Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department

of Agriculture; Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are seeking comments on the draft

Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. USDA and EPA

are asking for comments from individuals, the livestock industry,

State, Tribal, and local governments or subgroups thereof,

universities, colleges, environmental groups, and other organizations.

These comments will assist USDA and EPA in the development and

implementation of a final strategy to reduce environmental risks

associated with animal feeding operations (AFOs). The draft strategy

was developed as part of the Clean Water Action Plan, which was

announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore in February

1998.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 19, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Please send comments to: Denise C. Coleman, Program Analyst,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, ATTN: AFO, P.O. Box 2890,

Washington, D.C. 20013-2890.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph DelVecchio, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, 202-690-2632; fax: 202-720-8520;

[email protected]; or William Hall, EPA, Office of Water, 202-

565-3030; fax: 202-260-1460; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft strategy states that owners and

operators of AFOs should take action to reduce pollutant runoff. The

draft strategy establishes a national performance expectation for all

AFOs to be met by developing and implementing Comprehensive Nutrient

Management Plans on AFOs. It explains voluntary and regulatory programs

and their relationship. The strategy proposes incentives for owners and

operators of AFOs to take early and voluntary actions and highlights

several issues that must be addressed to successfully implement the

Strategy. The full text of the Strategy follows.

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.057

BILLING CODE 3410-16-C

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Draft--Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

September 11, 1998.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prohibit discrimination in

their programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability.

Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and

marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by

USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the

USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD) or the EPA

Office of Civil Rights at (202) 260-4575.

To file a complaint of discrimination to USDA, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th

and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202)

720-5964 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint to EPA, write to EPA,

Office of Civil Rights, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460, or call

(202) 260-4575 (voice) or (202) 260-3658 (TTY). USDA and EPA are equal

opportunity providers and employers.

Note: This document presents USDA and EPA's strategic plan for

addressing the environmental and public health impacts associated

with AFOs. It is not a substitute for existing Federal regulations

and it does not impose any binding requirements on USDA, EPA, the

States, Tribes, localities, or the regulated community. USDA and

EPA's strategies for addressing AFOs may evolve and change as their

understanding of the issues increases through further work and

receipt of additional information.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Guiding Principles

2.0 AFOS AND WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS

2.1 Characteristics of AFOs

2.2 Water Quality and Public Health Risks

3.0 THE NATIONAL GOAL AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION FOR AFOS

3.1 Defining the Goal and Performance Expectation

3.2 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning

3.3 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Components

3.4 Technical Assistance for CNMPs

4.0 RELATIONSHIP OF VOLUNTARY AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS

4.1 Voluntary Program for Most AFOs

4.2 Regulatory Program for Some AFOs

4.3 Land Application of Manure

[[Page 50193]]

4.4 Priorities for the Regulatory Program

4.5 CAFO CNMPs

4.6 Smaller CAFOs Can Exit the Regulatory Program

4.7 Good Faith Incentive

5.0 STRATEGIC ISSUES

Overview of Strategic Issues

Strategic Issue # 1 Building Capacity for CNMP Development and

Implementation

Strategic Issue # 2 Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-based

Programs

Strategic Issue # 3 Implementing and Improving the Existing

Regulatory Program

Strategic Issue # 4 Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation,

Compliance Assistance, and Technology Transfer

Strategic Issue # 5 Encouraging Industry Leadership

Strategic Issue # 6 Data Coordination

Strategic Issue # 7 Performance Measures and Accountability

6.0 ROLES

1.0 Introduction and Guiding Principles

1.1 Introduction

Over the past quarter century, the United States has made

tremendous progress in cleaning up its rivers, lakes, and coastal

waters. In 1972, the Potomac River was too dirty to swim in, Lake Erie

was dying, and the Cuyahoga River was so polluted it burst into flames.

Many rivers and beaches were little more than open sewers. Today, water

quality has improved dramatically and many rivers, lakes, and coasts

are thriving centers of healthy communities.

The improvement in the health of the nation's waters is a direct

result of a concerted effort to enhance stewardship of natural

resources and to implement the environmental provisions of Federal,

State, Tribal and local laws. Pollution control and conservation

programs have stopped billions of pounds of pollution from fouling the

Nation's water, doubling the number of waters safe for fishing and

swimming.

