into their water quality standards by
December 31, 2003. All NPDES permits must be revised to incorporate
requirements to meet State-adopted nutrient criteria as the permits are issued or
reissued.
In Round II, EPA and States will continue to identify watersheds where
cumulative effects of AFOs c... -:e nonattainment of water quality standards and
EPA and States will continue to identify as a priority for individual permits certain
exceptionally large operations, those undergoing significant expansion or those
with significant public interest.
Finally, in Round II, EPA will not include, and recommend that States not
include, in reissued Statewide general permits any CAFO with fewer than 1000
AUs (or whatever appropriate threshold may exist because of revised regulations)
that was included in a Round I permit if the CAFO is not located in a watershed that
is identified as impaired and if the CAFO has successfully addressed the initial
condition that caused them to be a CAFO, is fully implementing a CNMP, and
offers evidence that it is in full compliance with its permit at the end of the permit
term (See Section 4.6). ;
C. CAFO Permitting Guidance and Model Permits
EPA will develop comprehensive guidance on NPDES permitting of CAFOs
including development of Statewide, individual, and watershed general permits.
EPA will also develop model Statewide, individual, and watershed general
permits. Guidance and model permits will be issued in draft by October 1998 and
in final form by January 1999.
A key subject to be addressed in the guidance is the process for establishing
schedules for development of CNMPs for those facilities covered by individual
and general permits. These schedules for development of CNMPs should be
appropriate to the circumstances in each State and should be described in
detail in State-specific permitting strategies (see below). At a minimum, State-
specific permitting strategies should provide for the development of CNMPs for
the largest CAFOs (i.e., greater than 1,000 AUs) by 2003 and all CAFOs by
2005. In States where EPA administers the NPDES program, permits will
require that all CAFOs have CNMPs by 2003.
The guidance will also address issues such as who is required to obtain a
permit, elements of a permit (which may differ for new or expanding CAFOs and
existing CAFOs), and different types of permits, including watershed general
permits, consistent with the permitting priorities described in Section 4.4. EPA
expects that permit elements will include specific performance measures for
CNMP implementation, reporting (including reporting on CNMPs for land
application and their implementation), and monitoring.
Page 28
-------
C/SDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11. 1998
The model permits will provide that CNMPs developed pursuant to a permit, or
that are directly related to issuance of a permit, should be provided to the
permitting authority by the permittee. Some States have adopted approaches
in their permitting programs that recognize the environmental responsibilities
of corporate entities that participate in the operation of CAFOs. EPA will explore
options for including such approaches in its model permits.
USDA and EPA agree that a CNMP developed by public sector parties or
certified private parties should be a condition of an individual or general
NPDES permit. EPA guidance will indicate that the CNMP should be the
principal substantive pollution control provision of the permit and will
incorporate NRCS's practice standards as the appropriate practice standards
for CAFO CNMPs. Permits will include other provisions including any more
stringent conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA (See
Section 4.5).
D. State-Specific CAFO Permitting Strategies
EPA and USDA recognize that the current law and regulations provide
authority to issue permits to a larger group of CAFOs than is identified in the
priorities described in Section 4.4. However, States are asked to prioritize NPDES
permit issuance to address AFOs that fall into the three priority permitting
categories, at a minimum, and any other AFOs the State determines should have
permits consistent with the authority of the current law, following the general
guidelines for Round I and Round II permitting described above.
Some States have significantly greater numbers of AFOs requiring permits
than do other States. The capacity for development of CNMPs in the public and
private sector will vary from State to State. Resources available for the
management of the NPDES program also vary from State to State. And, the extent
to which smaller AFOs (i.e. under 1,000 animal units) are significant contributors
to water quality problems on a site-specific or watershed basis will vary among
States. State-specific CAFO permitting strategies should address timing and
approaches to permitting, including the basis for using individual and general
permits and should reflect stakeholder and public input to the extent practicable.
EPA will assist States in evaluating their CAFO permitting efforts and in
developing, beginning in early 1999, comprehensive strategies consistent with
this national Strategy to enhance permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities
for CAFOs. EPA will also work with States to develop performance measures that
track environmental progress and programmatic efforts. Finally, EPA will work to
develop State-specific CAFO permitting strategies in cooperation with States that
do not administer the NPDES program.
