12/24/02
By CAROL KINSLEY
On Dec. 16, the federal government unveiled its long-awaited final rule requiring all concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to obtain permits to ensure protection of America’s waters from pollution by wastewater and manure.
All CAFOS will be required to develop and implement nutrient management plans and carry out best management practices under those plans. There is no requirement that these plans be prepared or reviewed by a certified planner. Records must be kept on-site for at least five years and available to permitting authorities on request.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates its new rule applies to about 15,500 livestock operations around the country. Under existing federal regulations, about 4,500 operations are covered by permits. EPA expects up to 11,000 additional facilities will be required to apply for permits by 2006.
How do you know if you have a CAFO?
The EPA has done away with away with the confusing term “animal unit” or AU, which was based on the weight of various animals. Animal feeding operations (AFOs) defined as those which confine animals for at least 45 days in a 12-month period in an area where there is no grass or other vegetation during the normal growing season.
EPA now defines large CAFOs as operations raising more than 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 swine, 10,000 sheep, 125,000 chickens, 82,000 laying hens and 55,000 turkeys in confinement. According to a fact sheet from EPA, 5 percent of all animal feeding operations produce 60 percent of the manure.
“No matter what size your operation is,” according to an EPA brochure, “if it is an AFO, it may be designated a CAFO. If your permitting authority inspects your operation and finds that it’s adding pollutants to surface waters, you might need a CAFO permit.”
The new rule is available on-line at www.epa.gov/npdes/caforule.
Under the new rule, large CAFOs — and smaller ones in certain environmentally sensitive geographic areas — will be required to apply for a permit, submit an annual report, and develop and follow a plan for handling manure and wastewater. The permits are to be applied for under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. In the Mid-Atlantic region, authority to issue NPDES permits is generally granted to a state agency. In Maryland, for example, the permitting authority is the Department of the Environment.
Hobey Bauhan, president of the Virginia Poultry Federation, said the NPDES permit has traditionally been for sewage and industrial dischargers of wastewater. “We object to bringing farming oeprations that manage dry manure under these types of permits. There is only an extremely remote possibility that a dry poultry litter operation would ever constitute a discharge to ‘waters of the United States,’ but the (new EPA) regulations do not distinguish between dry and wet systems.”
Bauhan added that Virginia already has a general permit for poultry litter management, and requirements for nutrient management plans and adequate storage of litter.
“We’ve done a good job of getting our growers to comply. We hate to see the rules change at this point. We hope it can be done as seamlessly as possible in order to have the least impact on our farms.”
The new regulation removes exemptions for extreme storm events and for poultry operations with dry manure handling systems. It also extends coverage to immature swine and immature dairy cows.
The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) issued a press release saying the regulations will increase the cost of doing business by millions of dollars for affected producers. Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of NMPF, said the EPA’s own estimates for this regulation are of costs totalling more than $150 million annually for dairy producers.
“Many dairy producers have been doing significant work to reduce their farms’ environmental impact. Regrettably this rule will add increased costs to producers at a time of dismally low prices,” Kozak said. “However, this final regulation is not as problematic as the initial draft of the CAFO regulation, so we are relieved that the EPA and USDA have mitigated some of the more onerous approaches they were first pursuing.”
Bill Rohrer, head of the Delaware Nutrient Planning Commission, also was “pleasantly surprised” that the final rule was more acceptable than earlier drafts.
“The final rule states clearly the components of the plan derived by the state. It includes a lot of the flexibility that we asked for,” Rohrer said. Of the 400-page document, some 20 pages contain the “meat” of the final rule, Rohrer noted. He was pleased to see that some of the language reflects comments submitted by Delaware.
The changes were “the result of cooperative and successful communication with the EPA,” he continued. “We had the backing of our secretary of agriculture, the governor and all three congressional delegates.”
The new regulations pertain to approximately 150 broiler farms in Delaware which will need NPDES permits. Mandatory nutrient management plans already are being phased in for all Delaware farmers over the next few years.
There are still some issues with the final rule, Rohrer said, including a requirement to maintain a 100-foot setback from waterways, including ditches, or a 35-foot vegetative buffer.
“But that’s better than the list of 50 issues we had two years ago.”
Another issue is the requirement for adequate storage. “Poultry farms in Delaware have storage space for cake-outs, but if they need to store 1,000 tons from a clean-out without stockpiling manure in the field field, there’s an issue,” he added.
In anticipation of the need for USDA to help fund land stewardship programs expected in the CAFO rule, Congress upped funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program in the new farm bill from $200 million a year to $900 million a year.
John Chlada, a vice president at Perdue Farms Inc. in Salisbury, Md., said the EPA regulations will mean higher costs to producers, should they be required to get a permit. He could not say how many growers would need a permit.
“The number is elusive. The implementation guidelines that tell the state how to write the permit have not been issued yet.
“Those with 125,000 birds on location at any one time will be included. How they will look at those with multiple contracts or multiple farms is unclear.
“There is a catch-all provision: the regulator can name anyone as a CAFO if he discharges pollutants to waters of the U.S.,” Chalda continued.
He noted there is an “out” for poultry growers: “If you as a producer can demonstrate your litter goes to an approved alternative use, such as Perdue’s pellet plant, you can apply for an exception to obtaining a permit.”
From an industry standpoint, and for Perdue in particular, Chalda said, “we were extremely pleased that EPA saw the logic in our arguments against co-permitting. It’s not in the regs and that speaks volumes.
“Co-permitting will not do anything to improve water quality.”