Despite tremendous progress, 40 percent of the Nation's waterways

assessed by States still do not meet goals for fishing, swimming, or

both. Pollution from factories and sewage treatment plants has been

dramatically reduced, but runoff from city streets, agricultural

activities, including animal feeding operations (AFOs), and other

sources continues to degrade the environment and puts drinking water at

risk.

A strong livestock industry (of which AFOs are a part) is essential

to the nation's economic stability, the viability of many rural

communities, and the sustainability of a healthful and high quality

food supply for the American public.\1\ USDA and EPA recognize that

farmers and ranchers are primary stewards of many of our nation's

natural resources, have played a key role in past efforts to improve

water quality, and will be important partners in implementing measures

to protect the environment and public health.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The livestock industry accounts for half of all sales in

U.S. agriculture today (source: USDA, Economic Research Service.

``Key statistical indicators of the food and fiber sector''.

Agricultural Outlook. March, 1998: 32).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In February of this year, President Clinton released the Clean

Water Action Plan (CWAP), which provides a blueprint for restoring and

protecting water quality across the Nation. The CWAP describes over 100

specific actions to expand and strengthen existing efforts to protect

water quality. It also identifies polluted runoff as the most important

remaining source of water pollution and provides for a coordinated

effort to reduce polluted runoff from a variety of sources. As part of

this effort, the CWAP calls for the development of this USDA-EPA

unified national strategy to minimize the water quality and public

health impacts of AFOs.

1.2 Guiding Principles

This USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding

Operations reflects several guiding principles:

(1) Minimize water quality and public health impacts from AFOs.

(2) Focus on AFOs that represent the greatest risks to the

environment and public health.

(3) Ensure that measures to protect the environment and public

health complement the long-term sustainability of livestock production

in the United States.

(4) Establish a national goal and environmental performance

expectation for all AFOs.

(5) Build on the strengths of USDA, EPA, State and Tribal agencies,

and other partners and make appropriate use of diverse tools including

voluntary, regulatory, and incentive-based approaches.

(6) Foster public confidence that AFOs are meeting their

performance expectations and that USDA, EPA, local governments, States,

and Tribes are ensuring the protection of water quality and public

health.

(7) Coordinate activities among the USDA, EPA, and related State

and Tribal agencies and other organizations that influence the

management and operation of AFOs.

(8) Focus technical and financial assistance to support AFOs in

meeting the national performance expectation established in this

Strategy.

2.0 AFOs and Water Quality and Public Health Risks

2.1 Characteristics of AFOs

For purposes of this Strategy, AFOs are agricultural enterprises

where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs

congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and

production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the

animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in

pastures or fields.

Approximately 450,000 agricultural operations nationwide confine

animals.\2\ USDA data indicate that the vast majority of farms with

livestock are small. About 85% of these farms have fewer than 250

animal units (AUs).\3\ An AU is equal to roughly one beef cow,

therefore 1,000 AUs is equal to 1,000 beef cows or equivalent number of

other animals.\4\ Of these, in 1992 about 6,600 had more than 1,000 AUs

and are considered to be large operations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information

on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, June 1995.

\3\ USDA-ERS. 1992 Farm Costs and Returns Survey.

\4\ USDA and EPA currently use slightly different definitions

for an animal unit, largely for the pork and poultry animal types.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of domestic and export market forces, technological

changes, and industry adaptations, the past several decades have seen

substantial changes in America's animal production industries. These

factors have promoted expansion of confined production units, with

growth in both existing areas and new areas; integration and

concentration of some of the industries; geographic separation of

animal production and feed production operations; and the concentration

of large quantities of manure and wastewater on farms and in some

watersheds.