Page 29
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
EPA will work with States to ensure that EPA enforcement priorities are
deigned to complement and ensure successful implementation of this Strategy
and are otherwise consistent with State-specific permitting strategies. However,
notwithstanding these priorities, it should also be recognized that EPA may initiate
enforcement action at any facility at any time under the Agency's authorities to
address imminent and substantial endangerments.
Several States have permitting or licensing programs that address
environmental issues and requirements for AFOs that go beyond the NPDES
program. EPA intends to work with States to ensure that State and Federal
programs work together smoothly to protect water quality and public health. EPA
will also work with States that are authorized to administer the NPDES program to
ensure that State programs meet the NPDES substantive and procedural
requirements and issue NPDES permits. However, this Strategy is not intended to
preclude States from adopting more stringent approaches in their NPDES
programs.
2. Review and Revision of Existing Regulations
i
A. Feedlots Effluent Limitations Guidelines
EPA will, with input from USDA, States, Tribes, other Federal Agencies and
the public, review and revise as appropriate, the effluent limitation guideline for
poultry and swine by December 2001 and for beef and dairy cattle by December
2002. NRCS and other USDA agencies will participate on the regulatory
workgroup to revise the regulations.
i i
In 1974, EPA promulgated the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Feedlots Point Source Category (40 CFR 412).
The effluent guidelines for feedlots applies to a subset of operations in the
following animal sectors: beef and dairy cattle, swine, sheep, horses, broiler
and layer chickens, turkeys, and ducks.
The guideline establishes a "no discharge" requirement for process
wastewater which, in general, includes the manure from the feesdlot as well as
any precipitation that comes into contact with the manure or any products used
in or resulting from the production of animals or direct products (e.g., milk,
eggs). The requirement prohibits discharges except those that result from
chronic or catastrophic events, including from a 25-year, 24-hour or larger
storm event where a facility has been appropriately designed and constructed.
This "no discharge" standard applies to existing as well as new facilities.
EPA expects that revisions to the effluent guidelines will:
Page 30
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
Be closely coordinated with any changes to the NPDES permitting
regulations.
Consider innovative and alternative technologies including the viability of
treatment and discharge technologies and technologies that do not
involve storage of liquid manure.
Assess different management practices that minimize the discharge of
pollutants and the cross-media transfer of pollutants.
Evaluate alternative use and disposal options for manure that
nonetheless capture their nutrient/energy value.
Evaluate options for regulating dry manure handling systems.
Evaluate the need for different requirements for new or expanding and
existing facilities.
B. NPDES Permit Regulations
EPA will, with input from USDA, States, Tribes, other Federal Agencies, and
the public, revise the NPDES permit program regulations regarding CAFOs by
December 2001.
EPA intends to revise the existing permitting regulations to clarify expectations
and requirements for CAFOs as well as to reflect the changes in the industry.
NRCS and other USDA agencies will participate on the regulatory workgroup to
revise the regulations. Revision of the permitting regulations will be closely
coordinated with the revision of the Feedlots Effluent Limitations Guideline (40
CFR Part 412) because of the commonality of issues and the administrative
efficiencies for EPA, States and all interested groups. Permits in effect on the
date of new regulations will remain in effect until subsequently changed to
incorporate the new requirements.
Key permitting issues that EPA intends to consider during the regulatory
revision process include:
Establishing specific requirements for new and significantly expanding
facilities and monitoring requirements for permitted facilities.
Clarifying requirements for effective management of manure and
wastewater from CAFOs whether they are handled on-site or off-site.
Explore alternative ways of defining CAFOs.
Consider requirements for CAFOs to conduct self-evaluations of CNMP
implementation and keep records of such evaluations on-site.
Considering large poultry operations, consistent with the size threshold
for other animal sectors, as CAFOs, regardless of the type of watering or
manure handling system.
Clarifying who may designate and the criteria for designating certain
AFOsas CAFOs.
Page 31
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
i
Providing for the protection of sensitive water bodies such as source
water protection areas, Outstanding National Water Resources,
wetlands and other areas.
Providing for expedited designation of smaller AFOs in watersheds
identified for watershed general permits.
Removing the exemption from permitting for AFOs that only discharge
during a 24-hour 25-year or larger storm event.
New, improved public review of general permit conditions applicable to
individual facilities, including public notice of facilities to be covered.
Consider defining all facilities regardless of size that have a man-made
conveyance as a CAFO.
