New York State Animal Agriculture Program
Assessment
Final
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
February 2015
New York Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
-------
Page intentionally blank
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
-------
Contents
1.0 Executive Summary 1
2.0 Introduction 4
2.1 Purpose of Effort 5
2.2 Program Review Approach 6
3.0 Animal Agriculture in New York State 7
4.0 State Agencies and Funding Sources, Animal Agriculture Programs 8
4.1 State Funding Sources 9
4.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 10
4.3 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 11
4.3.1 New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee 11
4.3.2 New York State Soil and Water Conservation Districts 11
4.4 New York State Department of State 11
4.5 The Upper Susquehanna Coalition 11
5.0 New York State and the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load 12
6.0 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices 15
6.1 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices, Observations 19
7.0 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans 20
7.1 Facility Universe, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans 22
7.2 Resources Allocated, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans 22
7.3 Data Systems, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans 22
7.4 Compliance and Enforcement, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans 22
7.5 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices, Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Plans 23
7.6 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans, Observations 24
8.0 SPDES CAFO Program 24
8.1 SPDES Environmental Conservation Law General Permit 25
8.1.1 SPDES Environmental Conservation Law Permit Best Management Practices 27
8.2 SPDES Clean Water Act General Permit 31
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
-------
8.2.1 SPDES Clean Water Act Permit Best Management Practices 32
8.3 SPDES Nutrient Management 34
8.4 SPDES Annual Compliance Reports 35
8.5 Facility Universe, SPDES CAFO Program 37
8.6 Resources Allocated, SPDES CAFO Program 38
8.7 Data Systems, SPDES CAFO Program 38
8.8 Compliance and Enforcement, SPDES CAFO Program 39
8.9 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices, SPDES CAFO
Program 45
8.10 SPDES CAFO Program, Observations 46
9.0 Agricultural Environmental Management 47
9.1 Facility Universe, Agricultural Environmental Management 51
9.2 Resources Allocated, Agricultural Environmental Management 51
9.3 Data Systems, Agricultural Environmental Management 52
9.4 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices, Agricultural
Environmental Management 52
9.6 Agricultural Environmental Management, Observations 53
10.0 Summary 53
10.1 New York State's Animal Agriculture Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best
Management Practices 53
10.2 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans 54
10.3 SPDES CAFO Program 54
10.4 Agricultural Environmental Management 56
11.0 References 56
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACR
Annual Compliance Report
NOI
Notice of Intent
AEM
Agricultural Environmental
Management
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
AFO
Animal feeding operation
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation
ANSACP
Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Abatement and Control
Service (U.S. Department of
Agriculture)
Program
NYCRR
New York State Codes, Rules
AU
Animal unit
and Regulations
BMP
Best management practice
NYS
New York State
CAFO
Concentrated animal feeding
operation
NYSDAM
New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets
CAST
Chesapeake Assessment
Scenario Tool
NYSDEC
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
CBP
Chesapeake Bay Program
NYSDOS
New York State Department of
State
CEDR
Centralized Electronic
Document Repository
PE
Professional Engineer
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
RO
Regional Office (NYSDEC)
CNMP
Comprehensive nutrient
SFY
State Fiscal year
management plan
SNC
Significant noncompliance
CO
Central Office (NYSDEC)
SPDES
State Pollutant Discharge
CPS
Conservation Practice Standard
Elimination System
CWA
Clean Water Act
SWCC
New York State Soil and Water
ECL
Environmental Conservation
Conservation Committee
Law
SWCD
New York State Soil and Water
U.S. Environmental Protection
Conservation District
EPA
Agency
TMDL
Total maximum daily load
EPF
Environmental Protection Fund
use
Upper Susquehanna Coalition
EQIP
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
USDA
United States Department of
Agriculture
FSA
Farm Service Agency (USDA)
WIP
Watershed Implementation
FTE
Full-time equivalent
Plan (Chesapeake Bay Program)
GP
General permit
ICIS
Integrated Compliance
Information System
MOU
Memorandum of understanding
NA
Not applicable
NEIEN
National Environmental
Information Exchange Network
NMP
Nutrient Management Plan
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
-------
Page intentionally blank
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
-------
1.0 Executive Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts periodic reviews of state programs as part of
its oversight responsibilities under the Clean Water Act (CWA). As a continuation of this process, EPA is
conducting assessments of animal agriculture programs in the six Chesapeake Bay (Bay) states as part of
its oversight responsibilities under the Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program. This review also satisfies certain EPA
commitments made in the settlement agreement that resolved the lawsuit Fowler et al. v. EPA. No.
l:09-cv-0005-CKK (D.D.C.). EPA will complete the six Bay state animal agriculture program reviews in
2015.
In 2014, EPA began to assess New York State's animal agriculture regulations and programs. This
assessment report identifies successes and challenges within New York State's animal agriculture
programs and regulations, evaluates the programs that are available to support the state's agricultural
pollutant load reduction commitments set forth in New York State's Watershed Implementation Plan
(WIP) to achieve the allocations in the Bay TMDL, and evaluates State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permit program (including its implementation) for concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFO) against the federal NPDES CAFO requirements. The main goal of EPA's assessment is
to determine whether the state's programs are consistent with CWA requirements and are
implemented effectively to achieve New York State's animal-agriculture WIP commitments to reduce
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment under the Bay TMDL.
This assessment briefly summarizes state environmental regulations applicable to animal agriculture
operations as well as New York agencies with regulatory and technical responsibilities for animal
agriculture operations. The report also includes EPA's analysis of how New York State is implementing its
animal agriculture programs. The specific programs assessed are the Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plan Program, the SPDES CAFO Permits Program, and the Agricultural Environmental
Management (AEM) Program. The purpose of EPA's assessment was to look at all of these programs and
evaluate how well they work together to meet CWA requirements and the state's animal agriculture
commitments made to meet the Bay TMDL requirements.
This assessment is based on responses from New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) on an animal agriculture program questionnaire developed by EPA, information in 41 SPDES-
permitted animal feeding operation files provided by NYSDEC, AEM materials provided by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM), interviews with NYSDEC staff, and program
information available from agency websites. New York was forthcoming with a considerable amount of
material, staff time, and information to support this assessment.
The observations outlined in this report provide a framework for New York to strengthen
implementation of their animal agriculture programs and work toward improved water quality within
New York State and the Bay watershed.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
1
-------
Animal Agriculture in New York State
Agriculture represents nearly 25 percent of New York State's Bay watershed land use and, according to a
2009 Bay watershed Model run, delivers approximately 42 percent, 55 percent and 40 percent,
respectively, of the total nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads from New York State to the Bay
watershed. Agriculture in the New York State's portion of the Bay watershed is primarily integrated
livestock and forage crop farms (mostly dairies).
New York State's portion of the Bay watershed is estimated to contain approximately 247 animal
feeding operations (AFOs), of which 68 are SPDES-permitted CAFOs. EPA acknowledges that there could
be administrative and operational challenges associated with implementing nutrient and sediment
reduction programs for such a large number of animal agriculture operations.
Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practice Implementation
New York State's Phase I and Phase II WIPs detail how the state plans to meet Bay TMDL loading
allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. New York submitted its Bay TMDL Phase I WIP on
December 2010 and the Phase II WIP on January 7, 2012. New York anticipates that the agricultural
strategies outlined in the Phase I WIP and Phase II WIP, particularly the effective funding and execution
of its CAFO regulatory program, the development and implementation of comprehensive nutrient
management plans (CNMPs), and the continued support to the AEM program, will provide significant
opportunities toward meeting the load reductions for the agricultural sector.
EPA focused its assessment on five animal agriculture best management practices (BMPs) that, when
implemented, will achieve a significant portion of New York State's nutrient and sediment reductions.
EPA refers to these BMPs in this document as "priority BMPs." New York State is relying on these
priority BMPs to reduce its agricultural loads to the Bay: enhanced nutrient management, livestock
mortality composting, prescribed grazing, barnyard runoff control, and cereal and commodity cover
crops. The state estimates that enhanced nutrient management can be applied to 100 percent of crop
and hay land for CAFO acres and about 10 percent for AFO acres, or a total of 228,957 acres per year. By
2025, the state is planning to compost 80 percent of dairy mortalities and implement prescribed grazing
on 90 percent of available pasture acres. By the same year, New York State's goal is barnyard and loafing
lot runoff control on 35 percent of all AFOs and 100 percent of all CAFOs, for a weighted total of
approximately 78 percent of AFO/CAFO acres, or 753 total acres. New York State's Phase II
implementation goal is 31,357 acres planted in cereal and commodity cover crops by 2025.
In addition to the regulatory programs, New York State's voluntary CNMP program works to address
water quality impacts from unpermitted AFOs. In addition, the state has a long history implementing
and supporting the AEM initiative to encourage the development of farm viability and water quality
protection strategies that originate at the local level. New York State has placed particular emphasis on
increasing voluntary implementation of CNMPs. Currently, farmers must have a CNMP to be eligible for
cost-share funding.
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
CNMPs are the foundation of New York State's regulatory program to control potential water pollution
from CAFOs. CNMPs specify structural and nonstructural BMPs to manage process wastewater,
pathogens, and proper disposal of animal mortality. The New York State technical standards for nutrient
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
2
-------
management are reviewed and revised by a Standards Committee consisting of technical staff from the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), NYSDEC, NYSDAM, Cornell University, and others. All
New York State CNMPs must be prepared in accordance with NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS)
NY 312 and all applicable technical standards where invoked by NRCS NY 312. A CNMP can be
voluntarily developed and implemented by any livestock farm but is required for farms that are CAFOs
operating under the CWA or Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Permit, or farms seeking federal or
state cost-sharing to construct a manure management system. All CNMPs, voluntary and required, are
updated annually by an AEM-certified planner and reviewed by the party responsible for implementing
the CNMP.
New York State has 562 SPDES-permitted CAFOs (68 SPDES-permitted CAFOs in the Bay watershed) with
AEM-certified CNMPs. New York State does not document the number of voluntary CNMPs
implemented by nonpermitted AFOs unless they are developed using public funds. NYSDEC is
responsible for compliance and enforcement of CNMPs maintained and implemented at SPDES-
permitted CAFOs. CNMPs are evaluated during NYSDEC compliance inspections.
SPDES CAFO Program
NYSDEC's Division of Water administers the two SPDES General CAFO Permits: the ECL Permit and CWA
Permit. The ECL Permit covers non-discharging Medium and Large CAFOs (with the exception of dairies
with 200 to 299 stabled or confined mature dairy cows). The CWA Permit covers all Medium or Large
discharging CAFOs. NYSDEC is authorized to designate smaller operations as CAFOs and operations of
any size can voluntarily apply for SPDES permit coverage. NYSDEC reports that 267 facilities are covered
under the CWA Permit (24 of those in the Bay watershed) and 295 are covered by the ECL Permit (44 in
the Bay watershed).
ECL Permit holders are not allowed to discharge, except for agricultural stormwater, and must be
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent discharge; these operations are actually
considered AFOs. ECL Permit coverage is available to nondischarging, existing Small or Medium CAFOs,
existing Large CAFOs, new Small or Medium CAFOs, and new Large CAFOs. The following generic BMPs
must be implemented, as appropriate, at all ECL-permitted operations: prohibition on unauthorized
substances, proper operation and maintenance requirements, waste application requirements (land
application rates shall be in accordance with the CNMP), field setback requirements and other BMPs.
The CWA Permit is issued to discharging CAFOs, or others that choose to be covered, pursuant to the
New York State's ECL and the federal CWA. The CWA Permit allows discharges of process wastewater
from storms equal to or greater than the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event and agricultural
stormwater. The CWA Permit prohibits unauthorized substances in retention facilities and requires
proper operation and maintenance of facilities used to comply with the permit. In addition, the
regulatory language specifies 13 BMPs that must be implemented. Facilities covered by the CWA Permit
have up to 2 years from the date NYSDEC receives the Notice of Intent to develop and certify the CNMP.
Agricultural Environmental Management
AEM is administered by the New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee (SWCC). AEM
supports farmers in their efforts to protect water quality and conserve natural resources, while
enhancing farm viability by providing a framework to assess environmental stewardship and coordinate
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
3
-------
technical and financial assistance from the federal, state and local levels to address priority water
quality issues on the farm. AEM is implemented at the local level through soil and water conservation
districts (SWCDs) who engage local partners such as Cooperative Extension, NRCS, AEM-certified
planners, certified crop advisors, U.S. Department of Agriculture technical service providers,
professional engineers and agri-businesses to work as a team to develop, implement and evaluate
conservation plans on farms.
AEM is managed and implemented following a set of core concepts. AEM activities and approaches
should be voluntary, watershed-based, customized farm-by-farm, team-based, cost effective, statewide,
locally led and implemented, and tested and science-based. Farmers who participate in AEM work with
a team of local AEM resource professionals to develop and implement comprehensive, site-specific farm
plans using a five-tiered assessment. The AEM assessment process is structured to encourage the
development and implementation of BMPs.
New York State reports that more than 1,300 agricultural BMPs were implemented statewide in 2013 to
protect water quality and reduce pollution. In addition, in 2013 the SWCDs used $1.86 million from the
AEM Base Program to provide technical assistance to farmers advancing through the five AEM tiers.
Tier 1 - Inventory current activities, future plans and potential environmental concerns.
Tier 2 - Document current land stewardship. Assess and prioritize areas of concern.
Tier 3 - Develop conservation plans addressing concerns and opportunities tailored to farm goals.
Tier 4 - Implement plans using available financial, educational and technical assistance.
Tier 5 - Evaluate to ensure the protection of the environment and farm viability.
More than 13,000 farms participate in AEM statewide, including all 562 New York State SPDES-
permitted CAFOs. The AEM-participating farms in the Bay watershed include 68 New York State SPDES-
permitted CAFOs and 2,285 unpermitted farms.
2.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted an assessment of New York State's animal
agriculture regulations and programs to determine whether they are consistent with Clean Water Act
(CWA) requirements and are implemented effectively to achieve New York State's animal agriculture
Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) commitments to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
under the Chesapeake Bay (Bay) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The assessment process began in
fall 2013 when EPA provided New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) with
a detailed New York Animal Agriculture Program Review questionnaire (questionnaire). NYSDEC
coordinated completion of the questionnaire with the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets (NYSDAM), the New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee (SWCC), the New York
State Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), and the Upper Susquehanna Coalition (USC).
NYSDEC also supported the assessment process by providing EPA with electronic and hardcopy files for
41 concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) permitted under the NYSDEC CWA State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit (GP) for CAFOs GP-04-02 (CWA Permit) and
NYSDEC Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) SPDES GP for CAFOs GP-0-14-001 (ECL Permit).
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
4
-------
In August 2014 EPA's contractor traveled to the NYSDEC Central Office (CO) in Albany, New York, to scan
these files electronically for in-office review. NYSDEC provided responses to EPA's questionnaire in
September 2014. NYSDAM, working through NYSDEC, provided Agricultural Environmental Management
(AEM) materials to EPA's contractor on September 26, 2014, and provided additional clarification to
NYSDEC questionnaire responses that pertained to NYSDAM. EPA provided the draft assessment report
to NYSDEC on November 7, 2014. NYSDEC and Bureau of Water Compliance provided comments to EPA
on December 9, 2014. EPA finalized the report on February 13, 2015.
The report is organized into the following sections: Section 3.0 (Animal Agriculture in New York State),
Section 4.0 (State Agencies and Funding Sources, Animal Agriculture Programs), Section 5.0 (New York
State and the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load), and Section 6.0 (New York State's Animal
Agriculture Watershed Implementation Plan Implementation Goals) provide background information.
Section 7.0 (Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans), Section 8.0 (SPDES Permit Program), and
Section 9.0 (Agricultural Environmental Management) discuss and evaluate implementation of the
state's various programs applicable to animal agriculture operations. Each section includes a summary
of program requirements and responsible agencies, and includes subsections addressing the universe of
animal agriculture operations subject to each program, program staff and financial resources, data
systems in place to track program activities, compliance and enforcement, and the role of the program
in furthering the state's progress toward meeting the 2025 WIP implementation goals. Each section
includes observations based on staff discussions, file reviews and New York State's questionnaire
responses.
2.1 Purpose of Effort
EPA conducts periodic reviews of state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
programs as part of its oversight responsibilities under the federal CWA. EPA discusses program goals
and objectives with authorized states, such as New York, that are authorized to implement CWA
program (e.g. NPDES permit programs) as part of annual CWA Section 106 grant negotiations.1
Previously, EPA's program reviews have not focused on animal agriculture regulations and programs.
EPA decided to conduct assessments of animal agriculture programs in the six Bay states2 as part of
EPA's oversight responsibilities under the NPDES program and the Bay TMDL. These reviews will also be
used to fulfill EPA's commitment under the settlement agreement with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
(Fowler et al. v. EPA). As such, the New York review is one of six animal agriculture state program
reviews that EPA will be completing by 2015.
The intent of the assessment is to identify successes and challenges within New York State's animal
agriculture programs and regulations, evaluate the programs that are available to support New York's
pollutant load reduction goals under the Bay TMDL, and compare the SPDES program with federal CAFO
requirements. The goal of this assessment is to determine (1) how well New York State's programs align
with the State's Bay TMDL WIP commitments, and (2) how effectively New York State's animal
agriculture programs are implemented.
1 http://water.epa.gov/grants funding/cwf/pollutioncontrol.cfm
2 Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
5
-------
2.2 Program Review Approach
EPA Region 2 and EPA's contractor (EPA team) used NYSDECand NYSDAM responses to the
questionnaire, information in NYSDEC files for 41 ECL- or CWA- permitted animal agriculture operations,
supplementary AEM information provided by NYSDAM, and animal agriculture program information
available from New York State agency websites as the primary sources for this assessment report. The
EPA team participated in conference calls with NYSDEC staff to arrange review of SPDES CAFO facility
files and to ask questions about the state's animal agriculture programs. EPA's contractor also had
informal meetings with NYSDEC staff while in Albany to scan the SPDES CAFO facility files.
The questionnaire specifically addressed four animal agriculture program areas:
1. AEM
2. Nutrient management
3. SPDES CAFO Program
4. New York's Phase I and Phase II Bay WIPs
For each of these programs, EPA Region 2 requested information about the New York State agency with
implementation responsibility (number of full-time equivalents [FTEs] and State Fiscal Year [SFY] 2012
budget [April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012]), the number of animal agriculture operations
involved/enrolled in the program, compliance and enforcement activities, communication among
agencies involved in each program, communication with farmers, data management, policies and
training programs, and program strengths and challenges. The questionnaire did not include questions
about federal programs, such as U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) or animal agriculture research programs at Cornell University (Ithaca, New
York).
Review of NYSDEC SPDES CAFO files informed the EPA team as to how the NYSDEC CO and Regional
Office (RO) staff implement the state's animal agriculture programs. EPA Region 2 focused on CAFOs in
NYSDEC ROs 7 and 8 because these two ROs have a mix of animal sectors as well as facilities inside and
outside the Bay watershed. NYSDEC provided EPA Region 2 with lists of all SPDES-permitted animal
agriculture operations in NYSDEC ROs 7 and 8. EPA's contractor used a randomizing process to select 40
SPDES-permitted facilities for detailed file reviews.