In terms of production, the total number of animal units (AUs) in

the U.S. increased by about 4.5 million (approximately three percent)

between 1987 and 1992. During this same period, however, the number of

AFOs decreased, indicating a consolidation within the industry overall

and greater production from fewer, larger AFOs.\5\

\5\ General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information

on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, June 1995.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 3410-16-D

[[Page 50194]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.058

BILLING CODE 3410-16-C

[[Page 50195]]

Despite significant progress in reducing water pollution, serious

water quality problems persist throughout the country. Recent State

reports of water quality conditions indicate that:

Of the rivers and streams surveyed (53 percent of all

perennial stream miles) 36% were partially or fully impaired and

another 8% were threatened;

Of the surveyed lakes (40 percent of all lake acres) 39%

were partially or fully impaired and another 10% were threatened; and

Of the estuaries surveyed by coastal states (72 percent of

all estuarine waters) 38% were impaired and another 4% were threatened;

Of the Great Lakes shore miles surveyed (94 percent of all

shore miles) 97% were impaired and another 1% were threatened.\7\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ U.S. EPA 1998. National Water Quality Inventory--1996 Report

to Congress, Washington, DC.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on this monitoring information, States have identified about

15,000 individual waterbodies in 1996 that did not meet clean water

goals.

While many diverse sources contribute to water pollution, States

report that agriculture is the most widespread source of pollution in

the nation's surveyed rivers. In the 22 States that categorized impacts

from specific types of agriculture, animal operations impact about

35,000 river miles of those miles assessed.

AFOs can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health,

mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they

generate.\8\ Manure and wastewater from AFOs have the potential to

contribute pollutants such as nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus),

sediment, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia

to the environment. Excess nutrients in water can result in or

contribute to eutrophication, anoxia (i.e., low levels of dissolved

oxygen), and, in combination with other circumstances, have been

associated with outbreaks of microbes such as Pfiesteria piscicida.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ EPA, 1998, National Water Quality Inventory--1996 Report to

Congress; Hunt, P.G., et al. 1995. Impact of animal waste on water

quality in an eastern coastal plain watershed. IN: Animal Waste and

the Land-Water Interface, Kenneth Steele, Ed., Lewis Publishers,

Boca Raton, FL, 589 pp.; Ackerman and Taylor, 1995, Stream Impacts

due to Feedlot Runoff. IN: Animal Waste and the Land-Water

Interface; South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts, SD

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service, 1996, Final Report--Animal Waste

Management Team; EPA Office of the Inspector General, March 1997,

Animal Waste Disposal Issues, Audit Report No. E1XWF7-13-0085-

7100142.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium, have been linked to impairments

in drinking water supplies and threats to human health. Pathogens in

manure can create a food safety concern if manure is applied directly

to crops at inappropriate times. In addition, pathogens are responsible

for some shellfish bed closures. Nitrogen, in the form of nitrate, can

contaminate drinking water supplies drawn from ground water. Nutrients

can also cause toxic algal blooms which may be harmful to human health.

While there are other potential environmental impacts associated

with AFOs (e.g., odor, habitat loss, ground water depletion), this

Strategy focuses on addressing surface and ground water quality

problems. This Strategy will indirectly benefit other resources.

3.0 The National Goal and Performance Expectation for AFOs

3.1 Defining the Goal and Performance Expectation

USDA and EPA's goal is for AFO owners and operators to take actions

to minimize water pollution from confinement facilities and land

application of manure. To accomplish this goal, this Strategy

establishes a national performance expectation that all AFOs should

develop and implement technically sound and economically feasible

Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) to minimize impacts on

water quality and public health.

3.2 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning

In general terms, a CNMP identifies actions or priorities that will

be followed to meet clearly defined nutrient management goals at an

agricultural operation. Defining nutrient management goals and

identifying measures and schedules for attaining the goals is critical

to reducing threats to water quality and public health from AFOs.

CNMPs should address, at a minimum, feed management, manure

handling and storage, land application of manure, land management,

record keeping, and other utilization options. While nutrients are

often the major pollutants of concern, the plan should address risks

from other pollutants, such as pathogens, to minimize water quality and

public health impacts from AFOs. CNMPs should include a schedule to

implement the management practices identified.