Explore alternative approaches to ensuring that corporate entities
support the efforts of individual AFOs to comply with permits and develop
and implement CNMPs.
3. Improve Implementation of the Existing CWA Compliance and {Enforcement
Program
The following actions are designed to improve implementation of the existing
CWA compliance and enforcement program for CAFOs and support implementation
of this Strategy:
.
CAFO Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan Revisions - EPA will revise its
CAFO Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan as necessary to ensure that
EPA and State enforcement priorities support implementation of this Strategy.
However, EPA may "initiate emergency actions at any time against any AFO that
presents an imminent or substantial endangerment.
Compliance Assistance - EPA will continue and expand compliance assistance
efforts led by the National Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center consistent
with the Strategy and changes to the regulatory program. As regulations are
revised and implemented, EPA's initial efforts will focus on compliance assistance
and later shift to a greater focus on enforcement activities.
CAFO Inspections - EPA will work with States to establish commitments for
inspection of CAFOs with the goal of inspecting existing CAFOs (including
unannounced periodic inspections to determine if CAFO CNMPs are being
implemented) and other facilities that may need to be designated as CAFOs
because they may fall into one of the categories that are priorities for NPDES
permitting. EPA expects that training will be necessary for inspectors and will
engage specialists familiar with AFOs and associated management practices to
assist in this training.
Page 32
-------
C/5DA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11. 1998
Strategic Issue #4 Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation, Compliance
Assistance, and Technology Transfer
Description
Coordinated research, technical innovation, compliance assistance, and
technology transfer relative to the environmental management of AFOs are critical
components of this Strategy. USDA and EPA, together with other Federal partners,
will establish coordinated research, technical innovation, and technology transfer
activities, and compliance assistance, and establish a single point information center.
Knowledge gaps exist in our understanding of the effects of AFOs on natural
resources and environmental quality. Some of this lack of understanding is due to the
fragmented structure of our research and data collection efforts, information residing
in multiple locations with much of the information obtained with objectives different
from those of this Strategy and different information being used by AFO managers,
technical assistance specialists and regulators. For example, research is done
primarily from an animal production and natural resource management perspective
by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Economic Research Service (ERS), and
the land-grant colleges and universities, among others. These entities also do
research on economic issues such as economic impact, cost/benefit analyses, policy
analyses, and resource use and environmental implications. EPA, U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and university researchers conduct research on AFOs from an
environmental quality viewpoint. EPA and USDA will, in coordination with the private
sector, the land grant colleges and universities and others, develop a coordinated
plan for research, development, and assessment.
Desired Outcomes
A coordinated approach to research, technical innovation, compliance
assistance, and technology transfer.
Actions
A. Coordinated Research Plan - USDA and EPA will develop a coordinated AFO
research plan by October 1999. This plan will establish priorities for future research
including:
1. Methods to better manage manure to address nutrients, pathogens, and
other pollutants.
2. Modification of animal diets to reduce nutrients in manure.
3. Mitigation of sites with excessive pollutants.
4. Evaluation of impacts of best management practices from farm and
watershed perspectives.
5. Educational materials for all audiences that meet their conservation,
regulatory, and production needs.
Page 33
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
t
i
6. Alternative uses of animal manure, such as for energy production or for
high value, low volume fertilizers.
7. Assessment of the climate change effects of methane and NOx
emissions from AFOs
8. Assessment of the problem of air deposition of nutrients.
9. Assessment of food safety impacts from AFOs including pathogens,
hormones, antibiotics, and metals and the water quality impacts resulting from
the discharge of these and other compounds to the environment.
10. Assessment of the quality of existing monitoring data.
11. Alternatives to production methods that use animal confinement.
12. Establishment of soil phosphorous threshold levels.
13 Alternatives for transporting manure, manure distribution, and
composting.
14. Water quality risk of dry manure management.
B. Coordinated Technology Transfer Plan - USDA and EPA will develop a coordinated
AFO technology transfer plan by October 1999. The plan will describe how to
disseminate the results of all research conducted by the agencies. The plan will also
describe the establishment of a website on which to post all data results, analyses of
the resulting information, comments or responses to the results or analyses,
automated nutrient management tools, and any scholarly papers about the research
project or related information.