EPA's contractor conducted the file review in two phases. First, NYSDEC CO sent copies of electronic
CAFO files maintained in NYSDEC's Centralized Electronic Document Repository (CEDR) along with data
from NYSDEC's Annual Compliance Report (ACR) database and compliance inspection information. EPA's
contractor reviewed these documents and, through EPA Region 2, provided NYSDEC with a list of
additional file documentation needed for the assessment process. NYSDEC CO coordinated with ROs 7
and 8 to have the hardcopy files for the 41 CAFOs3 delivered to the CO for electronic scanning by EPA's
contractor during the week of August 11, 2014. The 41 hardcopy CAFO files contained approximately
1,200 individual documents which were converted to electronic format. EPA's contractor renamed the
3 The original EPA Region 2 CAFO list included 40 individual CAFOs. NYSDEC CO provided one extra CAFO file as an
example, bringing the total number of reviewed CAFO files to 41.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
6
-------
electronic files using NYSDEC's file naming convention and gave a copy of all the electronic files back to
NYSDEC to be uploaded to CEDR.
Each CAFO's file included information such as inspection reports, compliance and enforcement
communications, annual compliance reports, permit application documents and other facility-specific
information maintained by NYSDEC. Comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs) were not
scanned or reviewed for this assessment. EPA's contractor performed a detailed review of each file and
logged the type and date of each document in each animal agriculture operation's file.
EPA's contractor recorded observations, including typical inspection findings, challenges with permit
issuance or reissuance, and annual compliance report observations. These file review logs are not
provided with this report.
To protect the confidentiality of the animal agriculture operations included in the file review, file review
observations included in this report do not contain information that could be used to identify specific
operations.
3.0 Animal Agriculture in New York State
Agriculture is an integral part of the New York State economy. About 23 percent of the state's land area,
or 7 million acres, are used by the state's 36,000 farms to produce a variety of food products. The value
of New York State agricultural production was more than $5.70 billion in 2012 (NYSDAM, n.d.).
Dairy and animal production in New York provided $3.0 billion value of production to farmers in
2012.
Milk is New York State's leading agricultural product and is produced all across the state. Milk
sales account for one-half of total agricultural receipts. New York is the nation's fourth-leading
milk producer.
New York ranks 22nd among all egg-producing states in value of production.
Table 1 presents the primary statutes and regulations under which I York State's animal agriculture
programs are administered. These statutes and regulations are discussed in the respective sections of
this assessment report.
Table 1. New York State Animal Agriculture Programs, Statutes and Regulations
New York State Animal
Agriculture Program
Law/Statute and Regulations
SPDES CWA Permit
New York State ECL and U.S. CWA
SPDES ECL Permit
Article 17, Title 7, Article 70 of the ECL
AEM
Article 11-A Section 150 of Agriculture and Markets Law and Article 2
Section 11-b of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law. Program
guidance material can be found at http://www.nvs-
soilandwater.org/aem/index.html and http://www.nvs-
soilandwater.org/aem/forms/Guidance%20Manual.pdf.
Agriculture is nearly 25 percent of New York State's Bay watershed land use and, according to a 2009
Bay watershed Model run, delivers approximately 42 percent, 55 percent and 40 percent, respectively,
of the total nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads from New York State to the Bay watershed.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
7
-------
Agriculture in the New York State's portion of the Bay watershed is primarily integrated livestock and
forage crop farms (mostly dairies) characterized by low livestock density (0.43 animal units [AUs] per
acre), low to optimum soil test phosphorus levels, low nitrogen and phosphorus balances (i.e., manure +
fertilizer nutrient - nutrient removal by crops), low nutrient risk index ratings, and modest annual
additions of nitrogen and phosphorus for crop production via fertilizer and manure (NYSDEC 2013a).
NYSDEC does not track the number of unpermitted animal agriculture operations in the state and the
state's portion of the Bay watershed (NYSDEC 2014a). Tetra Tech (2011) estimated that New York
State's portion of the Bay watershed contains approximately 247 animal feeding operations (AFOs), of
which 68 are SPDES-permitted CAFOs (NYSDEC 2014a). However, the state's Phase II WIP identifies
2,285 unpermitted farms in the Bay watershed participating in AEM, but does not differentiate between
animal agriculture AEM participants and crop agriculture AEM participants.
Table 2 estimates livestock populations in New York State's 19 Bay counties4 using data published in the
USDA's National Agriculture Statistics Service's 2007 and 2012 Censuses of Agriculture (Ag Census). All
numbers represent animals within counties that share a border with the Bay watershed. The actual
number of animals within the New York State's portion of the Bay watershed is unknown as the exact
location of animal operations is not public information or available to EPA.
Table 2. 2007 and 2012 Ag Census Livestock Populations in the 19 New York State Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Counties
Census Year
Cattle
Poultry
Swine
Sheep/Lambs
2012
494,109
579,216
19,083
34,286
2007
527,711
66,491a
20,188
26,657
a USDA withheld layer chicken population data for some counties.
Although poultry is not a significant portion of the State's agricultural sector, 18 of the 19 New York
State Bay watershed counties saw poultry population growth between 2007 and 2012; only Livingston
County saw a decline in poultry numbers. Onondaga County saw an increase from 61 to 65 poultry
operations between 2007 and 2012. The 2012 Ag Census reported 434,176 layer chickens in 2012; the
Onondaga County layer chicken population data was withheld from the 2007 reports, making a
comparison impossible.
4.0 State Agencies and Funding Sources, Animal Agriculture Programs
New York State has six agencies involved with oversight, administration and implementation of the
SPDES CAFO program and AEM: NYSDEC, NYSDAM, SWCC, SWCDs, USC and New York State Department
of State (NYSDOS) (in a very limited role). The following sections provide an overview of each agency's
responsibilities. The animal agriculture program sections describe lead and partner agency roles in more
detail. These sections were drafted using questionnaire information provided by NYSDEC and publicly
available information on New York State websites. NYSDAM provided clarification to some of NYSDEC's
questionnaire response.
4 Allegany, Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Herkimer, Livingston, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga,
Ontario, Otsego, Schoharie, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins and Yates counties
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
8
-------
4.1 State Funding Sources
EPA's animal agriculture program questionnaire included questions about New York State agency and
program budgets, and FTEs assigned to the state's animal agriculture programs. NYSDEC did not provide
responses to these questions because New York State agency budgets and FTEs are not available in a
format or with enough detail to estimate, for example, the number of FTEs and the budget allocated to
the SPDES CAFO program in a given year.
EPA is unable to evaluate the sufficiency of New York State funding or FTEs for animal agriculture
programs without budget and FTE information specific to the state's animal agriculture programs. EPA
identified information on NYSDEC and NYSDAM overall budget appropriations and, although not specific
to animal agriculture programs, this information suggests that NYSDEC and NYSDAM budgets are
relatively stable. However, staff numbers, at least at NYSDEC, are declining.
The New York State Office of the State Comptroller (Comptroller) reports that the NYSDEC workforce
declined 10.4 percent, from 3,256 FTEs in SFY 2003-2004 to 2,917 FTEs in SFY 2013-2014. NYSDEC is
funded with appropriations from the State General Fund (primarily tax revenues), from special revenue
funds generated by fees for licenses, permits and fines, and the federal government. NYSDEC's annual
appropriations have ranged between $811.8 million in SFY 2005-2006 to $1.2 billion in SFY 2007-2008
(Comptroller 2014). NYSDEC's total appropriation for SFY 2013-2014 was $898.7 million.
Table 3 presents New York State Division of the Budget's SFY 2015-2016 recommended appropriations
and change from SFY 2014-2015 for NYSDEC and NYSDAM.
Table 3. SFY 2015-2016 Recommended Appropriations to NYSDAM and NYSDEC
Total Recommended Appropriation
Agency
SFY 2015-2016
Change from SFY 2014-2015
NYSDAM
$164,369,000
($7,709,000)
NYSDEC
$1,037,968,000
$119,916,000
Source: Division of the Budget 2015
New York State's Environmental Protection Act, Chapter 610 of the Laws of 1993, established the
Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), a "pay-as-you-go" source of capital funding to support specified
environmental programs and purposes. The Environmental Protection Act set aside sources of revenue
to provide funding for the EPF, including revenues from the Real Estate Transfer Tax; proceeds from the
sale, lease or permitting of underwater state lands; a portion of unclaimed bottle deposits; revenues
derived from enforcement of the Bottle Bill; and revenues from the issuance of conservation license
plates for vehicles. Programs funded by the EPF include storm water, waste water and aquatic habitat
restoration projects; agricultural nonpoint source pollution control; and farmland preservation, among
others. Over the life of the EPF, $2.8 billion has been appropriated, $2.1 billion has been disbursed,
$254.8 million is encumbered for projects and $412.6 million in appropriation authority is available for
future obligations (Comptroller 2014).
EPA was able to obtain total appropriations for the EPF and the EPF's Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Account (Table 4). From SFY 2010-2011 through SFY 2013-2014 the Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Account, which funds agricultural nonpoint source pollution control projects and best management
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
9
-------
practice (BMP) implementation, has averaged approximately 10 percent of the total EPF appropriation,
an increase from approximately 5 percent from SFY 2007-2008 through SFY 2009-2010.
Table 4. New York State Environmental Protection Fund, Total Annual Appropriation and
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Account Annual Appropriations
Environmental Protection Fund
State
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Account
Fiscal
Environmental Protection Fund
Annual Appropriation
Year
Total Annual Appropriation
(% of EPF Total Annual Appropriation)
07-08
$250,000,000
$12,833,000 (5%)
08-09
$205,000,000
$9,500,000 (5%)
09-10
$212,412,000
| $11,468,000 (5%)
10-11
$134,000,000
$13,297,000 (10%)
11-12
$134,000,000
$13,000,000 (10%)
12-13
$134,000,000
$13,000,000 (10%)
13-14
$153,000,000
$14,200,000 (9%)
Source: NYSDEC 2013c
In addition to EPF monies, New York State agencies and farmers have access to federal funds in the form
of grants (e.g., EPA's Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants [CBIGs]) and cost-share programs (e.g.,
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service's [NRCS] EQIP and Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program). EPA is not, in this report, evaluating the sufficiency of federal program funding for New York
State's WIP commitments because the state has no influence over the disbursement and year-to-year
availability of federal cost-share funds.
4.2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDEC was created on July 1,1970, to combine in a single agency all state programs designed to
protect and enhance the environment. NYSDEC's goal is to achieve its mission through the simultaneous
pursuit of environmental quality, public health, economic prosperity and social well-being, including
environmental justice and the empowerment of individuals to participate in environmental decisions
that affect their lives.
NYSDEC is headed by a commissioner, who is assisted by executive managers. The agency has 24
divisions and offices and is further organized into bureaus to fulfill the functions and regulations
established by Title 6 of New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations (6NYCRR). Some programs, such
as SPDES, are also governed by federal law. NYSDEC has a CO in Albany and nine ROs. Approximately
2,900 NYSDEC staff work in either the CO or the ROs.
NYSDEC administers and implements the state program for the control of wastewater and stormwater
discharges in accordance with the federal CWA. New York State's SPDES program is administered
according to New York State law. The SPDES program is broader in scope than the federal CWA in that it
controls point source discharges to ground waters as well as surface waters. The two SPDES CAFO
general permits are discussed below in Section 8.0.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
10
-------
NYSDEC regulations and policies are available on the NYSDEC public webpage.5 Guidance documents,
spanning a variety of topics from how to tell if one's operation needs a permit to a detailed
categorization of engineering and conservation practices, have been developed by NYSDEC to facilitate
implementation of the state's animal agriculture programs. In addition, NYSDEC has developed guidance
documents (such as the NYSDEC CAFO Inspection Instructions) for use by its staff to ensure a consistent
approach on compliance and enforcement activities for all of the SPDES programs (NYSDEC 2014a).
NYSDEC uses the Environmental Notice Bulletin to provide notice of significant public rule making and
permitting activities as well as other outreach activities such as meetings with partner and interest
group organizations, electronic notification and updates, and other general outreach (NYSDEC 2014a).
4.3 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
NYSDAM's mission is to foster a competitive food and agriculture industry that benefits producers and
consumers alike. NYSDAM works to promote a viable agricultural industry, foster agricultural
environmental stewardship and safeguard the food supply. NYSDAM houses the SWCC.
4.3.1 New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee
The mission of the SWCC is to advance comprehensive natural resources management through the
support of local SWCDs. The SWCC administers AEM, CNMP planner certification, and the Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Program (ANSACP). In addition, the SWCC establishes policy to
guide the programs of New York State 58 SWCDs; helps the SWCDs organize, develop and carry out their
programs; advises all agencies of government on matters relating to soil and water conservation; and
serves as lead agency for New York State's agricultural nonpoint source pollution control programs.
4.3.2 New York State Soil and Water Conservation Districts
SWCDs work with landowners, organizations and government to protect soil, water quality and other
natural resources; maintain resource productivity; and protect or improve profitability. AEM is
administered and implemented at the local level through SWCDs.
4.4 New York State Department of State
NYSDOS' role in animal agriculture is limited to watershed planning activities that are similar to WIP
development. This agency participates on the New York State Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committee
and is actively involved with funding watershed projects (NYSDEC 2014a). Beyond these activities and
fiduciary oversight of NYSDEC and AEM, NYSDOS is not involved with administration or implementation
of New York State's animal agriculture programs.
4.5 The Upper Susquehanna Coalition
The USC is a network of 16 New York State SWCDs and three conservation districts in Pennsylvania. The
(JSC was established in 1992 to work on nonpoint source water quality issues in the headwaters of the
Bay. The USC's mission is to protect and improve water quality and natural resources in the Upper
5 http://www.dec.nv.gov/65.html
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
11
-------
Susquehanna River Basin by involving citizens and agencies through education, partnerships, planning,
implementation and advocating for water resources.
A (JSC goal is to support "Environmental and Economically Sustainable Agriculture" by documenting
farm statistics and BMPs, developing watershed- and site-specific agricultural plans, and implementing
and evaluating practices. The (JSC follows the AEM approach for farm evaluations and follows the
Chesapeake Bay Program's (CBP) approach for tracking BMP information to quantify nutrient and
sediment loading from the agricultural sector. The (JSC believes data collection and support of
nonstructural practices (such as rotational grazing) is a good regional approach that directly addresses
water quality, stream sediment and farm viability issues (USC, n.d.).
The USC collects and coordinates all BMP data collection for WIP reporting to verify information and
eliminate double counting. This is done by using a master list of farms that are geo-referenced to a GIS
database. Each year county SCWD staff update the USC's BMP list.
The USC uses Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) to demonstrate the implications of possible
management decisions through an iterative process to model the suite of BMPs that, when
implemented, provides the greatest nutrient and sediment load reduction benefit (NYSDEC et al. 2012).
CAST allows the USC to evaluate on-the-fly estimates of load reductions associated with various
management activities. These rapid estimates are designed to closely replicate the results of full CBP
model runs.
5.0 New York State and the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load
On December 29, 2010, the U.S. EPA established the Bay TMDL, a historic and comprehensive pollution
diet to restore clean water in the Bay and the region's streams, creeks and rivers. The Bay TMDL is the
largest and most complex TMDL ever developed, addressing pollution sources throughout a 64,000-
square-mile watershed that drains six states and the District of Columbia.6 The Bay TMDL establishes
waste load allocations (WLAs) for the watersheds and jurisdictions contributing to each of the 92
impaired segments that comprise the waters of the Bay and its tidal tributaries and embayments. The
Bay TMDL is actually an assemblage of 276 TMDLs; individual TMDLs for each of the three pollutants
(nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) for each of the 92 impaired segments (EPA 2010). The Bay TMDL
includes individual and aggregate allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment sufficient to
achieve state clean water standards for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, underwater Bay grasses and
chlorophyll a, an indicator of algae levels.7
6 New York's portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is made up of the Susquehanna River watershed and the
Chemung River watershed. Together these two watersheds form the northern headwaters of the Chesapeake Bay
and cover much of New York's Southern Tier. In total, some or all of 19 New York counties are in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. New York's portion of the Bay watershed covers 6,250 square miles (NYSDEC 2013a). As of 2009,
the CBP estimated that New York was the source of 4 percent of the nitrogen, 5 percent of the phosphorus and 4
percent of the sediment load delivered to the Chesapeake Bay.
7 http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/tmdl/ChesapeakeBav/FrequentlvAskedQuestions.html
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
12
-------
New York and the other Bay jurisdictions8 developed WIPs that detail each jurisdiction's plan to meet
the Bay TMDL allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. To date, WIPs have been developed in
two phases. The Phase I WIPs, submitted in late 2010, proposed Bay TMDL pollutant allocations and laid
out the plan for how each jurisdiction would meet its allocations. The EPA's Bay TMDL allocations were
based almost entirely on the proposed allocations in the state's Phase I WIPs. Phase II WIPs, finalized in
March 2012, provided additional detail on implementation actions, including actions by local partners to
support achievement of the TMDL allocations. Phase III WIPs, when submitted in 2018, will provide the
opportunity for the jurisdictions to make mid-course adjustments to pollutant reduction strategies,
provide additional detail on implementation strategies and propose refinements to the Bay TMDL
allocations. Each WIP includes detailed plans for reducing nutrient and sediment loads from agricultural
runoff, including runoff from AFOs and CAFOs. The WIP process provides Bay watershed jurisdictions
with the flexibility to substitute BMPs or shift BMPs across or within sectors to achieve the needed
pollutant reductions in response to changing conditions.
The CBP, a regional partnership that includes EPA and New York State, leads and directs Bay restoration
and protection activities, collects data from the Bay jurisdictions to track and model progress toward the
2-year milestones and Bay-wide TMDL implementation. The CBP collectively has adopted 2025 as the
date by which 100 percent of the controls necessary to achieve the Bay TMDL allocations are expected
to be in place. CBP has also adopted 2017 as an interim goal and the date by which practices should be
in place to achieve 60 percent of the necessary reductions, as compared with the level of reduction
achieved in 2009. BMP data are compiled by each jurisdiction and forwarded to the CBP as an electronic
"input deck." Each input deck is entered into computer models maintained by the CBP to simulate
nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads from all sectors and sources and the units (e.g., acres) of each
BMP for any area in the Bay watershed.9 Model output is used to track progress toward each
jurisdiction's 2017 and 2025 WIP implementation goals (CBP 2012).
New York submitted its Bay TMDL Phase I WIP in December 2010 (NYSDEC 2010a) and the Phase II WIP
on January 7, 2013 (NYSDEC 2013a). Specific to agriculture, including animal agriculture, New York
State's pollutant reduction targets (Table 5) were set at levels achievable through significantly expanded
implementation of BMPs. New York plans to achieve expanded animal agriculture BMP implementation
through effective funding and implementation of its state and federal CAFO regulatory programs and its
extensive voluntary programs managed under the umbrella of AEM. Developing and implementing
CNMPs is a key part of these programs and is described in Sections 7 and 8. AEM, further described in
Section 9.0, works to support farmers in their efforts to protect water quality and conserve natural
resources, while enhancing farm viability (NYSDEC 2010a).
8 Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia
9 CAST estimates load reductions for point and nonpoint sources including: agriculture, urban, waste water, forest,
and septic loading to the land (edge-of-stream) and loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. CAST stores data
associated with each BMP as well as the load for each sector and land use (http://casttool.org/About.aspx).