In addition to protecting water quality and public health, CNMPs

should be site-specific and be written to address the goals and needs

of the individual owner/operator, as well as the conditions on the farm

(e.g., soils, crops). Plans should also be periodically reviewed and

revised in cases where a facility increases in size, changes its method

of manure management, or if other operating conditions change. CNMPs

should encourage and facilitate technical innovation and new approaches

to manure and nutrient management. Development and implementation of

CNMPs is the ultimate responsibility of the AFO operator, with

assistance as needed from certified industry staff, government agency

specialists, private consultants and other qualified vendors.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office

Technical Guide (FOTG) is the primary technical reference for the

development of CNMPs for AFOs. It contains technical information about

utilization and conservation of soil, water, air, plant, and animal

resources. The FOTG used in an individual field office is localized to

consider particular characteristics for the geographic area for which

it is prepared. The FOTG is divided into five sections:

Section I General Resource References--References, maps, price

bases, typical crop budgets, and other information for use in

understanding the field office working area or in making decisions

about resource use and resource management.

Section II Soil and Site Information--Soils are described and

interpreted to help make decisions about land use and management. In

most cases, this will be a electronic database.

Section III Conservation Management Systems (CMS)--Guidance for

developing conservation management systems. A description of the

resource considerations and their acceptable levels of quality or

criteria.

Section IV Practice Standards, Specifications and Supplements--

Contains standards and specifications for conservation practices used

in the field office. The standards contained in the National Handbook

of Conservation Practices (NHCP) may be supplemented to reflect local

conditions. The NHCP contains standards and specifications for over 150

conservation practices, many of which are applicable to CNMPs for AFOs.

These standards are based on sound science and over 65 years of NRCS

experience. New standards can be added to this handbook using a

procedure outlined in the handbook that includes a public review/input

process. Practice standards establish the minimum level of acceptable

quality for planning, installing, operating, and maintaining

conservation practices.

[[Page 50196]]

Section V Conservation Effects--Contains Conservation Practice

Physical Effects (CPPE) matrices which outline the impact of practices

on various aspects of the five major resources--soil, air, water,

plants, and animals.

3.3 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Components

USDA and EPA agree that the following components should be included

in a CNMP, as necessary. The specific practices used to implement each

component may vary to reflect site-specific conditions or needs of the

watershed.

Feed Management--Where possible, animal diets and feed should be

modified to reduce the amounts of nutrients in manure. For example,

enzymes such as phytase can be added to animal diets to increase the

utilization of phosphorus. Greater utilization of phosphorus by the

animal reduces the amount of phosphorus excreted and produces a manure

with a nitrogen-phosphorus ratio closer to that required by crop and

forage plants.

Manure Handling and Storage--Manure needs to be handled and stored

properly to prevent water pollution from AFOs. Manure and wastewater

handling and storage practices should also consider odor and other

environmental and public health problems. Handling and storage

considerations should include:

Divert clean water--Siting and management practices should divert

clean water from contact with feed lots and holding pens, animal

manure, or manure storage systems. Clean water can include rainfall

falling on roofs of facilities, runoff from adjacent lands, or other

sources.

Prevent leakage--Construction and maintenance of buildings,

collection systems, conveyance systems, and storage facilities should

prevent leakage of organic matter, nutrients, and pathogens to ground

or surface water.

Provide adequate storage--Dry manure, such as that produced in

certain poultry and beef operations, should be stored in production

buildings, storage facilities, or otherwise covered to prevent

precipitation from coming into direct contact with the manure. Liquid

manure storage systems should safely store the quantity and contents of

animal manure and wastewater produced, contaminated runoff from the

facility, and rainfall. Location of manure storage systems should

consider proximity to waterbodies, floodplains, and other

environmentally sensitive areas.

Manure treatments--Manure should be handled and treated to reduce

the loss of nutrients to the atmosphere during storage, to make the

material a more stable fertilizer when land applied or to reduce

pathogens, vector attraction and odors, as appropriate.

Management of dead animals--Dead animals should be disposed of in a

way that does not adversely affect ground or surface water or create

public health concerns. Composting, rendering, and other practices are

common methods used to dispose of dead animals.

Land Application of Manure--Land application is the most common,

and usually most desirable method of utilizing manure because of the

value of the nutrients and organic matter. Land application should be

planned to ensure that the proper amounts of all nutrients are applied

in a way that does not cause harm to the environment or to public

health. Land application in accordance with the CNMP should minimize

water quality and public health risk. Considerations for appropriate

land application should include:

Nutrient balance--The primary purpose of nutrient management is to

achieve the level of nutrients required to grow the planned crop by

balancing the nutrients that are already in the soil and from other

sources with those that will be applied in manure, biosolids and

fertilizer. At a minimum, nutrient management should prevent the

application of nutrients at rates that will exceed the capacity of the

soil and planned crops to assimilate nutrients and prevent pollution.