C. Virtual Center- USDA and EPA will develop a Virtual Center with the goal of
creating a single point of reference for both agencies, the individual producers, the
livestock industry, and the general public. EPA and USDA will commit to developing a
process for setting research priorities, coordinating research activities, participating in
joint research endeavors, and sharing research results. The Virtual Center will
consist of a website to be maintained by personnel from both USDA and EPA where
research results, analyses, comments and responses to the research and scholarly
papers on the research project or related information would be available to all.
Options
There are two options for realizing the three actions described above in this section.
Regardless of which option is chosen, EPA and USDA will coordinate with the
National Agricultural Library in Beltsville, Maryland, which currently serves as a USDA
repository for research data and results, as well as the National Agriculture
Compliance Assistance Center. These options are not mutually exclusive nor
exhaustive:
1. Develop a National AFO Information and Research Center.
USDA and EPA would develop a National AFO Information and Research
Center. Appropriate EPA offices and USDA agencies would provide support to the
center. Other Federal agencies (e.g., USGS, Department of Energy) that are
i
Page 34
-------
USDA/EPA Draft -Unified National AFO Strategy September 11. 1998
conducting relevant research, information management, and technical assistance
activities would be invited to join as associated members. Members of the center
would contribute both financial and personnel support to the Center's activities.
The Center would develop and manage a coordinated research program,
compliance assistance, data exchange and coordinated technical assistance. In
the short term, the Center would be tasked to complete the three action items
described above.
2. Establish a National AFO Information and Research Working Group
USDA and EPA would establish a National AFO Information and Research
Working Group. Appropriate EPA offices and USDA agencies would provide
support to the working group. Other Federal agencies that are conducting relevant
research, information management, and technical assistance activities would be
invited to join as members. Members of the working group would contribute both
financial and personnel support to the working group's activities, although each
cooperating agency would be directly responsible for the management of its
human and financial resources. The working group would develop and manage a
coordinated research, information exchange, and technical assistance program.
The working group would also collaborate and coordinate activities with other
appropriate entities. The Working Group would be tasked to complete the three
action items described above.
Strategic Issue #5 Encouraging Industry Leadership
Description
This Strategy intends to provide strong incentives for AFO owners and
operators to develop and implement CNMPs. Other sections of the animal agriculture
industry can also play a key role in helping to encourage adoption of these CNMPs
and address water quality problems on individual AFOs. An example is the
Comprehensive Environmental Framework for Pork Production Operations
recommended by the National Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production. The
Dialogue included representatives from State Agriculture and Environmental
Agencies, USDA, EPA, and the pork industry. The National Pork Producers Council is
recommending that the Framework would apply to all commercial pork production
operations. The poultry industry is currently conducting a similar dialogue. These
industry-led initiatives can significantly increase the voluntary adoption of CNMPs to
protect water quality.
In addition to the animal agriculture industry, other groups (i.e., co-ops, the Certified
Crop Advisors, and the National Association of Independent Crop Consultants) can
play a key role in helping AFOs protect water quality and public health.
Page 35
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
USDA and EPA invite comments on how the agricultural and livestock industries can
play an active role in ensuring that all AFOs have CNMPs.
' '
Desired Outcomes
The animal agriculture industry will take the lead in promoting and ensuring the
protection of water quality on individual AFOs though development and
implementation of CNMPs on all AFOs.
Actions
The following are actions that USDA and EPA may take to promote industry
involvement. USDA and EPA request comment on which of these actions or other
actions would benefit most from Federal involvement.
Industry-Led Initiatives - USDA and EPA will work with industry, in particular
integrators, to identify opportunities for greater industry involvement in pollution
prevention. This could include the integrators providing technical, educational, and
financial assistance to producers and/or requiring CNMPs in contracts with
producers. This could also include industry use of climate, soil, and crop information
supplied by USDA and EPA to locate future operations. USDA and EPA will promote
industry-led dialogues in different AFO sectors such as the recently concluded pork
dialogue and the ongoing poultry dialogue.
Manure Brokering Networks - USDA and EPA will investigate with the industry the
potential for manure brokering networks to make sure excess manure is available to
the cropland which needs it.
AFO Owner/Operator Peer Network - USDA and EPA will promote with the industry a
peer network of AFO owners and operators willing to assist other producers in their
area with questions or assistance on CNMPs.
AFO Awards Program - USDA and EPA will work with AFO Industry groups to develop
an awards program to promote innovative and effective water quality management of
AFOs.