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
13
-------
Table 5. New York State Agricultural Sector Target Loads by Milestone Period
Ending Year
2009
Progress
2013
Progress
2015
Milestone
2017
60% Target
2025
TMDL
% Reduction
(2009-2025)
Nitrogen (lbs)
4,536,179
4,279,494
3,865,630
3,637,560
3,038,482
33%
Phosphorus
(lbs)
526,821
470,489
401,279
429,365
364,394
31%
Sediment
(lbs)
132,413,421
118,819,255
113,181,384
112,859,356
73,352,433
45%
Source: CBP, n.d.
Note: lbs = pounds
NYSDEC relies on the USC to collect data on agricultural BMPs in the Bay watershed for annual submittal
to the CBP (NYSDEC 2013a). USC compiles BMP information reported through state, federal and SWCD
cost-share programs, and through field collection of farmer-initiated BMPs implemented without cost
share. AEM field assessments, discussed in Section 9.0, are the primary vehicle for collecting BMP
implementation data, but other methods of data collection may be used, including NYSDEC regulatory
inspections, regional AEM data collection meetings, phone surveys, farmer self-certifications, and the
use of aerial imagery/dashboard surveying of cropland. USC uses GIS technology to place a data point on
a map that identifies each recorded BMP and location. Aerial photography may be used to identify BMPs
in inaccessible areas. USC also collects and reports USDA BMP data to the CBP (NYSDEC 2013a).
In evaluating whether New York State's CAFO and AFO programs are aligned with meeting the state's
2025 Bay TMDL WLAs, EPA focused this assessment on five priority animal agriculture BMPs identified in
New York's Phase I WIP: nutrient management, livestock mortality composting, prescribed grazing,
barnyard runoff control systems, and cereal and commodity cover crops. EPA chose these practices
because they represent the core of New York State's plan to achieve the bulk of its animal agricultural
nutrient and sediment reductions. EPA refers to these five practices in this report as priority BMPs.
Under the accountability framework adopted by the CBP and discussed in the TMDL, EPA is committed
to evaluating the 2-year milestone commitments and the progress in meeting these commitments.
According to data provided to the CBP by New York State, the state achieved its 2013 milestone targets
for nitrogen and phosphorus, but did not achieve its milestone targets for sediment. New York State
finished the 2012-2013 milestone period more than 219,000 pounds ahead of schedule for nitrogen
reductions and more than 135,000 pounds ahead of schedule for phosphorus reductions. The state is
more than 4.6 million pounds behind its target for sediment; however, EPA anticipates that if New York
State can meet its 2015 sediment target it will still be on track to meet its 2017 and 2025 targets (EPA
2014b).
New York State's 2014-2015 milestone strategy for all point and nonpoint source sectors is to reduce
phosphorus by more than 192,000 pounds and decrease sediment by more than 21.5 million pounds by
the end of 2015, compared to the 2009 baseline. Nitrogen totals indicate an increase by more than
37,000 pounds over the 2009 baseline. Significant additional nitrogen reductions are needed to ensure
New York State meets both its WIP and 2017 targets. New York has made more than enough progress in
the agriculture sector to ensure implementation is occurring and will need to maintain its efforts in the
agriculture sector to stay on track to meets its WIP and Bay TMDL commitments (EPA 2014b).
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
14
-------
6.0 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management
Practices
New York State is relying on both regulatory and voluntary programs to meet the state's 2017 and
2025 Bay WIP goals applicable to animal agriculture operations. Table 6 summarizes EPA's findings on
the priority BMPs incorporated into each of New York State's programs, along with an estimated
number of animal operations subject to each program. The facility universe for the voluntary programs
is estimated to be the 2,285 AEM participants in the state's portion of the Bay watershed. EPA
recognizes that some of these are pasture-based or crop operations, but 2,285 farms is the best
approximation available at this time. Regulatory programs apply to the 68 SPDES-permitted CAFOs in
the state's portion of the Bay watershed (NYSDEC 2014a). Although the discussion focuses on the
implementation of priority BMPs at animal agriculture operations in the Bay watershed, voluntary and
required BMPs are applicable to AFOs and CAFOs statewide.
Table 6. New York State Programs Contributing to Implementation of Priority Best Management
Practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agricultural
Comprehensive Nutrient
SPDES CAFO
Environmental
Management Plans
Program
Management
Lead Agency
NYSDEC and NYSDAM
NYSDEC
swcc
Estimated Facility
Universe (Bay
68a
68
2,285b
Watershed)
Watershed Implementation
Plan Priority Best Management Practice
Nutrient Management
Required
Required
Voluntary
Mortality Composting
Voluntary
Voluntary
Voluntary
Prescribed Grazing
Voluntary
Voluntary
Voluntary
Barnyard Runoff Control
Required
Required
Voluntary
Cereal and Commodity
Cover Crops
Required
Required
Voluntary
Notes:
a SPDES-permitted CAFOs only. New York State does not document the number of voluntary CNMPs
implemented by nonpermitted AFOs unless they are developed using public funds (NYSDEC 2014a)
b Includes SPDES-permitted CAFOs
The following sections summarize WIP priority practice implementation with respect to New York
State's regulatory programs and voluntary incentive programs. In particular, EPA Region 2 is interested
in whether New York State has regulatory programs in place to achieve the state's 2025 WIP
implementation goals for the agricultural sector, or if the state is relying heavily on voluntary
implementation to achieve these goals. For example, barnyard runoff control and enhanced nutrient
management implementation goals appear achievable through SPDES CAFO permit requirements,
supplemented by voluntary CNMPs. Mortality composting and pasture management, on the other hand,
appear to rely entirely on voluntary implementation.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
15
-------
EPA (2014) evaluated progress by all New York State sources10 towards meeting the state's 2012-2013
WIP milestones and its source-specific commitments for the upcoming 2014-2015 milestone period.
EPA's evaluation determined that, when the source sectors were aggregated, New York State achieved
its 2012-2013 load targets for nitrogen and phosphorus, and slightly exceeded its 2013 sediment
milestone. The state's 2015 milestone load reduction commitment for phosphorus and sediment, as
forecast by EPA, are on track to meet the 2017 target of having practices in place to achieve 60 percent
of the reductions needed to meet water quality standards in the Bay (interim targets). However, New
York State's 2015 milestones commitments for nitrogen are not on a trajectory to meet 2017 interim
targets.
EPA (2014) reports the following items that New York State has done or will need to do to implement
and maintain ongoing oversight and achievement of the state's milestones for the agricultural sector.
The BMPs discussed below reflect the state's Phase II WIP. As mentioned in Section 4.0, New York State
has flexibility to identify and substitute priority BMPs if alternate practices are determined to better
achieve the state's 2017 and 2025 Bay watershed WIP nutrient and sediment reduction goals.
2012-2013 Milestone Achievements
New York State completed most of its 2013 programmatic milestones for agriculture, including:
Two rounds of New York State ANSACP funding were implemented to support BMP
installation.
The AEM online application was completed, providing a uniform approach to BMP reporting
across the watershed.
New York State Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control (AgNPS) funding11 and
AEM base program funding totaled more than $11 million for the milestone period.
2012-2013 Milestones Missed
New York State did not release amended drafts of the CWA or ECL CAFO general permits for
notice and public comment in 2013 (as needed to make the permits consistent with federal
CAFO rules).
2014-2015 Milestone Strengths
The (JSC and Cornell University staff provide extensive outreach to the farm community. These
organizations provide the farm community with dozens of workshops and meetings to increase
the understanding and use of state-of-the-art conservation practices.
New York State funds the Dairy Acceleration Program, which specifically targets farms with
200 to 299 dairy cows that are no longer part of New York State's SPDES CAFO program.
New York State already exceeded its 2017 target for total animal waste management systems.
New York State is committed to developing a plan to verify annual BMPs, including cover crops,
as part of annual reporting of voluntary practices.
New York State agreed to apply nutrient management BMPs to pasture land (EPA 2014a). EPA
sees that as a step towards addressing pasture management, but concerted effort to address
10 Agriculture; urban/suburban polluted runoff; and wastewater/septic
11 New York State has dedicated more than $125 million to the AgNPS Program since the Program's inception in
1993 (NYS 2014),
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
16
-------
BMP implementation at the field level is still needed to accomplish significant nutrient and
sediment reductions.
Enhanced Nutrient Management (Yield Reserve)
New York State plans to have 228,957 acres per year under enhanced nutrient management by 2015;
this includes 100 percent of CAFO crop and hay land at SPDES-permitted CAFOs and a minimum 10
percent of crop and hay land at unpermitted AFOs (NYSDEC 2013a). As of 2011, New York State reported
implementation of enhanced nutrient management on 26,341 acres (CBP, n.d.) or 12 percent of the
state's 2025 goal.
New York State CNMPs developed in accordance with NRCS NY 590 incorporate Cornell's nutrient
application guidelines, which were established to enhance nutrient management. The Cornell nutrient
guidelines are based on applied research and are actively maintained through ongoing field trials with
the goal of nutrient use efficiency; they do not include insurance factors that could increase fertilizer
application rates upwards of 35 percent higher than agronomic needs. As a result, the state's Phase I
WIP suggests that all CNMPs incorporating the Cornell nutrient management guidelines meet the CBP's
definition of enhanced nutrient management (NYSDEC 2010b).
EPA understands that the CBP's definition of enhanced nutrient management will change. EPA Region 2
encourages New York State to verify that Cornell's nutrient application guidelines continue to meet the
CBP's definition of enhanced nutrient management, when revised.
Mortality Composting
New York State's goal is to treat 80 percent of annual dairy mortalities through composting by 2025
(NYSDEC 2013a). EPA (2013) reports implementation of 145 animal units of mortality composting as of
2012. NYSDEC's questionnaire responses and New York State's Phase I and Phase II WIPs do not
include information about the incentives and programs in place to encourage mortality composting to
meet the state's 2025 mortality composting goal.
Prescribed Grazing
New York State's goal is to implement prescribed grazing on 90 percent of the available pasture acres
(approximately 152,221 acres) by 2025. New York State has a number of voluntary grazing initiatives in
place, supported through ANSACP grants, the Grazing Land Conservation Initiative (CLCI), the Graze New
York program, the (JSC's Grazing Initiative, and the USC/NRCS Contribution Agreement. Sixteen counties
in New York State's portion of the Bay watershed participate in one or more grazing incentives (NYSDEC
2013a).
New York State's June 2012 WIP progress assessment report indicates that 13 percent of the 2009-2011
commitment has been achieved for pasture grazing BMPs (such as stream protection with fencing), and
that 45 percent of the 2009-2011 commitment has been achieved for pasture grazing BMPs and
rotational grazing (NYSDEC 2014a).
This progress indicates that New York State is tracking behind its interim goals for prescribed grazing, a
practice with a specific goal of reducing nutrient and sediment loads to surface water. This might be the
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
17
-------
result of New York State's reliance on voluntary programs to meet the milestone goals for prescribed
grazing.
Barnyard Runoff Control and Loafing Lot Management
New York State's goal is to install barnyard runoff control practices, including rotational loafing lot
practices, on 35 percent of AFOs and 100 percent of SPDES-permitted CAFOs, for a weighted total of
approximately 78 percent of AFO/CAFO barnyard acres. Barnyard runoff control practices are required
under the state's SPDES CAFO permits and, assuming that 100 percent of the SPDES-permitted CAFOs
are in compliance with this requirement, New York State should be able to demonstrate implementation
of barnyard runoff control at all SPDES-permitted CAFOs.
New York State is behind on implementation of barnyard runoff controls. The state's reported 2013
progress for this priority BMP was 213 acresslightly behind the 2013 milestone of 254 acres, but less
than 20 percent of the 2025 goal of 1,133 acres with barnyard runoff control. Based on the current rate
of implementation for barnyard runoff control, it does not appear that New York State is on track to
achieve its 2025 targets for this BMP. EPA did not identify any programs to enhance implementation of
barnyard runoff control.
Cereal and Commodity Cover Crops
New York State's goal is to implement cover crops on 31,357 acres of cropland per year through 2025.
New York State's Phase II WIP presents an estimate of where this acreage will be found:
[t]here is estimated to be approximately 70,000 corn silage acres or about 45% of the
total row crop acreage...corn silage is the land use that has the most likelihood of
successful cover crop implementation in New York. We [NYSDEC] are anticipating the
implementation of 34,000 acres of cereal and commodity cover crops, which will be on
approximately 15,000 of the total of CAFO corn silage acres (approximately 50% of CAFO
corn silage acres). We anticipate another 5,000 CAFO acres of small grains to be planted
in cover crops. Of the remaining row crop acres, approximately 14,000 AFO corn silage
acres (35% of AFO corn silage acres) will be cover cropped by 2025. The 34,000 acres is
approximately 22% of the total available row crop acreage and almost half of the potential
cover crop acreage available.
CAFOs are likely to be the first farms to implement cover crops because CAFOs are
required to plant cover crops on marginal soils and soils that have a nitrogen leaching
index of 10 or above. The remaining acreage will not be easily accomplished because of
the types of crops that are grown, a shorter growing season in New York, and the NRCS
standards that require planting dates which limit the ability of farmers to cost share cover
crop implementation.
The (JSC is piloting a Cover Crop Initiative through an interactive outreach approach sponsored by an
NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant. The (JSC is partnering with Cornell University to compare end-of-
season nitrate capture and nitrogen release in spring and summer with planting different cover crop
species, biomass, timing and method of cover termination, and to test various tools for nitrogen
management in cover crop-based corn systems. Outreach will include field day demonstrations and an
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
18
-------
annual workshop in November to highlight benefits and share ideas on how producers in New York State
can overcome the challenges of cover crop implementation on their farms (NYSDEC 2013a).
Additionally, ANSACP expanded Cover Crop and Mulching BMPs from a 1-year funded practice to a 3-
year funded practice to provide the farmer more time to evaluate BMP results and associated benefits,
thus increasing chances of future adoption (NYSDEC 2013a).
The June 2012 EPA progress assessment report indicated that 160 percent of the 2009-2011 milestone
commitment was achieved for cover crop planting (NYSDEC 2014a). In addition, the state's Phase II WIP
(NYSDEC 2013a) reports that New York State has adequate acreage in corn silage at SPDES-permitted
CAFOs to meet the 2025 annual implementation goal for cereal and commodity cover crops without
having to rely on voluntary programs and incentives. New York State could exceed the 2025 annual
WIP implementation goal if cover crops were planted on all 34,000 acres of corn silage at SPDES-
permitted acres. Voluntary implementation, which would augment acreage at SPDES-permitted CAFOs,
will support the ANSACP and the USC's Cover Crop Initiative to supplement cover crops at SPDES-
permitted CAFOs for additional nutrient and sediment load reductions to the Bay.
Table 7 summarizes New York State's progress toward meeting the 2025 implementation goals, as
reported by New York State to the CBP, for the five priority BMPs selected by EPA as specifically relevant
to animal agriculture programs. Note that the data are not necessarily limited to animal agriculture
operations.
Table 7. New York State's Progress Toward 2025 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best
Management Practice Implementation Goals
Watershed Implementation Plan
2009 Progress
2013 Progress
2025
Priority Best Management Practice
Units
(% of 2025 Goal)
(% of 2025 Goal)
Goal
Nutrient Management
acres
104,967
(20.3%)
115,368
(22.7%)
339,267
Mortality Composting
AUs
0
(0%)
390
(3.2%)
10,947
Prescribed Grazing
acres
0
(0%)
13,744
(7.7%)
152,221
Barnyard Runoff Control
acres
188
(12.3%)
213
(14.6%)
1,133
Cereal and Commodity Cover Crops
acres
717
(0.5%)
462
(0.3%)
31,357
6.1 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices,
Observations
1. New York State is relying on both regulatory and voluntary programs to meet the state's 2017
and 2025 Bay WIP goals applicable to animal agriculture operations.
2. Two rounds of New York State ANSACP funding were implemented to support BMP installation.
3. The AEM online application was completed, providing a uniform approach to BMP reporting
across the watershed.
4. New York State AgNPS funding and AEM base program funding totaled more than $11 million
for the milestone period.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
19
-------
5. New York State did not release amended drafts of the CWA or ECL CAFO general permits for
notice and public comment in 2013 (as needed to make the permits consistent with federal
CAFO rules).
6. New York State funds the Dairy Acceleration Program, which specifically targets farms with 200
to 299 dairy cows that are no longer part of New York State's SPDES CAFO program.
7. New York State already exceeded its 2017 target for total animal waste management systems.
8. New York State agreed to apply nutrient management BMPs to pasture land.
9. NYSDEC's questionnaire responses and New York State's Phase I and Phase II WIPs do not
include information about the incentives and programs in place to encourage mortality
composting to meet the state's 2025 mortality composting goal.
10. New York State is tracking behind its interim goals for prescribed grazing.
11. New York State is behind on implementation of barnyard runoff controls.
12. New York State has adequate acreage in corn silage at SPDES-permitted CAFOs to meet the 2025
annual implementation goal for cereal and commodity cover crops without having to rely on
voluntary programs and incentives.
7.0 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
CNMPs are the foundation of New York State's regulatory program designed to control potential water
pollution from CAFOs (SILVESTRI. n.d.). New York State's animal agriculture programs use the NRCS-NY
CNMP conservation process guideline, which serves as the standard for all regulated and voluntary New
York State CNMPs.
The purpose of the CNMP for animal agriculture operations is to:
Manage the production, handling, storage and/or treatment of manure and organic byproducts
generated in the area(s) of animal concentration and fertilizers.
Manage the amount, source, form, placement and timing of application of these materials to
the land.
Manage soil erosion. CNMPs identify BMPs to minimize degradation of the farm's natural
resource base and reduce the potential for off-site impacts (NRCS-NY 2005). In addition, SPDES-
permitted CAFOs must implement erosion control to tolerable soil loss (T value) on all CAFO
crop land (NYSDEC 2010a).
New York State CNMPs specify structural and nonstructural BMPs to manage process wastewater
including barnyard runoff, milk center wash water or egg wash, and silage leachate from storage areas.
CNMPs clarify that clean surface water runoff and roof water should be directed away from production
areas where contamination could occur. Pathogen management practices and proper disposal of animal
mortality must also be addressed.
NYSDAM, NYSDEC, NY-NRCS, SWCC, SWCDs, coalitions (e.g., the USC), Cornell University, and Cornell
Cooperative Extension have partnered since the 1990s to integrate, co-develop and update the state's
CNMP elements, which include:
NRCS Conservation Practice Standards.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
20
-------
Nutrient management guidelines, including supplemental guidelines for critical areas such as
regions with karst topography.
AEM Planner and NRCS Planner Certification.
AEM Tools (AEM Tier 1 inventory, Tier 2 assessment worksheets, AEM practice evaluation tools,
etc.).
CNMP process guideline and, its replacement, the CNMP Plan Review Checklist.
Training for planners, inspectors, farmers and other conservation professionals.
The partnership develops tools, processes and requirements, but the individual technical requirements
may be approved by one or more organizations only if they are the primary steward(s) of the end-
product. For instance, AEM tools receive final approval by the SWCC, NRCS standards are approved by
NRCS at the state and federal levels, and SPDES CAFO permit requirements are set by NYSDEC.