Soils and manure should be tested to determine nutrient content.

Timing and methods of application--Care must be taken when land

applying manure to prevent it from entering streams, other water

bodies, or environmentally sensitive areas. The timing and method of

application should prevent the loss of nutrients to ground or surface

water and to minimize loss of nitrogen to the atmosphere. Manure

application equipment should be calibrated to ensure that the quantity

of material being applied is what is planned.

Land Management--Tillage, crop residue management, grazing

management, and other conservation practices should be utilized to

minimize movement to surface and ground water of soil, organic

materials, nutrients, and pathogens from lands where manure is applied.

Forest riparian buffers, filter strips, field borders, contour buffer

strips, and other conservation buffer practices should be installed to

intercept, store and utilize nutrients or other pollutants that may

migrate from fields to which manure is applied.

Record Keeping--AFO operators should keep records that indicate the

quantity of manure produced and ultimate utilization, including where,

when, and amount of nutrients applied. Soil and manure testing should

be incorporated into the records management system.

Other Utilization Options--In vulnerable watersheds, where the

potential for environmentally sound land application is limited,

alternative uses of manure, such as the sale of manure to other

farmers, composting and sale of compost to home owners, and using

manure for power generation may need to be considered. All manure

utilization options should be designed and implemented to reduce the

risk to all environmental resources and must comply with Federal,

State, Tribal and local law.

3.4 Technical Assistance for CNMPs

AFO owners and operators may seek technical assistance for the

development and implementation of CNMPs from qualified specialists,

including staff from Federal agencies such as the NRCS, State, and

Tribal agricultural and conservation agency staff, Cooperative

Extension Service agents and specialists, Soil and Water Conservation

Districts (SWCDs), integrators, industry associations, other AFO

operators, and private consultants. Qualified specialists should assist

in implementation and provide ongoing assistance through periodic

reviews and revisions of CNMPs, as appropriate.

The successful implementation of this Strategy depends on the

availability of qualified specialists from either the private or public

sectors to assist in the development and implementation of CNMPs.

Measures to expand technical assistance resources are discussed more

thoroughly in Section 5.0, Strategic Issue #1.

4.0 Relationship of Voluntary and Regulatory Programs

Voluntary and regulatory programs serve complementary roles in

providing AFO owners and operators and the animal agricultural industry

with the assistance and certainty they need to achieve individual

business and personal goals, and in ensuring protection of water

quality and public health. The regulatory program focuses permitting

and enforcement priorities on high risk operations, a small percentage

of all AFOs (see Figure 2). For most AFOs, however, a variety of

voluntary programs provide the technical and financial assistance to

help producers meet technical standards and remain economically viable.

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[[Page 50197]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.059

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[[Page 50198]]

4.1 Voluntary Program for Most AFOs

Voluntary programs provide an enormous opportunity to help AFO

owners and operators and communities address water quality and public

health concerns surrounding AFOs. For the vast majority of AFOs,

voluntary efforts will be the principal approach to assist owners and

operators in developing and implementing CNMPs, and in reducing water

pollution and public health risks associated with AFOs. While CNMPs are

not required for AFOs participating in voluntary programs, they are

strongly encouraged as the best possible means of managing potential

water quality and public health impacts from these operations. For

those CNMPs that are developed as part of a State, Tribal, or Federal

voluntary technical or financial assistance program, the responsible

agency, in consultation with the local Soil and Water Conservation

Districts, will approve the plan to ensure that it is sufficient to

meet requirements for participation in such programs. AFO owners and

operators will be full partners in the development and implementation

of CNMPs through voluntary programs and will agree to implement those

plans before receiving financial assistance.

The voluntary approach is built on the ethic of land stewardship

and sustainability. A sustainable society requires a sustainable

environment-one depends upon the other. For generations, most producers

have maintained agricultural productivity in harmony with a healthy

land-the essence of land stewardship. Today, agricultural producers

still have the responsibility to be good stewards of the land under

their care. The voluntary development and implementation of a CNMP

provide AFO operators with a way to embrace this stewardship ethic.