. I
Disseminate Information - USDA and EPA will work with industry (associations,
integrators, etc.) to disseminate information on the revised NPDES regulations' and
effluent guidelines, beginning in 2001.
' i
Locally-Led Watershed Efforts- USDA and EPA will work with the AFO industry to
promote locally led watershed efforts.
Industry-Developed Planning Tools - USDA and EPA will encourage and support
industry efforts to develop and distribute planning tools to members to enable them to
develop and implement CNMPs.
Page 36
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
Environmental Reviews - USPA and EPA will promote industry efforts to conduct
environmental reviews of members' AFOs to evaluate environmental performance
and assist in enhancing environmental protection.
Manure/Fertilizer/Biosolids Dialogue - USDA and EPA will encourage dialogue on how
to maximize the benefits of using manure, fertilizer, and biosolids.
Marketing and Promotion Orders - The 1996 Farm Bill authorized conservation as a
purpose for marketing and promotion orders. Marketing and promotion orders allow
an agriculture industry (e.g., livestock) to assess a charge on the product to be used
for conservation and environmental activities. These marketing and promotion orders
generate needed funds for an activity and can provide financial support for all its
producers (e.g., growers). In implementing a marketing and promotion order (i.e.,
check-off program) through the Secretary of Agriculture, additional revenue can be
generated to support, while maintaining a level playing field throughout the industry,
needed nutrient management practices.
Strategic Issue #6 Data Coordination
Description
Several kinds of data are useful in assessing and managing the water quality
impacts of AFOs. Ambient water quality information allows the identification of water
quality impacts that may be attributable to AFOs; Aggregate information about
multiple AFOs can be used to target both regulatory and voluntary activities, including
watershed-level planning. Finally, information about individual AFOs is helpful for
those assisting owners and operators in developing CNMPs, identifying facilities that
may be subject to the regulatory program, and for the development and
implementation of watershed-level plans. These three kinds of data are available
from multiple sources, including USDA, EPA, USGS, Army Corps of Engineers, and
State agencies.
Recently, questions have been raised regarding the public availability of some
types of information related to AFOs-in particular, data related to individual AFOs used
by USDA to assist in conservation planning. USDA and EPA affirm the need to protect
the trust relationship that exists between farmers and USDA and as characterized by
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman's call to "maintain a firewall between voluntary
and regulatory programs." On May 22, 1998, NRCS issued a policy statement that
prohibits the release of AFO-specific information in conservation plans and case files
that has been developed through voluntary technical and financial assistance
programs. In accordance with EPA regulations most information on individual
facilities, collected or generated as part of the NPDES program, is publicly available.
Page 37
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
I
!
Desired Outcomes '
USDA/EPA coordination on data sharing that protects the trust relationship
between USDA and farmers and provides regulatory authorities with information that
is useful in protecting water quality.
Actions
Joint Policy Statement on Data Coordination - EPA and USDA wilf develop a joint
policy statement on information coordination. Both agencies agree to review existing
policies and guidance based on the joint policy statement.
Water Quality Inventory Enhancements - EPA will improve the 305(b) Water Quality
inventory to better report the water quality impacts caused by AFQs.
i
Cost-Benefit Methodology - EPA and USDA will develop a joint evaluation of the costs
and benefits of this Strategy and options considered in developing revised CAFO
regulations. USDA and EPA will convene an interagency economic analysis work
group to develop the economic analysis methodology and data that may be used in
the analysis.
CAFO Inventory - To ensure a program that is consistent with NPDES program
activities, EPA will develop an inventory of facilities subject to regulatory activities.
Strategic Issue #7 Performance Measures and Accountability
Description
i
I
USDA and EPA believe that it is critical to establish performance measures to
gauge our success in implementing this Strategy and meeting relevant goals in each
agency's strategic plan established under the Government Performance and Results
Act. Three types of performance measures are important. First, USDA and EPA are
committed to completing each of the actions described under the strategic issues.
Second, there are a number of programmatic activities (e.g., number of AFOs with
CNMPs, number of CAFOs cpvered by NPDES permits) that we will evaluate to
measure the level of activity being devoted to addressing water quality impacts from
AFOs. Finally, and most importantly, USDA and EPA will develop appropriate
environmental outcome measures to measure our progress in implementinq this
Strategy.