CNMP technical requirements and standards are the same for any livestock farm (regulated or
voluntary) in New York State to ensure that consistency exists throughout the farmer and planner
communities engaging in CNMP work. Consistency promotes implementation of high-quality
conservation practice systems on all livestock farms operating under CNMPs, and prepares AFO-size
farms for operation under a SPDES CAFO permit should they expand over time (NYSDEC 2014a).
The New York State technical standards for nutrient management are reviewed and revised by a
Standards Committee consisting of technical staff from NRCS, NYSDEC, NYSDAM, Cornell University and
others (NYSDEC 2010a). EPA periodically compares state technical standards against its expectations.
The 2014 EPA review (EPA 2014a) determined that New York's Technical Standards meet EPA's
expectations.
A CNMP can be voluntarily developed and implemented by any livestock farm (voluntary CNMP) but a
CNMP is required for farms that are:
CAFOs operating under the CWA or ECL Permit.
Farms seeking federal or state cost-sharing to construct a manure management system.
All New York State CNMPs must be prepared in accordance with NRCS NY 312 and all applicable
technical standards where invoked by NRCS NY 312 (e.g., NRCS NY 590). The minimum CNMP
requirements are the same regardless of whether the farm is SPDES-permitted or is voluntarily
developing a CNMP (NYSDEC 2014a). All CNMPs, voluntary and required, are updated annually by an
AEM-certified planner and reviewed by the party responsible for implementing the CNMP.
AEM planners are certified through an extensive process that involves achieving and maintaining
Certified Crop Advisor credentials and the completion of the CNMP Certification Training. Upon
completion of the training, the conditionally certified individual must submit three CNMPs for review
and acceptance to obtain full certification to develop CNMPs. As of this writing, New York State has 47
AEM-certified planners statewide with 22 AEM-certified planners working in one or more counties that
are entirely or partially within the Bay watershed (NYSDEC 2014a). Once a planner is certified, the
NYSDAM quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program reviews each planner's work on a continual
basis to ensure quality planning (SWCC 2013); additional detailed information on this QA/QC process
was not available to the EPA team.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
21
-------
Voluntary CNMPs are reviewed and approved by AEM-certified planners. USDA NRCS (when cost-
shared by NRCS), SWCDs, SWCC and NYSDAM also perform reviews and in-depth quality assurance spot
checks (NYSDEC 2014a). Additional information on agency review of voluntary CNMPs, such as the
number reviewed each year and the scope of the reviews, was not provided to the EPA team. SPDES-
required CNMPs are reviewed by NYSDEC during CAFO inspections.
NYSDEC reports that CNMP requirements are regularly communicated to the farming community
through farm press, trainings and agency websites (NYSDEC 2014a). Additional CNMP communication
includes bulletins and news releases from Cornell Cooperative Extension, SWCDs, NRCS and industry
groups (e.g., Farm Bureau, Northeast Dairy Producers' Association, AEM certified planners); formal
trainings and workshops offered by AEM partner groups; Northeast Region Certified Crop Advisor
Annual Training; the annual weeklong Conservation Skills Workshop; the annual weeklong Water Quality
Symposium; and individualized communication between AEM-certified planners and CAFO-permitted
farms. AEM delivers CNMP news, training, guidance and tools for implementing revised nutrient
management requirements.
7.1 Facility Universe, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
New York State has 562 SPDES-permitted CAFOs (68 SPDES-permitted CAFOs in the Bay watershed)
with AEM-certified CNMPs. New York State does not track the number of voluntary CNMPs
implemented by nonpermitted AFOs unless they are developed using public funds (NYSDEC 2014a).
NYSDAM and the SWCCs are responsible for voluntary CNMPs, including oversight and review as a core
part of CNMP cost-share contracts as well as responsibility for administering AEM planner certification.
One or more of these agencies might know the number of voluntary CNMPs in place in New York State
and the state's portion of the Bay watershed.
7.2 Resources Allocated, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
NYSDEC resources allocated to SPDES CNMPs are not separated from SPDES CAFO activities (NYSDEC
2014a) (see Section 8.6). Information on budgets and FTEs allocated to voluntary CNMPs was not
available to the EPA team.
7.3 Data Systems, Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
NYSDEC's questionnaire response did not identify data systems used to track and manage oversight of
CNMPs (NYSDEC 2014a).
7.4 Compliance and Enforcement, Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plans
NYSDEC is responsible for compliance and enforcement of CNMPs maintained and implemented at
SPDES-permitted CAFOs. All CAFO owners and operators must maintain a copy of the site-specific
certified CNMP onsite, and records documenting the implementation of the BMPs and procedures
identified in the CNMP. SPDES CNMPs are evaluated during NYSDEC compliance inspections (see Section
8.8). NYSDEC staff performs comprehensive reviews of CNMP records to assess compliance during
inspections.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
22
-------
AEM-certified planners also use on-site records to perform CNMP updates and assess implementation,
operation and maintenance of required BMPs (NYSDEC 2014a). AEM-certified planners are not required
to participate in NYSDEC ECL or CWA compliance inspections, but most do at the request of the farmer.
AEM-certified planners also assist permit holders with responding to potential areas of noncompliance
identified during ECL or CWA compliance inspections.
NYSDAM is responsible for monitoring the quality of CNMPs developed by AEM-certified planners.
NYSDEC staff told EPA's contractor that criminal action has been taken against AEM-certified planners
for submitting false information in certified CNMPs.
7.5 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices,
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
As previously stated, all New York State CNMPs must be prepared in accordance with NRCS NY 312 and
all applicable technical standards where invoked by NRCS NY 312 (e.g., NRCS 590). Table 8 summarizes
nonvoluntary priority WIP BMPs implemented through the CNMP process. Note that for voluntary
CNMPs, an AFO would need to choose to develop and implement a CNMP before these priority BMPs
would be designed and implemented at the farm. The voluntary CNMP (i.e., non-SPDES) process adds
uncertainty to estimating how many, and to what extent, non-SPDES AFOs will implement priority
practices that count towards New York State's 2017 and 2025 WIP implementation goals. As with the
SPDES program, AEM and the Phase I and II WIPs do not identify incentives to encourage mortality
composting systems.
Table 8. Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices in SPDES and
Voluntary Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
Watershed Implementation
SPDES Environmental
SPDES Clean
Plan Priority Best Management
Conservation Law
Water Act
Practice
Permit
Permit
Notes
Enhanced Nutrient
Management (Yield Reserve)
0
0
CNMPs must be
developed to the NRCS
590 standard.3
Mortality Composting
~
~
Prescribed Grazing
~
~
Barnyard Runoff Control
0
0
NRCS 590
Cereal and Commodity Cover
Crops
0
0
NRCS 590
a Nutrient application rates for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium must not exceed Cornell University
guidelines for the priority nutrient considering applicable risk assessments or industry practice when recognized
by the University (NRCS-NY 2013). Cornell nutrient guidelines are enhanced to maximize the uptake of nutrients
applied and do not include an insurance factor above calculated agronomic needs (NYSDEC 2010a)
AEM promotes, but does not require, prescribed grazing as part of sustainable farm planning. The USC's
voluntary Grazing Initiative combines all buffer types, cow exclusion practices, and prescribed grazing to
address stream bank erosion, habitat improvement and flooding (NYSDEC 2010a).
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
23
-------
7.6 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans, Observations
1. New York State has 562 SPDES-permitted CAFOs (68 SPDES-permitted CAFOs in the Bay
watershed) with AEM-certified CNMPs.
2. CNMP technical requirements and standards are the same for any livestock farm (regulated or
voluntary) in New York State to ensure that consistency exists throughout the farmer and
planner communities engaging in CNMP work.
3. SPDES-permitted CAFOs must implement erosion control to tolerable soil loss (T value) on all
CAFO crop land.
4. Voluntary CNMPs are reviewed and approved by AEM-certified planners.
5. NYSDEC is responsible for compliance and enforcement of CNMPs maintained and implemented
at SPDES-permitted CAFOs.
6. NYSDAM is responsible for monitoring the quality of CNMPs developed by AEM-certified
planners.
7. The voluntary CNMP (i.e., non-SPDES) process adds uncertainty to estimating how many, and to
what extent, non-SPDES AFOs will implement priority practices that count towards New York
State's 2017 and 2025 WIP implementation goals.
8.0 SPDES CAFO Program
NYSDEC's Division of Water administers the two SPDES CAFO General Permits; the ECL Permit and
CWA Permit. The ECL Permit covers nondischarging Medium and Large CAFOs (with the exception of
dairies with 200 to 299 stabled or confined mature dairy cows). The CWA Permit covers ail Medium or
Large discharging CAFOs. NYSDEC is authorized to designate smaller operations as CAFOs and operations
of any size can voluntarily apply for SPDES permit coverage. The SPDES CAFO size categories are
consistent with size categories in the federal NPDES CAFO regulation (Table 9).
Table 9. Medium and Large CAFO Size Categories From the Federal NPDES CAFO Regulations, CWA
SPDES CAFO General Permit, and ECL SPDES CAFO General Permit for Livestock Sectors Common to
New York State.
Federal NPDES CAFO
CWA SPDES CAFO
ECLSPDESCAFO
Regulations
General Permit
General Permit
Discharging CAFOs
Discharging CAFOs
Nondischarging CAFOs
Livestock Sector
Medium3
Large
Medium3
Large
Medium
Large
Dairy, mature dairy
cows milked or dry
200-699
700+
200-699
700+
200-699b
700+
Cattle, other than
mature dairy cows or
300-999
1,000+
300-999
1,000+
300-999
1,000+
veal calves
Swine, 55 pounds or
more
750-2,499
2,500+
750-2,499
2,500+
750-2,499
2,500+
Swine, less than 55
pounds
3,000-
9,999
10,000+
3,000-
9,999
10,000+
3,000-
9,999
10,000+
Turkeys
16,500-
54,999
55,000+
16,500-
54,999
55,000+
16,500-
54,999
55,000+
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
24
-------
Table 9. Medium and Large CAFO Size Categories From the Federal NPDES CAFO Regulations, CWA
SPDES CAFO General Permit, and ECL SPDES CAFO General Permit for Livestock Sectors Common to
New York State.
Federal NPDES CAFO
CWA SPDES CAFO
ECLSPDESCAFO
Reg
ulations
General Permit
General Permit
Discharging CAFOs
Discharging CAFOs
Nondischarging CAFOs
Livestock Sector
Medium
a Large
Medium3
Large
Medium
Large
Laying hens or broilers,
if the AFO uses a liquid
manure handling
9,000-
29,999
30,000+
9,000-
29,999
30,000+
9,000-
29,999
30,000+
system
Chickens (other than
laying hens), if the AFO
uses other than a liquid
manure handling
37,500-
124,999
125,000+
37,500-
124,999
125,000+
37,500-
124,999
125,000+
system
Laying hens, if the AFO
uses other than a liquid
manure handling
25,000-
81,999
82,000+
25,000-
81,999
82,000+
25,000-
81,999
82,000+
system
3 And either one of the following conditions are met: pollutants are discharged into waters of the United States
through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or other similar man-made device; or pollutants are discharged
directly into waters of the United States which originate outside of and pass over, across, or through the facility
or otherwise come into direct contact with the animals confined in the operation.
b Only nondischarging dairies that stable or confine 300-699 mature dairy cows must obtain ECL Permit
coverage. 6 NYCRR Subpart 750-1 exempts dairies that confine or stable 200-299 mature dairy cows, milked or
dry, from the Medium CAFO definition and, by extension, does not consider these operations to be point source
discharges. Consistent with this, New York State's ECL Permit does not require permit coverage for
nondischarging dairy AFOs with 200-299 mature dairy cows, milked or dry.
8.1 SPDES Environmental Conservation Law General Permit
The current ECL Permit (GP-0-14-001) became effective July 1, 2014, and expires on June 30, 2016. This
general permit is an interim general permit that replaced the expired general permit, GP-0-09-001.
NYSDEC issued the interim general permit, unchanged from GP-0-09-001, to allow adequate time to
work with a diverse stakeholder group to consider potential future changes to the ECL Permit. Owners
or operators with coverage under GP-0-09-001 continue to be covered under GP-0-14-001 (NYSDEC
2014b).
Although referred to as CAFOs, ECL Permit holders are not allowed to discharge, except for agricultural
stormwater,12 and must be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to prevent discharge. For
12 The ECL Permit defines agricultural stormwater discharge as a precipitation-related discharge of manure, litter
or process wastewater where the manure, litter or process wastewater has been applied in accordance with site-
specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the
manure, litter or process wastewater, with site-specific conservation practices to control runoff, appropriate
testing of manure, litter or process wastewater and soil, and adequate documentation and recordkeeping.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
25
-------
purposes of eligibility for federal 319 nonpoint source funding, because these ECL-permitted operations
do not discharge, they are actually considered AFOs.
For Large CAFOs, "no discharge" means that the ECL Permittee has fully implemented all structural
and nonstructural BMPs necessary to meet USDA NRCS CPS NY 312 (Waste Management System) as
determined by an objective and certified assessment by an AEM-certified planner documented in the
facility's CNMP.
For Medium CAFOs, "no discharge" means that the ECL Permittee has fully implemented all
nonstructural BMPs necessary to meet NRCS NY 312 as determined by an objective and certified
assessment by an AEM-certified planner, the permittee is complying with the CNMP implementation
schedule requirements in GP-0-14-001 Part III.C, and all implemented practices are operating and
maintained. NY 312 nonstructural BMPs include nutrient management, recycling waste through soil and
plants, excluding clean water from concentrated waste areas, and adequate erosion control and other
soil and water management practices.
The 2013 ECL CAFO rule revisions (Part 750 of Title 6 of the Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State
of New York) no longer require dairy AFOs with 200 to 299 mature dairy cows to obtain coverage
under the ECL Permit. The ECL CAFO rule was revised to support New York State's yogurt industry by
encouraging expansion of smaller dairy farms. Although New York State removed the burden of ECL
Permit coverage for these dairies, NYSDEC retains authority to require ECL Permit coverage if a dairy
AFO is observed to be a risk to the environment. In one instance, a 296 cow dairy (Facility 30) wanted to
terminate ECL Permit coverage. However, during NYSDEC's termination inspection (July 2014) it was
documented that silage leachate was flowing into a roadside ditch and that cows had direct access to
surface water. The NYSDEC inspector sent a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the facility for the silage
leachate discharge and the cows having direct access to a creek. Facility 30 is not able to terminate its
SPDES permit until the issues are resolved and the facility refiles a Notice of Termination (NOT) with
NYSDEC. EPA Region 2 commends NYSDEC for its careful attention to processing and screening NOTs
from dairies with 200 to 299 mature dairy cows seeking to terminate permit coverage.
In most instances, New York State expects that removal of ECL permitting requirements for dairies with
200 to 299 cows will encourage these smaller dairies to expand their herds and produce more milk
(NYSDEC 2014c). Although dairies with 200 to 299 cows are no longer required to hold ECL Permits,
these dairies must apply nutrients at agronomic rates in accordance with the criteria for the
agricultural stormwater discharge exemption and prevent any discharges that would require CWA
Permit coverage. Furthermore, these dairies are expected, but not required, to participate in the AEM
(see Section 9.0) or other equivalent conservation programs (NYSDEC 2014c).
ECL Permit coverage is available to nondischarging, existing Small13 or Medium14 CAFOs, existing Large
CAFOs, new Small or Medium CAFOs, and new Large CAFOs. To obtain ECL Permit coverage, Medium
13 The ECL Permit defines a Small CAFO as an AFO that is designated by the Department as a CAFO or requests
CAFO SPDES permit coverage and is not a Medium or Large CAFO.
14 The ECL Permit defines a Medium CAFO as an AFO that stables or confines the type and number of animals that
fall within the federal Medium CAFO size category.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
26
-------
CAFOs must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and CNMP certification to NYSDEC; Large CAFOs must
submit an NOI and an Annual Nutrient Management Plan Submittal15 to NYSDEC. Under the ECL Permit,
the CNMP must be developed and certified within 6 months of NYSDEC receiving an NOI for Expanded
Facilities (AFO to Medium CAFO), 15 days before operating a new CAFO, or before ECL Permit coverage
for existing CAFOs. NYSDEC can require any owner or operator authorized by the ECL Permit to apply for
and obtain an individual SPDES permit.
8.1.1 SPDES Environmental Conservation Law Permit Best Management Practices
ECL Permit, Part VI, specifies the following generic BMPs that must be implemented, as appropriate, at
all ECL-permitted CAFOs.
Prohibition on Unauthorized Substances. Sanitary waste, unless authorized pursuant to Part
360; unused pesticides; and any other material that cannot be properly handled at the CAFO, is
prohibited from being stored in waste storage areas or conveyed through the waste storage
transfer structures.
Proper Operation and Maintenance Requirements. The facilities covered by this General Permit
are required to document the attainment of the effluent limitations required in Part I, and all
applicable Generic BMPs used to comply with the effluent limitations in this permit. Such
documentation shall be included in the CNMP required by Part III of this permit.
Waste Application Requirements. Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CNMP
and NRCS 590. In no case shall land application rates or timing result in any runoff during any
given application event that causes or contributes to a violation of water quality standards.
Applications may not be made on saturated soils or at a rate that meets or exceeds the
saturation capacity of that field at that time. In addition, all waste applications must be made in
accordance with the following requirements:
o Adverse Weather Emergency Applications. Emergency applications of manure, litter,
food processing waste, digestate and process wastewater during adverse weather
conditions must be made under the considerations of the 2005 Cornell Guide,
Supplemental Manure Spreading Guidelines to Reduce Water Contamination Risk During
Adverse Weather Conditions. The CNMP must identify specific fields to be reserved for
these emergency applications,
o Protection of Groundwater and Artificial Drainage Flows. Applications of manure,
litter, food processing waste, digestate and process wastewater in areas with at-risk
groundwater as defined in the 2004 Cornell recommendations Manure and
Groundwater: The Case for Protective Measures and Supporting Guidelines, or in
artificially drained fields must be done with caution and under the direction of an AEM-
certified planner.
o Food Processing Waste. As set forth in NRCS 590, land application of food processing
waste shall consider any and all necessary measures to minimize odors, such as
incorporation, injection and appropriate use of timing to avoid creating a nuisance,
o Food Processing Waste Containing Salt. The land application rates of food processing
waste shall not exceed a chloride loading of 170 pounds per acre per year,
o Waste Without Benefit. Land application of undigested fats, oils and grease (FOG), or
other waste with no quantifiable nutritive benefit to the soil or crop, is not allowed.
15 NYSDEC's Annual Nutrient Management Plan Submittal is a list of items that must be submitted annually to
NYSDEC by all SPDES-permitted Large CAFOs.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
27
-------
In addition, all Large CAFOs must meet the following requirement:
Manure Applicator Training. A minimum of two (2) individuals from each permitted
Large CAFO facility must attend a NYSDEC- endorsed manure applicator training within
the permit term. All subsequent applications of manure, litter, food processing waste,
digestate and process wastewater made by the CAFO must be done under the direct
supervision of an individual who has attended this training. Direct supervision includes,
but is not limited to, determining daily nutrient application rates, timing, spreading
methods, field selections and adherence to required application setbacks. These
individuals are responsible for the training of facility staff regarding the applicable
requirements.