USDA and EPA are proposing in this Strategy incentives to further the

voluntary development and implementation of CNMPs.

Implementing voluntary programs requires the support of local

leadership and full participation in planning and implementing

conservation activities. Partnerships with Federal and State agencies,

groups, SWCDs, Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Councils,

private landowners; and between local leadership and science-based

technical assistance are essential to success. Locally led conservation

efforts, environmental education programs, and financial and technical

assistance all help to build the land stewardship ethic that is

fundamental to the success of a voluntary approach.

Locally Led Conservation--It is hard to overstate the importance of

effective, locally led actions through the SWCDs in achieving national

natural resource quality goals. This is particularly true for AFOs.

USDA and EPA have a commitment to locally led conservation as one of

the most effective ways to help individual landowners and communities

achieve their conservation goals. Informed citizens are fundamental to

making informed choices. Thus, locally led conservation is a logical

complement to an investment in environmental education. Through the

locally led approach, individuals can see how their actions fit with

those of their neighbors.

Partnerships with grassroots organizations such as SWCDs, RC&D

Councils, and others that promote the use of CNMPs, can help attain the

goal of this Strategy. Through the locally led process, natural

resource concerns are identified and proposals for local priorities are

developed. SWCDs convene a local work group comprised of the district

board members and key staff, NRCS staff; Farm Service Agency county

committees and key staffs; and Cooperative Extension Service and other

Federal, State, and local agencies interested in natural resource

conservation. The SWCDs gather community input and bring the views of

these local interests to work groups. These local work groups have the

ability to identify problems and develop solutions locally. Also, they

have knowledge of what resources are available to plan and implement

the CNMPs.

Environmental Education--One of the best ways to help AFO operators

or owners to participate in voluntary programs to reduce the potential

impact of their operations on the environment is through education and

outreach. There may be many well-managed AFOs, carefully following best

management practices developed in the past, that are unintentionally

contributing to water quality or other environmental degradation

because of lack of access to the newest information. The agricultural

research system continues to advance our understanding of the potential

impacts of animal agriculture on the environment. USDA's Agricultural

Research Service (ARS), Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service (CSREES); EPA; State and Local governments; Land

Grant Colleges and Universities and other institutions of higher

learning; and the private sector are all actively involved in

communicating knowledge gained through the agricultural research system

to AFO owners and operators.

Through an aggressive environmental education and outreach effort,

USDA and EPA believe that awareness of possible problems can be

heightened and producers will be able to identify practices that may be

contributing to water quality problems. Once producers have an

understanding of potential problems and solutions, they can take a

proactive role in developing their CNMP through the voluntary program.

Technical And Financial Assistance Programs--There are numerous

sources of technical and financial assistance, such as USDA, EPA,

SWCDs, RC&D Councils, State agencies, and the private sector, to assist

AFO owners and operators in developing and implementing CNMPs. Through

technical assistance, owners and operators can receive help in

developing CNMPs and implementing solutions. Financial cost-share and

loan programs can help defray the costs of approved/needed structures

(e.g., waste storage facilities for small operations) or to implement

other practices, such as installation of conservation buffers to

protect water quality. An increasing number of States have financial

assistance programs that supplement or enhance Federal assistance.

Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), NRCS's base conservation

program, is a potential tool in helping landowners develop CNMPs. The

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Reserve Enhancement

Program (CREP), and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are

assisting AFOs across the Nation in nutrient management. The Small

Watershed Protection Program (PL 83-566) provides comprehensive

resource management planning on a watershed basis to assist local land

users in addressing water quality concerns related to AFOs. RC&D

assists States and local units of government in planning, developing,

and implementing programs for resource conservation and development.

Plans address water quality, community and economic development, and

other concerns of interest to the local citizens. The Conservation

Buffer Initiative and the Watershed Survey and Planning Program also

offer opportunities to assist livestock producers in managing their

potential environmental risks.

AFO owners and operators may also participate in other State and

Federal programs to improve water quality and to develop and implement

polluted runoff abatement activities, including State cost-share

programs and EPA Section 319 nonpoint source grants and the State

Revolving Fund (SRF) program authorized under the Clean Water Act

[[Page 50199]]

(CWA). Using all USDA, EPA, and other Federal, State and local programs

together as tools helps leverage resources to help AFO owners and

operators in voluntarily addressing water quality and public impacts.