We recognize that measurement of AFO progress in addressing water quality
issues will take time for two reasons: (1) it will take time to develop appropriate
measures; and (2) it will take time for water quality progress to be achieved (maybe
decades in some watersheds).
Page 38
-------
USDA/EPA Draft-Unified National AFO Strategy September 11. 1998
Desired Outcomes
An effective performance measurement system for AFOs that includes
appropriate programmatic output and environmental outcomes that allows USDA,
EPA and other stakeholders to determine the level of success and to improve AFO-
related programs.
Actions
Performance Measurement - USDA, EPA, and other Federal agencies will establish a
joint work group to develop a coordinated set of programmatic outputs and
environmental outcome measures for this Strategy and identify a baseline against
which to measure performance. The work group will seek input from States and
SWCDs and will develop a performance measurement approach for AFOs by October
1999
-------
USDA/EPA Draft Unified National AFO Strategy September li, 1998
State/Local Government - State and local governments often have the
responsibility for implementing Federal programs. For example, 42 States and
the Virgin Islands are authorized to implement the current CWA provisions that
affect CAFOs. States also implement various nonpoint source control
programs, including cost-share programs. States and SWCDs are key
partners in implementing environmental and conservation programs. State
Land Grant Universities are the primary mechanism to deliver agricultural
research and extension programs. State, local, and Federal governments, and
private sector partners work together to ensure that the actions taken on the
ground are appropriate and cost effective. State and local governments also
help determine where water quality and public health protection must be
enhanced beyond the minimum performance expectations established through
Federal programs, and often deal with local issues such as siting and odor.
Individual Producers - No matter what size an operation or from what
management activity, the release of pollutants to surface or groundwate'r from
an AFO is to be avoided. It is the responsibility of individual owners and
operators, and the companies and industries they are involved with, to
minimize the release of pollutants from AFOs. Every operation should be
implementing a CNMP that minimizes the risks of pollution.
!
Integrators - Integrators should ensure that their contract growers are
environmentally responsible. Feed mills and processing plants should
incorporate the environmental impacts of the dissociated production
operations into the siting and sizing of their plants. Integrators can also help
develop alternatives for manure use and transport.
Livestock Industry - The livestock industry as a whole has an obligation to
educate its members and to provide leadership to ensure that its practices do
not adversely impact society or the environment. Many sectors of the livestock
industry have shown leadership by moving forward to establish new, industry-
led efforts to improve the siting and management of AFOs, and to provide
training to operators. This leadership must be enhanced and continue.
i
i
Other Private Sector - The private sector can continue to contribute to new
technologies and innovative strategies that capitalize on the nutrient and energy
value of animal manure and related by-products of AFOs. This would include
vendors and consultants of animal manure treatment and management
systems. Various organizations, including livestock organizations and AFO-
related companies provide educational programs to inform AFO owners and
operators about Federal and State goals, standards, rules, and permitting
processes, and to teach them how they can protect environmental quality and
comply with regulatory provisions. The agricultural and environmental
consulting community can also respond by helping to ensure that appropriate
technical resources are available to assist with development of CNMPs for
producers. Fertilizer producers and dealers can provide information on
Page 40
-------
USDA/EPA Draff Unified National AFO Strategy September 11, 1998
integrating use of manure and other nutrient sources to ensure appropriate
nutrient use.
Research and Educational Institutions - Public and private research
organizations provide much of the knowledge and technology to better manage
and utilize manure and related by-products of livestock production. USDA's
and EPA's research, education, and technical assistance programs will
provide leadership in developing new and innovative technologies for AFOs
and analyzing their effectiveness.
Watershed or Community Responsibilities - Every watershed where the
concentration of AFOs is a potential source of pollution should have a
watershed- or area-wide plan that helps AFO owners, operators, and others to
work together to prevent pollution. Such planning is particularly important in
areas where problems exist, such as where the quantity of manure and
nutrients produced by AFOs exceeds what can be safely applied to land to meet
crop needs. Locally led watershed efforts promote coordinated and integrated
decision making to find sound, locally acceptable ways to achieve
environmental quality.
Environmental Groups- Environmental groups and grass-roots organizations
play an important role in focusing public attention on environmental concerns
with respect to animal production activities. Environmental groups can provide
"on-site" reports about specific environmental quality concerns and can
educate its members, the general public, the agricultural community and the
media about important environmental concerns at the local, State, and national
level.
Page 41
-------
------- |