Field Setback Requirements. Unless the CAFO exercises one of the options provided for
in (a.) or (b.) of this section, manure, litter, food processing waste, digestate and process
wastewater may not be applied closer than 100 feet from: (1) the top of the bank of any
down-gradient surface waters of New York State, including both perennial and
intermittent streams, (2) to a New York State Regulatory Freshwater Wetland with a
surface connection to the field, or (3) to an open tile line intake structure, sinkhole,
wellhead or other down-gradient direct conduits to surface or ground waters.
o Vegetated buffer. As a compliance alternative, the CAFO may substitute the
100-foot setback described above with a 35-foot wide vegetated buffer to
down-gradient waters as described in Part VI.D. (1), (2), and (3) above.
o Alternative practice. As a compliance alternative, the CAFO may substitute the
100-foot setback described above with a 15-foot wide setback to down-gradient
waters as described in Part VI.D. (1), (2), and (3) above when manure, litter,
food processing waste, digestate and process wastewater is applied under the
conservation practice of incorporation within 24 hours of the application as
documented in the CNMP.
Other Best Management Practices. The following BMPs shall be used by all ECL-
permitted CAFOs (Note that facility-specific BMPs must also be specified in the CNMP):
o Retention facilities and structures must be designed, constructed and operated
to prevent the discharge of all manure, litter, food processing waste, digestate,
process wastewater and the contaminated runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event for the location of the production area. Calculations may also
include allowances for surface retention, infiltration and other site-specific
factors. Retention facilities and structures must be constructed, maintained and
managed so as to retain all contaminated rainfall runoff from open lots and
associated areas, as well as manure, litter, food processing waste, digestate and
process wastewater which will enter or be stored in the retention facilities or
structure(s).
o The maximum operating level for open waste storage structures, earthen and
fabricated, shall be indicated by a depth marker and be the level that provides
for the design storage volume less the volume contribution of precipitation and
runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, plus one (1) foot of freeboard for
all earthen waste storage structures and all fabricated waste storage structures
with a contributing drainage area. The design storage volume includes the
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
28
-------
volume needed for manure, litter, food processing waste, digestate and process
wastewater storage as calculated in the CNMP in accordance with the NRCS NY
313 Standard Design criteria,
o Leachate collection and control facilities must be implemented, operated and
maintained in accordance with all applicable NRCS standards to prevent
overflow or discharge of the concentrated, low-flow leachate products. If an
AEM-certified planner deems low-flow leachate collection unnecessary, a
detailed description of the monitoring strategy necessary for this determination
must be included in the CNMP. This monitoring strategy must be site-specific
and, at a minimum, include documented inspections of the feed storage area to
determine if low-flow leachate is leaving the pad. Furthermore, if an AEM-
certified planner deems high-flow leachate treatment unnecessary, a detailed
description of this consideration must be included in the CNMP. At its
discretion, NYSDEC reserves the right to require leachate collection and
treatment when determined applicable,
o Facilities shall not expand operations, either in size or numbers of animals, prior
to amending or enlarging the waste-handling procedures and structures to
accommodate any additional wastes that will be generated by the expanded
operations, unless the existing facilities have been designed to accommodate
such expansion.
o Barnyards and associated wastes shall be isolated from outside surface drainage
by ditches, dikes, berms, diversions or other such structures designed to carry
peak flows expected at times when the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event occurs,
o New facilities shall not be built in a surface water of the state, including
wetlands, and must be built outside of the 100-year floodplain (excluding
agricultural fields). New structures on existing facilities shall not be built in a
surface water of the state, including wetlands, and must be built outside of the
100-year floodplain unless protected from inundation by the 100-year flood as
documented by a professional engineer currently licensed to practice in New
York State. In addition, any newly constructed waste storage facilities or feed
storage structures may not be built within 100 feet of a New York State
classified stream or protected water body as determined by 6NYCRR Parts 608
and 800-941, or Title 5 of Article 15 of the ECL, as seen on the New York State
Environmental Resource Mapper at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/38801.html.
o Animals confined in the animal feeding operation must be prevented from
coming in contact with the surface waters of the state while in the confinement
area.
o There shall be no water quality impairment to public or neighboring private
drinking water wells due to waste handling at the permitted facility. New
retention facilities and structures, holding pens or waste/wastewater treatment
sites shall not be located closer to existing public or private water wells than the
distances specified by state regulations or health codes or state-issued permits,
o Solids, sludges, manure or other pollutants, as defined in ECL 17-0105 (17),
removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed
of in a manner such as to prevent pollutants from being discharged to waters of
the state.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
29
-------
o The operator shall prevent the discharge of pesticides into waters of the state.
All pesticide, herbicide and fungicide products used at the CAFO must be
registered with New York State and applied in accordance with the label
directions. Any use contrary to the legal label is a violation of federal and state
pesticide law. Certification of pesticide applicators may be required (see
http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/209.html). All wastes from dipping vats, pest
and parasite-control units, and other facilities used for the application of
potentially hazardous or toxic chemicals shall be handled and disposed of in a
manner such as to prevent pollutants from entering the waters of the state,
o Dead animals shall be properly disposed of within three (3) days unless
otherwise provided for by NYSDEC. Animals shall be disposed of in a manner to
prevent contamination of waters of the state or creation of a public health
hazard. Facilities shall refrain from disposal of animal mortalities in any liquid
manure or process wastewater treatment systems. Composting of dead animals
must be conducted in accordance with the 2002 Cornell Waste Management
Institute recommendations in Natural Rendering: Composting Livestock
Mortality & Butcher Waste or the applicable NRCS standard,
o Collection, storage and disposal of liquid and solid waste must be managed in
accordance with NRCS standards,
o Food processing waste may not exceed 50 percent of the annual stored volume
in the manure storage facility covered by this General Permit. Manure storage
facilities accepting greater than 50 percent food processing waste are subject to
the permitting or registration requirements under Part 360. Nonfarm generated
organics such as food processing waste and FOG may not exceed 50 percent of
the annual volume of waste placed in the anaerobic digester. Sanitary waste
shall not be accepted into the anaerobic digester. Anaerobic digesters accepting
greater than 50 percent nonfarm-generated organics or any sanitary waste are
subject to the permitting or registration requirements under Part 360.
o Transfer of manure, litter, food processing waste, digestate and process
wastewater to other persons,
o In cases where CAFO-generated manure, litter, food processing waste, digestate
and process wastewater is exported, sold or given away from a CAFO to any one
recipient in amounts greater than 50 tons annually, the permittee must comply
with the following conditions:
¦ Maintain records showing the date and amount of manure, litter, food
processing waste, digestate and process wastewater that leaves the
permitted operation.
¦ Record the name and address of the recipient.
¦ Provide the recipient(s) with representative information on the nutrient
content of the manure, litter, food processing waste, digestate and
process wastewater as exported.
¦ These records shall be retained on-site, for a period of 5 years, and shall
be submitted to NYSDEC upon request.
Any applications not meeting the definition of export must be made in accordance with the
CNMP of the permit holder.
The ECL Permit requires Large CAFOs to have implemented all necessary BMPs before acquiring permit
coverage. EPA's contractor reviewed CNMP practice implementation status as reported on Facility ll's
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
30
-------
ACRs and the CAFO's NOI; Facility 11 is the only Large ECL-permitted CAFO on EPA Region 2's CAFO file
review list. Based on ACR and NOI information submitted by Facility 11, all structural and nonstructural
CNMP practices were implemented before the NOI was signed and submitted to NYSDEC on March 10,
2010.
The CNMP practice full implementation date for Medium CAFOs was March 31, 2012, unless an
extension was granted by NYSDEC. The ECL Permit does not allow extensions beyond June 30, 2014, for
Medium CAFOs. EPA's contractor reviewed 27 CNMP implementation extension requests submitted by
14 ECL-permitted CAFOs. The majority of extension requests were the result of financial hardship and all
were approved except one, which was denied because the CAFO was under enforcement action.
8.2 SPDES Clean Water Act General Permit
New York State's SPDES CWA General Permit (GP-04-02) is issued to discharging CAFOs, or to CAFOs
that do not discharge but choose to be covered, pursuant to the New York State's ECL and the federal
CWA. The effective date of the CWA Permit was July 1, 2004, and the expiration date was June 30,
2009, but the permit has been administratively extended. Owners and operators permitted prior to
June 30, 2009, continue to be covered under the administratively extended SPDES CWA Permit; NYSDEC
reports all CAFOs that need an SPDES CWA Permit are currently covered. EPA notes that federal NPDES
regulations do not allow new facilities to be covered under an administratively extended general permit.
As a result, NYSDEC will issue an individual SPDES CWA Permit to any new CAFO that submits an NOI
before the permit is reissued.
The CWA Permit allows discharges of process wastewater from storms equal to or greater than the
25-year, 24-hour precipitation event and agricultural stormwater; under the ECL Permit only
agricultural stormwater can be discharged. When a 25-year, 24-hour storm event occurs, CWA Permit
holders are allowed to discharge process wastewater overflow to surface waters of the state if the
facility is designed, constructed and operated to contain all process-generated waste waters plus the
expected runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the location of the point source.
CAFO owners or operators must submit an NOI for SPDES CWA Permit coverage to NYSDEC before
discharging to waters of the state. The SPDES CWA Permit requires a site-specific CNMP developed or
reviewed by an AEM-certified planner. All structures and practices identified in the CNMP must be
designed, constructed and operated in accordance with NRCS NY 312, as discussed in ECL Permit section
above. Although all SPDES CWA-permitted CAFOs must develop, certify and implement a CNMP, the
CWA Permit assigns different CNMP deadlines depending on the CAFO's size category and operating
status. The SPDES CWA Permit allows (1) new Small CAFOs, (2) Medium CAFOs, and (3) AFO to
Medium CAFO (i.e., AFOs that expand in size to qualify as Medium CAFOs) to have 2 years from the
date NYSDEC receives the NOI to develop and certify the CNMP.
The 2 year CNMP delay is inconsistent with the SPDES CWA Permit requiring a certified CNMP in
place when NYSDEC receives the NOI from an expanded facility, Medium CAFO to Large CAFO,
or new Large CAFO.
The federal CAFO regulation at 40 CFR 122.23 (h) requires the CAFO nutrient management plan
(NMP) to be developed and submitted with the NOI.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
31
-------
The CWA Permit's delayed implementation schedule for production and land application area BMPs is
less stringent than current and past federal CAFO rules. The federal CAFO rule requires production area
BMPs to be fully operational on the date of NPDES permit coverage. The 2008 federal CAFO rule allowed
delayed implementation of land application area BMPs, but the full implementation date of February 27,
2009, has passed. The current federal CAFO rule does not include a delayed implementation schedule
for BMPs [40 CFR § 412.3l(a)(2)(3) and (b)(3) and 40 CFR § 412.43(a)(2) and (b)(2)].
New York State CNMPs are considered confidential under N.Y. AGM. LAW § 151-g and, as such, EPA's
contractor did not review CNMPs as part of the New York State animal agriculture program assessment
process. CAFO CNMPs are also not submitted to NYSDEC staff for review, nor are copies filed with
NYSDEC's staff or offices, unless obtained for compliance and enforcement purposes.
New York State's confidential treatment of CAFO CNMPs is not consistent with the 40 CFR § 122.23(h)
federal CAFO requirement, which requires permit writer review of the CAFO's NMP and an adequate
opportunity for public review of both a CAFO's NMP and the terms of the NMP incorporated into the
draft permit. NMPs submitted for compliance with both individual and general NPDES permits must go
through a public notice and comment period to give the public an opportunity to review the CAFO's site-
specific NMP and comment on the terms of the NMP to be incorporated into the permit (EPA 2012a). As
a result, New York State's position of not requiring permit writer review and public notice of CAFO
CNMPs, and the 2-year implementation delay for some facilities, is not in accordance with the federal
CAFO requirements.
8.2.1 SPDES Clean Water Act Permit Best Management Practices
The CWA Permit prohibits unauthorized substances in retention facilities and requires proper operation
and maintenance of facilities used to comply with the permit. In addition, the following 13 BMPs
specified at CWA Permit Part VIII.G must be implemented by all CWA Permit holders, in addition to any
other site-specific BMPs identified in the CAFO's CNMP.
Control facilities must be designed, constructed and operated to contain all process wastewater
and the contaminated runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the location of the
production area. Calculations may also include allowances for surface retention, infiltration and
other site-specific factors. Waste-control facilities must be constructed, maintained and
managed so as to retain all contaminated rainfall runoff from open lots and associated areas,
process wastewater, and all other wastes which will enter or be stored in the retention
structure(s).
Facilities shall not expand operations, either in size or numbers of animals, prior to amending or
enlarging the waste-handling procedures and structures to accommodate any additional wastes
that will be generated by the expanded operations, unless the existing facilities have been
designed to accommodate such expansion.
Open lots and associated wastes shall be isolated from outside surface drainage by ditches,
dikes, berms, terraces or other such structures designed to carry peak flows expected at times
when the 25- year, 24-hour rainfall event occurs.
New facilities shall not be built in a surface water of the state, including wetlands.
Animals confined in the animal feeding operation must be prevented from coming in contact
with the surface waters of the state.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
32
-------
New and expanded wastewater retention facilities may not be located in the 100-year
floodplain unless the facility is protected from inundation and damage that may occur during
that flood event.
There shall be no water quality impairment to public or neighboring private drinking water wells
due to waste handling at the permitted facility. Wastewater retention facilities, holding pens or
waste/wastewater disposal sites shall not be located closer to public or private water wells than
the distances specified by state regulations or health codes or state-issued permits.
Solids, sludges, manure or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of
wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent pollutants from being
discharged to waters of the state.
The operator shall prevent the discharge of pesticide-contaminated waters into waters of the
state. All wastes from dipping vats, pest and parasite-control units, and other facilities used for
the application of potentially hazardous or toxic chemicals shall be handled and disposed of in a
manner such as to prevent pollutants from entering the waters of the state.
Dead animals shall be properly disposed of within three (3) days unless otherwise provided for
by NYSDEC. Animals shall be disposed of in a manner to prevent contamination of waters of the
state or creation of a public health hazard.
Collection, storage and disposal of liquid and solid waste should be managed in accordance with
NRCS standards.
Appropriate measures necessary to prevent spills and to clean up spills of any toxic pollutant
shall be taken. Where potential spills can occur, materials-handling procedures and storage shall
be specified. Applicable regulations and procedures for cleaning up spills shall be identified and
the necessary equipment to implement a clean-up shall be available to personnel.
In cases where CAFO generated manure, litter or process wastewater is sold or given away to
any one recipient in amounts greater than 50 tons annually, the permittee must comply with the
following conditions:
o Maintain records showing the date and amount of manure, litter and/or process
wastewater that leaves the permitted operation,
o Record the name and address of the recipient.
o Provide the recipient(s) with representative information on the nutrient content of the
manure, litter and/or process wastewater,
o These records shall be retained on-site, for a period of 5 years, and shall be submitted to
NYSDEC upon request.
Part VIII.C of the CWA Permit required the BMPs discussed above to be fully implemented on or before
June 30, 2009, the last day for Medium CAFOs to have all structural and nonstructural practices fully
operational.16 Existing Large CAFOs were required to have all practices fully operational by December
31, 2006. Table 10 presents CNMP practice full implementation dates as identified from ACRs submitted
by each of the Large CWA-permitted CAFOs on EPA Region 2's CAFO file review list. The Large CAFOs
evaluated by EPA received extensions for full implementation of CNMPs; however, all Large SPDES CWA-
16 The CWA Permit requires Medium CAFOs to have had all nonstructural BMPs fully operational on or
before October 1, 2007, and practices addressing high risk conditions fully operational no later than
October 1, 2008. The CWA Permit defines High Risk Conditions as conditions as identified by the
certified AEM planner that have the high likelihood of significant water quality impacts.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
33
-------
permitted CAFOs reviewed by EPA fully implemented CNMP practices during or before the 2009 ACR
reporting year.
Table 10. SPDES Clean Water Act Permit, Large CAFO Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
Practice Implementation as Self-Reported on Annual Compliance Reports
Year Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
Facility
Date of
Practices Were Fully Implemented, Based on
Name
Coverage
Watershed
SPDES Annual Compliance Report Review
SPDES Clean Water Act CAFO Permit
Facility 1
12/18/1999
Great Lakes
2009
Facility 2
7/16/1999
Great Lakes
Earlier than 2008
Facility 3
9/27/2000
Chesapeake Bay
watershed
2009
Facility 4
2/25/2000
Chesapeake Bay
watershed
2009
Facility 5
12/23/1999
Great Lakes
2009
Facility 6
5/10/2001
Great Lakes
2008
Facility 7
12/6/2000
Great Lakes
2008
Facility 8
1/11/2000
Chesapeake Bay
watershed
2009
Facility 9
12/16/1999
Chesapeake Bay
watershed
2007
Facility 10
7/12/1999 (NOI
Received)
Great Lakes
Earlier than 2008
8.3 SPDES Nutrient Management
In addition to developing and implementing a CNMP, facilities covered under the CWA Permit must
implement specific requirements consistent with the federal NMP CAFO requirements. Although ECL-
permitted facilities are not subject to the federal NMP CAFO requirements like CWA-permitted facilities,
ECL-permitted facilities NMPs do appear to meet these federal requirements. Table 11 compares the
federal Large CAFO NMP requirements with both New York State CAFO general permits.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
34
-------
Table 11. Comparison of Federal Large CAFO Nutrient Management Plan Requirements with New
York State SPDES CAFO General Permit Requirements
SPDES Environmental
Federal Large CAFO Nutrient Management
Conservation Law Permit
SPDES Clean Water Act
Plan Requirements
(GP-0-14-001)
Permit (GP-04-02)
Manure Storage
[HI (VI.E.a. and b.)
E (Vlll.C.i. &
VIII.B)
Mortality Management
[HI (VI.E.k.)
El (VIII.C.x.)
Clean Water Diversion
E (VI.E.e.)
El (VII.A.)
Prevention of Direct Animal Contact with
Water
IE] (VI.E.g.)
\E1 (VIII.C.v.)
Chemical Handling
0 (VI.E.j.)
[S] (Vlll.C.ix.)
Conservation Practices to Control Runoff
[El (III.A.)
EE] (VII.A.)
Manure and Soil Testing Protocols
0 (V.N.)
(El (IX.M.)
Land Application Protocols
\Z\ (III.A.)
[El (VII.A.)
Recordkeeping
0(V.)
m (IX.)1
1 Section IX.F requires that records be retained for 5 years; Section IX.0 specifies that large CAFOs must retain
records of daily water line inspections, manure storage depth marker inspections, records taken to document
actions taken to correct deficiencies, records of handling and disposing of dead animals, records of the design of
the manure and litter storage structures, records of overflows from production area, weather conditions at time
of land application and 24 hours prior to and following application, and dates of manure application equipment
inspections.
Although many federal Large CAFO NMP requirements are covered under the New York State SPDES
CWA CAFO general permit, there is one inconsistency, outlined below, between the SPDES CWA CAFO
permit and the federal Large CAFO NMP requirements.
The SPDES CWA CAFO permit and the federal CAFO rule require records to be retained for 5
years. However, the CWA permit's recordkeeping requirements are not consistent with the
federal CAFO rule recordkeeping requirements. For example, for land application, the CWA
Permit only requires Large CAFOs to keep records of the weather conditions at time of
application and for 24 hours prior to and following application, and date(s) of manure
application equipment inspections; the federal CAFO rule requires more extensive land
application records, such as site-specific agronomic rate determination and actual land
application data.
8.4 SPDES Annual Compliance Reports
SPDES CAFOs must submit an ACR each year, which describes changes to operational practices, CNMP
revisions and states the compliance status of the farm. ACRs submitted under the two SPDES CAFO
permits are nearly identical, the exception being Section V. Nutrient Imports for ECL-permitted CAFOs.
NYSDEC reports 99 percent compliance with ACR submittal (NYSDEC, personal communication, July 24,
2014). EPA's contractor confirmed this high compliance rate with ACR submittal requirements in the
CWA- and ECL-permitted facility file reviews.
Table 12 compares the federal CAFO annual reporting requirements with both ECL and CWA Permits'
annual reporting requirements.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
35
-------
Table 12. Comparison of Federal CAFO Annual Reporting Requirements with SPDES CAFO Permit
Annual Reporting Requirements
Federal CAFO Annual Reporting Requirements
SPDES
Environmental
Conservation Law
Permit (GP-0-14-
001)
SPDES Clean
Water Act Permit
(GP-04-02)
i. Number and type of animals in confinement or housed
under roof
Annual Compliance
Report, Section II;
Annual NMP, Section 1
Annual Compliance
Report, Section II
ii. Estimated amount of total manure, litter and process
wastewater generated by the CAFO in the previous 12
months
Annual Compliance
Report, Section III
Annual Compliance
Report, Section III
iii. Estimated amount of total manure, litter and process
wastewater transferred to other person by the CAFO in
the previous 12 months
Annual Compliance
Report, Section IV
Annual Compliance
Report, Section IV
iv. Total number of acres for land application covered by
the NMP
Annual Compliance
Report, Section VI
Annual Compliance
Report, Section V
v. Total number of acres under control of the CAFO that
were used for land application in the previous 12
months
Annual Compliance
Report, Section VI
Annual Compliance
Report, Section V
vi. Summary of all manure, litter and process wastewater
discharges from the production area that have occurred
in the previous 12 months, including date, time and
approximate volume
Annual Compliance
Report, Section VIII
Annual Compliance
Report, Section VII
vii. Statement indicating whether the current version of
the CAFO's NMP was developed or approved by a
certified nutrient management planner
Annual Compliance
Report, Section IX;
Annual NMP, Section
V
Annual Compliance
Report, Section IX
viii. Actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field;
the actual nitrogen and phosphorus content of the
manure, litter and process wastewater; results of
calculations; the amount of manure, litter and process
wastewater applied to each field during the previous 12
months; results of any soil testing for nitrogen and
phosphorus taken during the preceding 12 months;
amount of any supplemental fertilizer applied during
the previous 12 months.
ECL Permit Section
V.N;a
Annual NMP, Section
III.B
Not submitted in
the Annual
Compliance Reportb
Notes:
3 ECL Permit, Section V.N requires CAFOs to analyze each individual land-applied waste source (manure, litter, food
processing waste, digestate and process wastewater) at least once annually for total nitrogen, ammonium, total
phosphorus, total potassium, chloride and percent solids (if food processing waste is included in the waste) in accordance
with NRCS 590, unless a more frequent sampling is deemed appropriate by the AEM-certified planner.
bThe CWA Permit requires that CAFOs analyze manure annually for nitrogen and phosphorus content.
New York State's ECL Permit annual reporting requirements are consistent with federal CAFO annual
reporting requirements (Table 12). The CWA Permit annual reporting requirements are not consistent
with federal CAFO annual reporting requirements. The CWA Permit does not require annual submittal
of nutrient management data including actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field; the
actual nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter and process wastewater; results of
calculations; the amount of manure, litter and process wastewater applied to each field during the
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
36
-------
previous 12 months; results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken during the preceding
12 months; and amount of any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12 months (Table 12,
Row viii).
The questionnaire indicates that all of the submitted CAFO ACRs are reviewed for completion and
accuracy (NYSDEC 2014a). However, during a conference call with the EPA team, NYSDEC CO staff
stated that ACR data are only reviewed by RO staff before SPDES compliance inspections or site visits
(NYSDEC, personal communication, July 11, 2014). NYSDEC does enter data from ACRs into an electronic
database which could be, and according to NYSDEC is, queried to identify noncompliant ACR responses
and trends. Inspection data provided by NYSDEC demonstrates that SPDES-permitted CAFOs are not all
inspected each year and, as a result, multiple years of self-reported noncompliance could occur between
inspections without NYSDEC RO staff being aware of the potential compliance issues.
Each ACR includes a CNMP Completion Schedule. This CNMP Completion Schedule section of the ACR
requires the facility to list specific CNMP practices included in the facility's CNMP, the estimated
completion date, number of each practice planned, the number of each practice completed, whether
the practice is nonstructural, whether the practice is a response to high risk conditions, and estimated
CNMP practice costs. The specific practices listed in ACR Section VIII are:
Barnyard Runoff Management (i.e., roof water management, diversion, heavy use area
protection, underground outlet, fencing, critical area planting, filter area, other)
Silage Leachate Control (i.e., filter area, pipeline, heavy-use area protection, other)
Storage, Transfer, & Treatment (i.e., composting, anaerobic digestion, other)
Process Wastewater Treatment (i.e., pipeline, filter area, organic matter filter bed, other)
Nutrient Management (i.e., soil analysis; manure analysis; Nitrogen Leaching Index [N-Leaching
Index]; Phosphorus Runoff Index [P-lndex]; rate, timing and placement; feed/forage
management; other)
Record Keeping (i.e., facilities and BMP visual inspections, manure spreading records,
equipment calibration records, rainfall records, other)
Erosion/Runoff Management (i.e., filter strips, buffers, diversion, waterway, terrace, cover crop,
conservation tillage, strip cropping, other)
Pasture Management (i.e., prescribed grazing, pasture and hay land planting, other)
Other System
BMP implementation information reported on ACRs is helpful for understanding the general types of
BMPs planned for implementation, or fully implemented, at each SPDES-permitted CAFO. However, the
CNMP practice information was not provided with enough specificity or detail for the data to be used for
WIP reporting purposes. NYSDEC suggested that this information was not meant for detailed BMP
implementation reporting (NYSDEC, personal communication, July 24, 2014); rather, its purpose is to
identify when each operation comes into compliance with CNMP practice full implementation dates.
8.5 Facility Universe, SPDES CAFO Program
New York State's use of the ECL Permit for non-discharging Medium and Large CAFOs results in a
significantly greater number of CAFOs operating under SPDES permits than would be achieved under
the federal NPDES CAFO regulations. NYSDEC (2014d) reports that 267 facilities are covered under the
CWA Permit (24 of those in the Bay watershed) and 295 are covered by the ECL Permit (44 in the Bay
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
37
-------
watershed). Under the federal NPDES CAFO regulations only the 267 discharging New York State CAFOs
would be operating with a permit.
8.6 Resources Allocated, SPDES CAFO Program
The state operating budget for SPDES-permitted CAFO program areas is divided among many agencies
and other interest groups and could not be readily compiled by NYSDEC for its questionnaire response
(NYSDEC 2014a).
NYSDEC maintains a CAFO field presence through its nine regional and five subregional offices, with
additional staff support at its CO. In SFY2012-2013, NYSDEC had 1.5 CO FTEs and 3.6 RO FTEs dedicated
to SPDES CAFOs, estimated from CAFO time and activity codes. Additional resources in SPDES
permitting, compliance and management functions are also distributed to CAFO activities but covered in
other time and activity coding. In addition, Bay watershed time and activity also covers CAFO activities,
but was not broken down by NYSDEC in the questionnaire (NYSDEC 2014a).
The limited resource information provided by NYSDEC was not sufficient to draw any conclusions about
whether New York State's animal agriculture programs are appropriately, or adequately, funded and
staffed.
8.7 Data Systems, SPDES CAFO Program
Electronic data systems are used by NYSDEC staff at the CO to track and manage oversight of SPDES
CAFO permittees. ECL and CWA NOI information, facility changes and new facilities, BMP and CNMP
practice information, and ACR data are tracked with a CAFO database. Information is entered in the
CAFO database daily. The CAFO database is queried for permitting and compliance information needs.
Two other data systems, EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) and Watershed
Integrated Compliance Strategy System (WICSS), are also used by the NYSDEC CO to track facility
information, record the dates that NYSDEC received required reports, and enter compliance and
enforcement data. WICSS is used to generate facility data reports as well as actual inspection reports
and inspection summaries (NYSDEC 2014a).
According to the questionnaire, although ICIS has provided required data management support to SPDES
functions, it has been unable to support all of NYSDEC's information needs. Therefore, the other state
systems are used to fill gaps in the functionality provided by ICIS. Some of these systems are agencywide
in nature, some are specific to NYSDEC's Division of Water, and some have been developed by individual
employees to support their programs. Having several different, unconnected data systems that are not
accessible to all staff poses a problem for data accuracy and consistency.
During its review of the requested facility files, EPA's contractor found that information was not always
consistent among NYSDEC SPDES CAFO data sources, especially between hardcopy files and electronic
record keeping systems. For example, EPA's contractor found several inspection reports (Facility 11,
Facility 21, Facility 22, Facility 31, Facility 33 and Facility 37) that were included in the facility files and
not reflected in the CAFO inspection spreadsheet summary provided by NYSDEC.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
38
-------
8.8 Compliance and Enforcement, SPDES CAFO Program
NYSDEC's SPDES compliance program relies on periodic self-reporting, NYSDEC and EPA Region 2
inspections, and citizen complaints to evaluate the compliance status of SPDES-permitted CAFOs.
NYSDEC's Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.4.2: Compliance and
Enforcement of SPDES Permits (TOGS 1.4.2 [NYSDEC 2010b]) establishes guidance for compliance and
enforcement activities related to the SPDES program, and provides staff with enforcement options and
operating guidelines to implement the compliance component of the program. TOGS 1.4.2 includes a
compliance and enforcement response guide for individual and general SPDES permit requirements,
penalty guidance, and base penalty tables to ensure consistent and transparent implementation of
NYSDEC's compliance and enforcement policies across the NYSDEC regional offices.
EPA Region 2 recognizes NYSDEC for the transparency provided by TOGS 1.4.2. If implemented
consistently across the regional offices, the information and guidance provided ensures that SPDES
compliance and enforcement activities are consistent, allowing operators to be on a level playing field
statewide.
Specific to CAFOs, Table 13 presents NYSDEC's minimum response for violations of CAFO general permit
requirements; Table 14 presents the base penalties for violations of CAFO general permit requirements.
The Table 14 base penalty rates represent the minimum recommended penalties for specific violations
and are to be used as a component in the calculation of the Total Base Penalty.
Table 13. Violations of SPDES CAFO General Permit Requirements
Violations
Circumstance
NYSDEC's Minimum Response
Failure to submit Annual
Compliance Report which must
include certification that the
CNMP has been updated
i) 60 days overdue
ii) More than 90 days overdue
i) NOV
ii) Formal Enforcement
Failure to submit initial CNMP
Certification
i) 60 days overdue
ii) More than 90 days overdue
i) NOV
ii) Formal Enforcement
Failure to apply for coverage
under the CAFO General Permit
i) Large CAFO or Medium CAFO
i) Order on Consent with penalty
and compliance schedule
Failure to implement the CNMP
or significant permit
requirements
i) Environmental health impact
ii) Multiple substantive violations
iii) Building an undesigned open waste
storage structure
iv) All others
i) Formal enforcement
ii) Formal enforcement
iii) Formal enforcement
iv) NOV
Failure to meet consistent
"annual progress" requirement
of the permit
i) First offense
ii) Second and subsequent offense
i) NOV
ii) Formal Enforcement
Failure to amend the CNMP
i) First offense
ii) Second and subsequent offense
i) NOV
ii) Formal Enforcement
Failure to comply with deadline
stipulated in NOV
All
Formal Enforcement
A significant unauthorized
discharge (refer to draft EPA
Wet Weather Significant
Noncompliance [SNC] Policy et
seq.)
All
Formal Enforcement. Consult
with NYSDEC law enforcement or
legal staff to assess potential
criminal prosecution.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
39
-------
Table 13. Violations of SPDES CAFO General Permit Requirements
Violations Circumstance NYSDEC's Minimum Response
Failure to meet nonsignificant
permit requirements
All
No minimum response is
prescribed, but any of the
compliance tools described in
Section III may be used to
achieve compliance.
Causing or contributing to a
water quality standards
violation
i) Demonstrated Water Quality
Standards violation
ii) Repeated Water Quality Standards
violations
i) NOV
ii) Formal Enforcement
Failure to meet major
milestones or reporting
requirements (including failure
to respond to an information
request) set forth in an
administrative or judicial order
i) More than 30 days overdue
ii) More than 60 days overdue
i) NOV
ii) Formal Enforcement
Failure to comply with incident
reporting requirements
pursuant to Part 750-2.6 and
Part 750-2.7
All
NOV
Reporting false information
All
Consult with NYSDEC law
enforcement or legal to assess
potential criminal prosecution or
civil enforcement.
Source: NYSDEC 2010b
Table 14. SPDES CAFO General Permit Base Penalties
Violation
Base Penalty
Rate
Failure to submit Annual Compliance Report
$3,000/event
Failure to submit CNMP Certification
$3,000/event
Failure to apply for and maintain appropriate (i.e., size) coverage under the CAFO
General Permit
$5,000/event
Failure to file appropriate notice of change of ownership
$l,000/month
Failure to implement the CNMP or significant permit requirements, for example:
Environmental health impact
Multiple substantive violations confirmed (e.g., grossly inadequate record
keeping, failure to maintain adequate freeboard for waste structure, etc.)
Building an undesigned open waste storage structure
$3,000/event
Failure to meet consistent "annual progress" permit requirement (second and
subsequent offense)
$3,000/event
Failure to update the CNMP
$l,000/event
Significant unauthorized discharge (refer to draft EPA Wet Weather SNC Policy et
seq.)
$3,000/event
Unauthorized discharge
$2,500/event
Causing or contributing to a water quality standards violation
$5,000/event
Failure to meet a major administrative or judicial order milestone
$250/day
Failure to meet other (nonmajor) administrative or judicial order milestone
$100/day
Failure to meet nonsignificant permit requirement
$500/event
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
40
-------
Table 14. SPDES CAFO General Permit Base Penalties
Base Penalty
Violation
Rate
Failure to submit required report (including failure to respond to information
request)
$500/month
Failure to retain records as required
$500/event
Failure to allow inspection/sampling by the NYSDEC
$5,000/event
Unauthorized disposal of materials into the manure retention facility (other than
discharges associated with proper operation and maintenance of a CAFO) or
$l,000/event
unauthorized retention (i.e., not specified in CNMP) of incidental food processing
wastewater
Falsifying information on NYSDEC submittal
$10,000/report
Failure to comply with other applicable requirements set forth in 6 New York State
Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 750-2, "Operating in Accordance with a
$100/day
SPDES Permit"
ECL Article 17 violations not related to permit
$250/day
Source: NYSDEC 2010b
NYSDEC (2010b) notes that the Table 14 base penalty rates are subject to adjustment based on factors
such as the duration of the event and an environmental significance multiplier. Environmental
significance multipliers represent various degrees of potential harm or actual damage to the
environment resulting from a SPDES permit violation. If the calculated penalty exceeds New York State's
statutory limitation of $37,500 per day, the assessed penalty is the statutory limitation.
The base penalty rates for SPDES operation and maintenance violations (e.g., unauthorized discharges
[$2,500/event] and unauthorized disposal of materials in a manure retention facility [$l,000/event]) are
lower than the base penalty rates for SPDES paperwork violations (i.e., failure to submit annual
compliance report [$3,000/event] and failure to submit CNMP certification [$3,000/event]). The EPA
team recognizes that calculated penalties may be greater than these base penalty rates; however, at
first glance, the base penalty rates appear to emphasize problems with paperwork and reporting more
than operation and maintenance.
NYSDEC ROs take the lead role in SPDES CAFO inspection and enforcement while the CO oversees
statewide implementation. NYSDEC conducted 171 SPDES CAFO compliance inspections in SFY 2012-
2013, resulting in seven enforcement actions. According to the questionnaire, inspection deficiencies
such as an unsatisfactory rating, or a failure to correct deficiencies in accordance with a schedule, results
first in a warning letter with, if necessary, a schedule for correction. A NOV and formal enforcement are
the next steps (NYSDEC 2014a). During the file review, EPA's contractor noted that failure to submit an
ACR resulted in a NOV with a schedule for correction. If the facility submits an ACR by the schedule
deadline, the NOV is resolved and closed without a penalty issued. This is not consistent with TOGS
1.4.2, which provides for a $3,000/event penalty for failure to submit an annual compliance report;
however, this does not account for the fact that NYSDEC has enforcement discretion with regard to
issuing financial penalties.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
41
-------
Figure 1 below presents NYSDEC SPDES compliance and enforcement activities from 2004 through 2012
(SFY 2012-2013). NYSDEC (2013) does not specify whether the enforcement actions were formal or
informal. On average, 11 percent of the SPDES CAFO inspections result in enforcement actions.
Figure 1. New York State SPDES CAFO Compliance and Enforcement Activities, 2004 through 2012
Statewide (NYSDEC 2013a)
700
<
u
TJ
a
600
500
400
300
587 582 588 590 586
569 569 564 567
SPDES Permitted CAFOs
CAFO Inspections
CAFO Enforcement Actions
<3- in id r- oo cr>
8 8 8 8 8 8
(N
-------
Table 15. SPDES-permitted Large CAFOs, NYSDEC Regions 7 and 8 Inspection Data Reviewed By EPA
Facility
Inspection
Inspection
Region
Number
Watershed
Type
Date
Rating
7
Facility 10
Great Lakes
CAFO
9/12/2013
Satisfactory
8
Facility 15
Great Lakes
CAFO
5/22/2008
Satisfactory
8
Facility 17
Great Lakes
CAFO
8/6/2008
Marginal
8
Facility 3
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
10/30/2006
Satisfactory
8
Facility 3
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
5/2/2008
Marginal
8
Facility 3
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
7/16/2012
Satisfactory
8
Facility 3
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
8/21/2013
Marginal
8
Facility 4
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
10/15/2008
Unsatisfactory
8
Facility 4
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
1/11/2012
Marginal
8
Facility 4
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
10/25/2012
Marginal
8
Facility 5
Great Lakes
CAFO
3/23/2004
Satisfactory
8
Facility 5
Great Lakes
Site Visit
5/16/2006
Satisfactory
8
Facility 5a
Great Lakes
CAFO
4/22/2008
Marginal
8
Facility 8
Chesapeake Bay
CAFO
6/29/2009
Satisfactory
Source: NYSDEC 2014a
a EPA Region 2 was the lead inspector, supported by NYSDEC staff.
A comparison of the NYSDEC inspection data with the EPA Region 2's list of CAFO files reviewed shows
that since 2008; 17 of the 20 SPDES-permitted CAFOs (Large and Medium size) in the Bay watershed
were inspected at least once, while only 8 of the 20 SPDES-permitted CAFOs (Large and Medium size) in
the Great Lakes watershed were inspected at least once over the 5-year period of review.
CAFO file information reviewed by EPA's contractor indicates that NYSDEC ROs 7 and 8 have not been
conducting annual inspections at SPDES-permitted Large CAFOs in New York State's portion of the Bay
watershed; however, the available inspection data does indicate an increase in inspection frequency
over the last 2 years.
NYSDEC ROs 7 and 8 have inspected all of the SPDES-permitted Medium CAFOs in New York State's
portion of the Bay watershed at least once in the past 3 years. NYSDEC commented that Chesapeake
Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program support has led to the increase in inspections and allows
NYSDEC to have a stronger regulatory presence in the Bay watershed.
Inquiries and complaints by citizens and observations of possible violations assist NYSDEC's SPDES
program compliance and enforcement efforts. NYSDEC investigates citizen complaints to determine
impact on the environment or public health. In the case of a violation, NYSDEC seeks corrective action to
minimize negative impacts and, if necessary, pursues formal enforcement (NYSDEC 2014a).
NYSDEC's Division of Water, Bureau of Water Compliance tracks SPDES inspections and reports, and
takes enforcement action when necessary (NYSDEC 2011). NYSDEC follows EPA's Interim Significant
Noncompliance Policy for Clean Water Act Violations Associated with CSOs, SSOs, CAFOs, and Storm
Water Point Sources (Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy [EPA 2007]) when an enforcement action is
necessary to address CWA violations at CAFOs. The Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy applies to both wet
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
43
-------
weather and dry weather violations from "wet weather" sources or "wet weather" program areas;
CAFOs are considered wet weather sources (EPA 2007).
The Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy (EPA 2007) identifies the following CAFO violations that may
constitute SNC.
Any significant unauthorized discharge.
No NMP when one is required.
Multiple discharges without an NPDES permit (and the failure to apply for an NPDES permit,
when one is required) and/or multiple violations of permit requirements. For example, multiple
deficiencies in implementing the permit and the NMP, such as failure to:
¦ Maintain adequate storage capacity and containment
¦ Implement buffer/setback requirements
¦ Properly manage chemicals and other contaminants handled on-site
¦ Properly manage mortalities
¦ Conduct proper operation and maintenance
¦ Properly handle manure, including land applying in accordance with NMP
¦ Test soils and manure, as required
¦ Meet record-keeping requirements
¦ Keep the NMP up-to-date
Failure to meet the major milestones required in an administrative or judicial order or in a
permit by 90 days or more.
Failure to submit annual report or other required report (including failure to respond to an
information request), or a report is late by 90 days or more.
EPA (2007) suggests that the appropriate response to alleged SNC can be either formal or informal
enforcement depending on the nature of the alleged violation and a facility's compliance history.
Formal Enforcement Action: an action that "requires actions to achieve compliance, specifies a
timetable, contains consequences for noncompliance that are independently enforceable without
having to prove the original alleged violation and subjects the person to adverse legal consequences for
noncompliance." For purposes of this policy, EPA's definition of formal enforcement action is consistent
with existing policy and includes: (1) unilateral administrative order (with or without a penalty) or
administrative order by consent (with or without a penalty), and (2) civil judicial consent decree or court
order (EPA 2007).
Informal Enforcement Action: an action that does not meet EPA's definition of formal enforcement
action, and (1) is in writing, (2) informs the permittee of the violation(s), (3) identifies the actions
necessary to achieve compliance, (4) specifies milestones and a final date to achieve compliance, and (5)
provides notification of the possibility of escalated enforcement action if the violation is not corrected in
a timely manner (EPA 2007).
EPA's contractor determined that NYSDEC's use of formal and informal enforcement action is consistent
with EPA's Interim Wet Weather SNC Policy (2007).
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
44
-------
8.9 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices,
SPDES CAFO Program
New York State's ECL and CWA Permits, as described above in Sections 8.1.1 and 8.2.1, contain BMP
implementation requirements; many of these align with New York State's WIP priority practices for
reducing agriculture-related nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay. Table 16 summarizes which of
New York State's WIP priority practices are required by the ECL and CWA Permits. By including these
practices in SPDES CAFO permits, New York State gains a measure of certainty when reporting practice
implementation to the CBP. This certainty is not available for voluntary practices; these require other
types of incentives, including financial and technical assistance, to encourage implementation.
Conformance with the Prescribed Grazing Practice Standard (CPS 528) is one example of an incentive.
Heavy-use areas managed according to CPS 528 that do not receive mechanically applied manure are
not subject to the New York State P-index. The CWA and ECL Permits and New York State's Phase I and
Phase II WIPs do not include information about the incentives and programs in place to encourage
mortality composting at SPDES permitted CAFOs.
Table 16. Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices, SPDES CAFO
Program
Watershed Implementation Plan
SPDES ECL
SPDES CWA
Priority Best Management Practice
Permit
Permit
Notes
Enhanced Nutrient Management
0
0
CNMPs must be developed to
(Yield Reserve)
the NRCS 590 standard.3
Mortality Composting
~
~
Prescribed Grazing
~
~
Part VI.(E)(a) of ECL Permit
Barnyard Runoff Control
0
0
and Part VIII.(C)(i) of CWA
Permit
Cereal and Commodity Cover Crops
0
0
NRCS 590
3 Nutrient application rates for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium must not exceed Cornell University guidelines for the
priority nutrient considering applicable risk assessments or industry practice when recognized by the University (NRCS-NY
2013). Cornell nutrient guidelines do not include an insurance factor above calculated agronomic rates (NYSDEC 2010a).
In addition to BMP requirements in the SPDES CAFO permits, ACRs submitted by SPDES CAFO permittees
must document progress toward full implementation of nine structural or nonstructural BMP systems,
as specified in the permittee's CNMP. These BMP systems, as detailed in Section 6.0, are:
Barnyard runoff management
Silage leachate control
Storage, transfer and treatment
Process wastewater treatment
Nutrient management
Record keeping
Erosion/runoff management
Pasture management
Other systems
These nine BMP systems reported in the ACR include four out of the five priority WIP BMPs evaluated
for this assessment report (Table 16). The only priority WIP BMP not specifically included in the ACR is
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
45
-------
mortality composting, although NYSDEC indicated this would be covered in the "other systems"
category. For each practice reported in the ACR, the permittee must report the CNMP practice,
estimated completion date, number of practices planned, number of practices completed, whether the
practice is nonstructural, whether the practice is in response to high risk conditions, and the estimated
CNMP practice costs.
Because the information is prospective rather than retrospective, NYSDEC stated that BMP information
reported in the ACRs is not tracked or used for documenting progress toward 2017 and 2025 WIP
implementation goals. The (JSC is responsible for collecting WIP priority BMP implementation data for
CBP reporting.
8.10 SPDES CAFO Program, Observations
1. NYSDEC's Division of Water administers the two SPDES General CAFO Permits; the ECL Permit
and CWA Permit.
2. New York State's use of the ECL Permit for non-discharging Medium and Large CAFOs results in a
significantly greater number of CAFOs operating under SPDES permits than would be achieved
under the federal NPDES CAFO regulations.
3. For Large CAFOs, "no discharge" means that the ECL Permittee has fully implemented all
structural and nonstructural BMPs necessary to meet USDA NRCS CPS NY 312 (Waste
Management System) as determined by an objective and certified assessment by an AEM-
certified planner documented in the facility's CNMP.
4. For Medium CAFOs, "no discharge" means that the ECL Permittee has fully implemented all
nonstructural BMPs necessary to meet NRCS NY 312 as determined by an objective and certified
assessment by an AEM-certified planner, the permittee is complying with the CNMP
implementation schedule requirements in GP-0-14-001 Part III.C, and all implemented practices
are operating and maintained.
5. The 2013 ECL CAFO rule revisions (Part 750 of Title 6 of the Codes, Rules and Regulations of the
State of New York) no longer require dairy AFOs with 200 to 299 mature dairy cows to obtain
coverage under the ECL Permit.
6. Dairy AFOs with 200 to 299 cows are no longer required to hold ECL Permits but must apply
nutrients at agronomic rates in accordance with the criteria for the agricultural stormwater
discharge exemption and prevent any discharges that would require CWA Permit coverage.
7. EPA Region 2 commends NYSDEC for its careful attention to processing and screening NOTs
from dairies with 200 to 299 mature dairy cows seeking to terminate permit coverage.
8. A minimum of two (2) individuals from each permitted Large CAFO facility must attend a
NYSDEC- endorsed manure applicator training within the permit term.
9. New York State's SPDES CWA General Permit (GP-04-02) is issued to discharging CAFOs, or to
CAFOs that do not discharge but choose to be covered.
10. The effective date of the CWA Permit was July 1, 2004, and the expiration date was June 30,
2009, but the permit has been administratively extended.
11. The CWA Permit allows discharges of process wastewater from storms equal to or greater than
the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event and agricultural stormwater.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
46
-------
12. The SPDES CWA Permit allows (1) new Small CAFOs, (2) Medium CAFOs, and (3) AFO to Medium
CAFO (i.e., AFOs that expand in size to qualify as Medium CAFOs) to have 2 years from the date
NYSDEC receives the NOI to develop and certify the CNMP.
13. The CWA Permit's delayed implementation schedule for production and land application area
BMPs is less stringent than current and past federal CAFO rules.
14. New York State's confidential treatment of CAFO CNMPs is not consistent with the 40 CFR §
122.23(h) federal CAFO requirement, which requires permit writer review of the CAFO's NMP
and an adequate opportunity for public review of both a CAFO's NMP and the terms of the NMP
incorporated into the draft permit.
15. The CWA Permit recordkeeping requirements are not consistent with the federal CAFO rule
recordkeeping requirements.
16. The CWA Permit annual reporting requirements are not consistent with federal CAFO annual
reporting requirements.
17. NYSDEC reports 99 percent compliance with ACR submittal.
18. NYSDEC CO staff stated that ACR data are only reviewed by RO staff before SPDES compliance
inspections or site visits.
19. EPA's contractor found that information was not always consistent among NYSDEC SPDES CAFO
data sources, especially between hardcopy files and electronic record keeping systems.
20. TOGS 1.4.2 includes a compliance and enforcement response guide for individual and general
SPDES permit requirements, penalty guidance, and base penalty tables to ensure consistent and
transparent implementation of NYSDEC's compliance and enforcement policies across the
NYSDEC regional offices.
21. TOGS 1.4.2 base penalty rates appear to emphasize problems with paperwork and reporting
more than operation and maintenance.
22. SPDES-permitted Large CAFOs are not being inspected every year in accordance with NYSDEC's
Compliance Assurance Strategic Plan for CAFOs.
23. NYSDEC ROs 7 and 8 have inspected all of the SPDES-permitted Medium CAFOs in New York
State's portion of the Bay watershed at least once in the past 3 years.
24. New York State's ECL and CWA Permits require implementation of three priority BMPs: nutrient
management, barnyard runoff control, and cereal and commodity cover crops.
9.0 Agricultural Environmental Management
AEM started as an initiative in 1996 and was codified in New York State law in 2000 (N.Y. AGM. LAW §
151). AEM supports farmers in their efforts to protect water quality and conserve natural resources,
while enhancing farm viability by providing a framework to assess environmental stewardship and
coordinate technical and financial assistance from the federal, state, and local levels to address priority
water quality issues on the farm. AEM is also the cornerstone of the agricultural component of New
York's Nonpoint Source Water Quality Management Strategy developed to meet requirements of the
CWA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
47
-------
AEM is administered bytheSWCC. SWCC's key AEM partners include the NYSDEC, NYSDOH, NYSDOS,
NTCS, Cornell University, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Cornell Cooperative
Extension and the SWCDs. NYSDAM, SWCC and SWCDs enter into contract for both the AEM Base
Program and ANSACP grants on roughly an annual basis.
NYSDEC and NYSDAM have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), MOU No. AM08174 (NYSDEC et
al. 2012), in place to facilitate further AEM implementation (NYSDEC 2014a). The MOU between
NYSDEC, NYSDAM and SWCC, effective through December 31, 2017, funds the USC work plan and the
USC's support of the National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) Node operations
and related data reporting. EPA requires that nonpoint source data submissions from New York use the
NEIEN node. This network node-based exchange of conservation practice data streamlines efforts by all
data generating and tracking partners as well to further improve the consistency and confidence in the
reported information.
Phase I of the USC work plan includes support of the NEIEN and related data reporting. The USC is the
primary data tracking, verification and reporting entity for nonpoint source conservation efforts, BMP
implementation and pollution reduction technologies in the New York State's portion of the Bay
watershed.
Phase II of the USC work plan includes support of CAST, a Web-based tool for understanding and
working with the suite of computer models that the CBP uses to help guide decisions for reducing
pollution in the Bay watershed. CAST provides New York, and the other Bay jurisdictions, with
opportunities for on-the-fly estimates of load reductions associated with various management activities.
These rapid estimates are designed to closely replicate the results of full CBP model runs.
AEM is implemented at the local level through SWCDs, who engage local partners such as Cooperative
Extension, NRCS, AEM-certified planners, certified crop advisors, USDA technical service providers,
professional engineers and agri-businesses to work as a team to develop, implement and evaluate
conservation plans on farms. The SWCDs also form coalitions that include other SWCDs, universities and
organizations to promote cooperation, coordination and the sharing/pooling of resources to advance
AEM (NYSDEC 2014a).
The AEM process at the county level begins with the SWCD forming an AEM Steering Committee made
up of local resource professionals and stakeholders. AEM steering committees often include local
representatives of NRCS, FSA, Cornell Cooperative Extension, county health and planning departments,
Farm Bureau, environmental organizations, watershed associations, agri-business, farmers and
interested citizens. The committee develops an AEM strategic plan meeting minimum criteria developed
by the SWCC to guide the local AEM effort for the upcoming 5 years; NYSDEC is a nonvoting, advisory
member of SWCC, along with eight other organizations.17 Key to the strategy is targeting and prioritizing
watersheds, identifying environmental concerns and opportunities, and determining the types of BMP
systems needed to address concerns and opportunities (NYSDEC 2014a).
17 College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University; SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry; Cornell Cooperative Extension; New York State Conservation District Employees' Association, Inc.;
NYSDAM; New York State Department of Health; NYSDOS; and NRCS-NY.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
48
-------
Technical information leading to the strategic plans is obtained from a wide range of sources, including
federal and university studies, the New York State's Priority Waterbodies List and Source Water
Assessment, and locally funded and generated studies and assessments. Each county AEM Steering
Committee develops an Annual Action Plan (AAP), based on the strategic plan, outlining what will be
done in the coming calendar year to advance the strategic plan. Coordination of AEM strategic plans and
AAPs across watersheds containing multiple SWCDs can be addressed through SWCD coalitions, such as
the Upper Susquehanna Coalition.18 The (JSC coordinates the activities for the Susquehanna and
Chemung watersheds not only in New York State, but also in three counties in Pennsylvania (NYSDEC
2014a).
AEM is managed and implemented following a set of core concepts. All AEM activities and approaches
are:
Voluntary. Farmers choose to participate. (Note: Large and Medium CAFOs are required to
participate in AEM [NYSDEC 2013]).
Watershed-based. The AEM approach is carried out within the context of a holistic watershed
planning effort whenever possible.
Customized farm-by-farm. Natural resource and business conditions unique to each farm are
considered throughout the AEM process.
Team-based. AEM coordinates technical assistance from state, federal and local government
programs, as well as the private sector.
Cost effective. AEM targets program, technical, and financial resources to farms with the
greatest potential for impacting the environment.
Statewide: NYSDAM and SWCC secure funding for AEM, oversee the educational and training
program for Certified AEM Planners, and provide standards and leadership for the program
statewide.
Locally led and implemented. The statewide AEM initiative grew from counties and local
watershed groups adopting and refining the planning and implementation process used in AEM.
County-level groups have responsibility for directing and carrying out AEM in their counties.
Tested and science-based. The AEM planning process is based on well-established
environmental planning processes. Environmental protection measures are based on scientific
principles and research. Procedures are also provided to use and develop new, innovative
approaches where appropriate.
All SPDES-permitted CAFOs must participate in AEM. New York State's Phase I WIP (2010a) identifies
the following incentives for AEM participation by unpermitted AFOs.
Free technical assistance to identify and address environmental risks, watershed needs and farm
goals through conservation plans.
Technical assistance to implement conservation plans and practices that can improve farm
profitability, including nutrient management; prescribed grazing; conservation tillage (e.g. no-
till); cover crops; integrated pest management; composting; feed ration evaluation and
balancing; buffers; and pathogen management.
Eligibility for the ANSACP cost-share program.
Eligibility to participate in New York State Farmland Protection Program.
18 Other New York State SWCD coalitions include The Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance and
the Mohawk River Coalition (NYSDEC 2010a).
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
49
-------
Discounts for related SWCD services such as Soil Group Worksheets required for agricultural tax
assessments.
Eligibility for the Agricultural Water Quality State Revolving Loan Fund, which provides low
interest loans to farmers implementing BMPs.
Farmers who participate in AEM work with a team of local AEM resource professionals to develop and
implement comprehensive, site-specific farm plans using the five-tiered assessment approach outlined
in New York State's Phase II WIP (NYSDEC 2013a). The AEM assessment process is structured to
encourage the development and implementation of BMPs.
Tier 1. A resource professional collects farm contact information; inventories farm infrastructure, land
use, and livestock; determines the farm's future plans; informs the farmer of their watershed(s) and
watershed concerns; and identifies potential environmental concerns and opportunities.
Tier 2. A resource professional uses AEM Core Worksheets19 to conduct on-farm environmental
assessments based on resource concerns identified on Tier 1 questionnaires. The Tier 2 assessment
records existing BMPs, educates the farmer, verifies environmental concerns, and flags issues for further
evaluation. AEM uses Tier 2 assessments to prioritize farms for additional technical and financial
assistance. Information on AEM's prioritization criteria and process was not available to the EPA team.
Tier 3. Priority farms, identified from Tier 2, develop a conservation plan. Conservation plan BMPs must
be designed according to NRCS CPSs and Cornell University guidelines. Conservation plan components
addressing nutrient management must be completed by an AEM- or NRCS-certified planner.
Tier 4. Tier 3 conservation plans are implemented, all engineered practices must be designed by New
York-licensed professional engineers. Farms receiving state or federal financial assistance must
implement practices according to strict technical requirements, and within the timelines set forth by
contract.
Tier 5. Resource professionals evaluate conservation plans and catalogue BMP implementation.
Conservation plans are updated as site conditions or technical standards change.
The 2013 AEM Annual Report (NYSDAM 2013) reports implementation of more than 1,300 agricultural
BMP systems implemented statewide in 2013 to protect water quality and reduce pollution.
Additionally, in 2013 the SWCDs used $1.86 million from the AEM Base Program to provide technical
assistance with farmers advancing through the AEM Tiers, including
556 Tier 1 inventories.
341 Tier 2 resource assessments.
220 farm-specific Tier 3 conservation plans.
242 BMP systems implemented under Tier 4 to address nonpoint source pollution from
farmstead facilities, pasture, and cropland.
327 Tier 5 evaluations of conservation plans and existing BMPs.
19 AEM's 12 Core Worksheets include commodity specific worksheets for dairy, livestock, and field crops; equine;
vegetables and fruit; vineyards; and greenhouses. AEM Core Worksheets are available from: http://www.nvs-
soilandwater.org/aem/techtools.html.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
50
-------
The numbers reported above are statewide; the AEM's 2013 Annual Report does not aggregate activities
solely within the Bay watershed. New York State's Phase II WIP (NYSDEC 2013a) reports the following
AEM accomplishments in New York State's portion of the Bay watershed between 2005 and 2010:
1,214 on-farm Tier 1 inventories.
863 on-farm Tier 2 assessments.
552 on-farm Tier 3 conservation plans.
244 farms implementing BMPs with SWCD technical assistance (this does not include
implementation completed through ANSACP or implementation completed solely through
NRCS).
345 on-farm Tier 5 conservation plans and/or BMP evaluation.
EPA recognizes that AEM contributes to nonpoint source success stories (EPA 2012b and n.d.). AEM
offers farmers a way to comply with stricter regulatory requirements, advance the state's water quality
objectives, and meet business objectives on the farm at the same time.
9.1 Facility Universe, Agricultural Environmental Management
AEM participants include more than 13,000 farms statewide (SWCC2013). The 562 New York State
SPDES-permitted CAFOs, including the 68 SPDES-permitted CAFOs in New York's portion of the Bay
watershed, must participate in AEM. Additionally, AEM is working with 2,285 unpermitted farms in the
watershed (NYSDEC 2014a). The participation level (e.g., Tier 1, Tier 2) of these 2,285 voluntary farms
was not determined, nor was it determined how many of these voluntary AEM participants are AFOs
versus crop producers.
9.2 Resources Allocated, Agricultural Environmental Management
NYSDAM and SWCC are responsible for distributing approximately $14 million annually from the EPF
to operate the statewide AEM Base Program and ANSACP; the local SWCDs sponsor priority projects
with farmers. The AEM Base Program is an annual, noncompetitive fund to reimburse SWCDs for
technical assistance to farmers to work through the AEM Tiers. ANSACP is a competitive cost-share
program for SWCDs to contract with farmers on planning or implementation of BMP systems. In both
cases, NYSDAM/SWCC formally contracts with SWCDs and then the SWCDs formally contract with
participating farmers. NYSDEC reports that thorough fiduciary oversight, reporting, and QA mechanisms
are in place and are rigorously applied to farms, SWCDs, and NYSDAM/SWCC to ensure quality work on
priority projects for water quality improvement continues (NYSDEC 2014a).
Specifically, in SFY 2012 AEM was funded through the EPF for $14.2 millionthis included $2.5 million in
technical assistance for SWCDs and $11.7 million in direct cost-share assistance for BMP
implementation. Note that this program addresses water quality resource concerns on all types of
farms, not limited to animal agriculture.
New York State supports the implementation of each SWCD AAP by providing up to $85,000 for 2014-
2015 AEM Base Year 10 in technical assistance funding from the New York State EPF to SWCDs
supporting identified activities, including farm inventories, environmental assessments, conservation
planning, BMP design, and BMP and/or conservation plan evaluations. Associated activities such as
educational programs, outreach activities and data management may be funded, but emphasis is placed
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
51
-------
on identifying and resolving priority concerns with the goal of continuous environmental improvement.
AEM also supports BMP implementation by directing farms to the appropriate federal, state or local
program for financial and technical assistance (NYSDEC 2010a).
9.3 Data Systems, Agricultural Environmental Management
The USC developed an AEM online application to create a uniform approach for BMP reporting across
New York State's portion of the Bay watershed. The online tool is supported by an Ag BMP data sheet
for SWCDs to record BMPs one-by-one and provide date of implementation and appropriate units. The
USC provides outreach to SWCDs to educate them on how to evaluate BMPs and on what gets credit in
the Bay watershed model (NYSDEC 2013a).
A complete list of information management systems used for administration and implementation of
AEM was not provided by New York State.
9.4 Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices,
Agricultural Environmental Management
The EPA team understands the AEM process is used to identify areas of resource concern (Tiers 1 and 2),
catalogue existing BMPs (Tier 2), work with farmers to develop conservation plans that identify
appropriate BMPs to resolve areas of resource concern (Tier 3), implement BMPs specified in the
conservation plan (Tier 4), and catalogue and verify newly implemented BMPs (Tier 5). As indicated in
Table 17 below, AEM does not require specific BMPs (it is a voluntary program), or priority WIP BMPs. It
does, however, provide technical and financial assistance to encourage conservation planning and
environmental stewardship (NYSDEC 2014a).
Table 17. Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best Management Practices, Agricultural
Environmental Management
Watershed Implementation Plan Priority Best
Required
Management Practice
Component
Notes
Enhanced Nutrient Management (Yield
Reserve)
~ NA
Manure and Fertilizer
Management Worksheet
Mortality Composting
~ NA
Waste Disposal Worksheet
Prescribed Grazing
~ NA
Pasture Management
Worksheet
Barnyard Runoff Control
~ NA
Heaw Use Areas Worksheet
Cereal and Commodity Cover Crops
~ NA
Soil Management Worksheet
The USC, using data from AEM reports and site visits, plays a significant role in documenting New York
State's progress towards 2017 and 2025 WIP implementation goals. The USC uses AEM funds to
conduct a full range of on-farm assessments and support BMP planning and implementation at more
than half of all of the farms in the watershed.
The USC compiles and reports Bay watershed priority BMP implementation information to EPA using the
NEIEN node. This network node-based exchange of practice data streamlines efforts by all data
generating and tracking partners and improves the consistency and confidence in the reported
information. The USC is the primary data tracking, verification and reporting entity for nonpoint source
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
52
-------
conservation efforts, BMP implementation, and pollution reduction technologies in the New York State's
portion of the Bay watershed (NYSDEC et al. 2012).
9.6 Agricultural Environmental Management, Observations
1. AEM is administered by the SWCC.
2. All SPDES-permitted CAFOs must participate in AEM.
3. The AEM assessment process is structured to encourage the development and implementation
of BMPs.
4. EPA recognizes that AEM contributes to nonpoint source success stories.
5. AEM participants include more than 13,000 farms statewide.
6. NYSDAM and SWCC are responsible for distributing approximately $14 million annually from the
EPF to operate the statewide AEM Base Program and ANSACP; the local SWCDs sponsor priority
projects with farmers.
7. The (JSC developed an AEM online application to create a uniform approach for BMP reporting
across New York State's portion of the Bay watershed.
8. The (JSC, using data from AEM reports and site visits, plays a significant role in documenting
New York State's progress towards 2017 and 2025 WIP implementation goals.
10.0 Summary
This section summarizes the observations that EPA highlighted in each of the program sections above.
10.1 New York State's Animal Agriculture Watershed Implementation Plan
Priority Best Management Practices
1. New York State is relying on both regulatory and voluntary programs to meet the state's 2017
and 2025 Bay WIP goals applicable to animal agriculture operations.
2. Two rounds of New York State ANSACP funding were implemented to support BMP installation.
3. The AEM online application was completed, providing a uniform approach to BMP reporting
across the watershed.
4. New York State AgNPS funding and AEM base program funding totaled more than $11 million
for the milestone period.
5. New York State did not release amended drafts of the CWA or ECL CAFO general permits for
notice and public comment in 2013 (as needed to make the permits consistent with federal
CAFO rules).
6. New York State funds the Dairy Acceleration Program, which specifically targets farms with 200
to 299 dairy cows that are no longer part of New York State's SPDES CAFO program.
7. New York State already exceeded its 2017 target for total animal waste management systems.
8. New York State agreed to apply nutrient management BMPs to pasture land.
9. NYSDEC's questionnaire responses and New York State's Phase I and Phase II WIPs do not
include information about the incentives and programs in place to encourage mortality
composting to meet the state's 2025 mortality composting goal.
10. New York State is tracking behind its interim goals for prescribed grazing.
11. New York State is behind on implementation of barnyard runoff controls.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
53
-------
12. New York State has adequate acreage in corn silage at SPDES-permitted CAFOs to meet the 2025
annual implementation goal for cereal and commodity cover crops without having to rely on
voluntary programs and incentives.
10.2 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
1. New York State has 562 SPDES-permitted CAFOs (68 SPDES-permitted CAFOs in the Bay
watershed) with AEM-certified CNMPs.
2. CNMP technical requirements and standards are the same for any livestock farm (regulated or
voluntary) in New York State to ensure that consistency exists throughout the farmer and
planner communities engaging in CNMP work.
3. SPDES-permitted CAFOs must implement erosion control to tolerable soil loss (T value) on all
CAFO crop land.
4. Voluntary CNMPs are reviewed and approved by AEM-certified planners.
5. NYSDEC is responsible for compliance and enforcement of CNMPs maintained and implemented
at SPDES-permitted CAFOs.
6. NYSDAM is responsible for monitoring the quality of CNMPs developed by AEM-certified
planners.
7. The voluntary CNMP (i.e., non-SPDES) process adds uncertainty to estimating how many, and to
what extent, non-SPDES AFOs will implement priority practices that count towards New York
State's 2017 and 2025 WIP implementation goals.
10.3 SPDES CAFO Program
1. NYSDEC's Division of Water administers the two SPDES General CAFO Permits; the ECL Permit
and CWA Permit.
2. New York State's use of the ECL Permit for non-discharging Medium and Large CAFOs results in a
significantly greater number of CAFOs operating under SPDES permits than would be achieved
under the federal NPDES CAFO regulations.
3. For Large CAFOs, "no discharge" means that the ECL Permittee has fully implemented all
structural and nonstructural BMPs necessary to meet USDA NRCS CPS NY 312 (Waste
Management System) as determined by an objective and certified assessment by an AEM-
certified planner documented in the facility's CNMP.
4. For Medium CAFOs, "no discharge" means that the ECL Permittee has fully implemented all
nonstructural BMPs necessary to meet NRCS NY 312 as determined by an objective and certified
assessment by an AEM-certified planner, the permittee is complying with the CNMP
implementation schedule requirements in GP-0-14-001 Part III.C, and all implemented practices
are operating and maintained.
5. The 2013 ECL CAFO rule revisions (Part 750 of Title 6 of the Codes, Rules and Regulations of the
State of New York) no longer require dairy AFOs with 200 to 299 mature dairy cows to obtain
coverage under the ECL Permit.
6. Dairy AFOs with 200 to 299 cows are no longer required to hold ECL Permits but must apply
nutrients at agronomic rates in accordance with the criteria for the agricultural stormwater
discharge exemption and prevent any discharges that would require CWA Permit coverage.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
54
-------
7. EPA Region 2 commends NYSDEC for its careful attention to processing and screening NOTs
from dairies with 200 to 299 mature dairy cows seeking to terminate permit coverage.
8. A minimum of two (2) individuals from each permitted Large CAFO facility must attend a
NYSDEC- endorsed manure applicator training within the permit term.
9. New York State's SPDES CWA General Permit (GP-04-02) is issued to discharging CAFOs, or to
CAFOs that do not discharge but choose to be covered.
10. The effective date of the CWA Permit was July 1, 2004, and the expiration date was June 30,
2009, but the permit has been administratively extended.
11. The CWA Permit allows discharges of process wastewater from storms equal to or greater than
the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation event and agricultural stormwater.
12. The SPDES CWA Permit allows (1) new Small CAFOs, (2) Medium CAFOs, and (3) AFO to Medium
CAFO (i.e., AFOs that expand in size to qualify as Medium CAFOs) to have 2 years from the date
NYSDEC receives the NOI to develop and certify the CNMP.
13. The CWA Permit's delayed implementation schedule for production and land application area
BMPs is less stringent than current and past federal CAFO rules.
14. New York State's confidential treatment of CAFO CNMPs is not consistent with the 40 CFR §
122.23(h) federal CAFO requirement, which requires permit writer review of the CAFO's NMP
and an adequate opportunity for public review of both a CAFO's NMP and the terms of the NMP
incorporated into the draft permit.
15. The CWA Permit recordkeeping requirements are not consistent with the federal CAFO rule
recordkeeping requirements.
16. The CWA Permit annual reporting requirements are not consistent with federal CAFO annual
reporting requirements.
17. NYSDEC reports 99 percent compliance with ACR submittal.
18. NYSDEC CO staff stated that ACR data are only reviewed by RO staff before SPDES compliance
inspections or site visits.
19. EPA's contractor found that information was not always consistent among NYSDEC SPDES CAFO
data sources, especially between hardcopy files and electronic record keeping systems.
20. TOGS 1.4.2 includes a compliance and enforcement response guide for individual and general
SPDES permit requirements, penalty guidance, and base penalty tables to ensure consistent and
transparent implementation of NYSDEC's compliance and enforcement policies across the
NYSDEC regional offices.
21. TOGS 1.4.2 base penalty rates appear to emphasize problems with paperwork and reporting
more than operation and maintenance.
22. SPDES-permitted Large CAFOs are not being inspected every year in accordance with NYSDEC's
Compliance Assurance Strategic Plan for CAFOs.
23. NYSDEC ROs 7 and 8 have inspected all of the SPDES-permitted Medium CAFOs in New York
State's portion of the Bay watershed at least once in the past 3 years.
24. New York State's ECL and CWA Permits require implementation of three priority BMPs: nutrient
management, barnyard runoff control, and cereal and commodity cover crops.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
55
-------
10.4 Agricultural Environmental Management
1. AEM is administered by the SWCC.
2. All SPDES-permitted CAFOs must participate in AEM.
3. The AEM assessment process is structured to encourage the development and implementation
of BMPs.
4. EPA recognizes that AEM contributes to nonpoint source success stories.
5. AEM participants include more than 13,000 farms statewide.
6. NYSDAM and SWCC are responsible for distributing approximately $14 million annually from the
EPF to operate the statewide AEM Base Program and ANSACP; the local SWCDs sponsor priority
projects with farmers.
7. The (JSC developed an AEM online application to create a uniform approach for BMP reporting
across New York State's portion of the Bay watershed.
8. The (JSC, using data from AEM reports and site visits, plays a significant role in documenting
New York State's progress towards 2017 and 2025 WIP implementation goals.
11.0 References
CAST (Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool). No date. Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool. Accessed
June 5, 2014.
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2012. Modeling.
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2013, May 22-23. Agricultural BMPs Currently Simulated by the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Scenario Builder Tool and Watershed Model. Accessed June 4, 2014.
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). No date. Water Quality: 2012-2013 Milestones. Accessed June 5, 2014.
Comptroller (New York State Office of the State Comptroller). 2014, December. Environmental Funding
in New York State. Accessed February 12, 2015.
Division of the Budget (New York State Division of the Budget). 2015. 2015-16 Executive Budget, Agency
Presentations. Accessed February 12, 2015.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007, October. EPA's Interim Significant Noncompliance
Policy for Clean Water Act Violations Associated with CSOs, SSO, CAFOs, and Storm Water Point
Sources. Accessed June 13, 2014.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012a, February. NPDES Permit Writer's Manual for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012b, October. New York's Agricultural Environmental
Management Program Helps Farmers Improve Water Quality. Nonpoint Source News-Notes. 92:
10-11. Accessed February 18, 2015.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013, May 30. EPA Interim Assessment of New York's 2012-
2013 Milestones and WIP Progress. Accessed June 5, 2014.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
56
-------
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a, June 26. Evaluation of New York's 2012-2013 and
2014-2015 Milestones. Accessed September 30, 2014.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014b. EPA Evaluation of New York's 2012-2013 Milestone
Progress and 2014-2015 Milestone Commitments to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Sediment. Fact Sheet. Accessed December 23, 2014.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014c, March. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office Grant and Cooperative Agreement Guidance. Accessed January
5, 2015.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). No date. Innovative State Programs New York. Accessed
October 29, 2014.
NRCS-NY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, New York Field
Office). 2005, February. New York Conservation Practice Guideline: Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plan. Accessed June 11, 2014.
NRCS-NY (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, New York Field
Office). 2013, January. Conservation Practice Standard: Nutrient Management (Ac.) Code 590.
NYS (New York State). 2014, January 13. Governor Cuomo Announces $12 Million Available to Protect
Water Quality and Make New York's Farms Safer and Cleaner. Accessed February 18, 2015.
NYSDAM (New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets). 2010. Agricultural Environmental
Management (AEM) Annual Report. Accessed June 6, 2014
NYSDAM (New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets). 2013. Agricultural Environmental
Management (AEM) Annual Report. Accessed November 6, 2014.
NYSDAM (New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets). No date. Ag Facts. Accessed
February 11, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2008, January 4. FOIL Appeal
Determination for 07-40-0A (Herman Lee). Accessed September 22, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2010a, December. Final Phase I
Nutrient and Sediment Water Quality Improvement and Protection Plan for New York
Susquehanna and Chemung River Basins and Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load.
Accessed June 4, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2010b, June 24. Compliance and
Enforcement of State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permits. Technical &
Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.4.2: Accessed June 13, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2011, September 2. Quality
Assurance Project Plan, Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program. Accessed
September 25, 2014.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
57
-------
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012. SPDES Compliance and
Enforcement Annual Report for SFY 2012/13. Accessed June 13, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2013a, January 7. Final Phase II
Watershed Implementation Plan for New York Susquehanna and Chemung River Basins and
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load. Accessed June 4, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2013b, December 31. New York
State Programmatic Two-Year Milestones January 1, 2012-December 31. 2013. Accessed
September 18, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2013c. New York State
Environmental Protection Fund 20th Anniversary. Accessed February 12, 2015.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2014a, July 31. NYSDEC's
responses to the EPA Region 2 questionnaire Questions and Discussion Topics: New York Animal
Agriculture Program Review.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2014b, July 1. ECL CAFO Fact
Sheet. Accessed September 22, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2014c. Regulatory Impact
Statement for 6 NYCRR Parts 360 & 750. Accessed September 22, 2014.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2014d, November 3. Email
communication from Douglas R. Ashline, NYSDEC, to Andrea Coats, EPA Region 2, providing
SPDES CWA and ECL CAFO numbers for New York State and New York State's portion of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
NYSDEC, NYSDAM, and SWCC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets, and New York State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee). 2012, September 6. MOU No. AM08174.
Silvestri, Barbara. No date. Agricultural Environmental Management It's Good Business! Accessed June
6, 2013
SWCC (New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee). 2007, December. Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Abatement and Control Grant Program Guidance Manual. Accessed June 6, 2013
SWCC (New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee). 2013, August 26. AEM Certified Planner
Directory. Accessed June 11, 2014.
SWCC (New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee). No date(a). Agricultural Environmental
Management. Base Funding Program. Accessed September 18, 2014.
SWCC (New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee). No date(b). Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plan Guidance for Planners. Accessed September 17, 2014.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
58
-------
Tetra Tech (Tetra Tech, Inc.). 2011, January 19. Summary of AFO/CAFO Universe EstimatesNew York.
Unpublished technical report prepared for EPA Headquarters, Office of Wastewater
Management, Rural Branch, by Tetra Tech, Inc. Fairfax, VA.
(JSC (Upper Susquehanna Coalition). No date. USCAg Team. Accessed January 16, 2015.
New York State Animal Agriculture Program Assessment
59
------- |