4.2 Regulatory Program for Some AFOs

The Federal CWA provides general authority for water pollution

control programs, including several programs related to animal feeding

operations (AFOs). A number of primarily large AFOs (i.e. about 2,000

facilities) have been issued permits under section 402 of the CWA.

These permits, called National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits, include conditions to limit pollution problems. In 42

States and the Virgin Islands, these NPDES permits are issued by States

under authorization from EPA. These permits are generally written to

implement national minimum standards (referred to as effluent

guidelines) for large AFOs established in regulations. (A summary of

the existing feedlots effluent limitations guidelines is included in

Figure 3.) NPDES permits for AFOs must also include conditions that

assure attainment of any applicable State- or Tribe-established water

quality standards. These standards include designated uses, water

quality criteria to protect these uses, and an antidegradation policy.

Best management practices necessary to ensure compliance with the CWA,

such as those included in CNMPs, may be imposed in NPDES permits. Where

water quality standards are not attained, response actions are defined

through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process under Section

303(d) of the Act and implemented through revised NPDES permits and

other measures.

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.060

BILLING CODE 3410-16-C

The existing provisions of the CWA and related EPA regulations

provide authority for including a significant number of AFOs in the

permit program beyond those that now have permits. These statutory and

regulatory authorities related to AFOs are described below along with

the approach EPA will follow in setting priorities for carrying out

these authorities.

The CWA provides that no person may ``discharge'' a pollutant

except in accordance with a permit issued under section 402 of the Act.

A ``discharge'' is defined as ``any addition of any pollutant to

navigable waters from any point source.'' The term ``pollutant'' is

broadly defined in the CWA and includes animal waste and related

material.

The term ``point source'' as defined in the CWA includes any

``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' and specifically

includes a ``concentrated animal feeding operation'' (CAFO). Thus, a

discharge from a CAFO is prohibited except in accordance with an NPDES

permit.

The term ``animal feeding operation'' or AFO is defined in EPA

regulations as a ``lot or facility'' where animals ``have been, are, or

will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45

days or more in any 12 month period and crops, vegetation, forage,

growth or post harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing

season over any portion of the lot or facility.''

The regulations define a ``concentrated animal feeding operation''

or CAFO as an animal feeding operation where more than 1,000 ``animal

units'' (as defined by the regulation) are confined at the facility; or

more than 300 animal units are confined at the facility and:

Pollutants are discharged into navigable waters through a

manmade ditch, flushing system, or other similar man-made device; or

Pollutants are discharged directly into waters that

originate outside of and pass over, across, or through the facility or

come into direct contact with the confined animals.

Poultry operations that remove waste from pens and stack it in

areas exposed to rainfall or an adjacent watercourse have established a

crude liquid manure system for process wastewater that may discharge

pollutants. These facilities are CAFOs and therefore point sources

under the NPDES program if the number of animals confined at the

facility meets the regulatory definition at 40 CFR Part 122. Appendix B

or if the facility is designated as a CAFO.

The regulations also provide, however, that no animal feeding

operation is a CAFO as defined above if it discharges only in the event

of a 25-year, 24-hour or larger storm event.

In addition, the NPDES permit issuing agency may, after conducting

an on-site inspection, designate an animal feeding operation of any

size as a CAFO based on a finding that the facility ``is a significant

contributor of pollution to the waters of the United States.'' A

[[Page 50200]]

facility with 300 animal units or less, however, may not be designated

as a CAFO under this authority unless pollutants are discharged from a

man-made device or are discharged directly into waters passing over,

across or through the facility or that otherwise come into direct

contact with the confined animals.

Another regulatory program which addresses AFOs is the Coastal

Nonpoint Pollution Control Program which is implemented under the

authority of Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments (CZARA) of 1990. Section 6217 requires the 29 States and

territories with NOAA-approved Coastal Zone Management Programs to

develop enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement nonpoint

source controls, known as management measures. Two management measures

address facility wastewater and runoff from smaller AFOs, and another

management measure addresses nutrient management on farms. In CZARA

areas, permitted CAFOs are covered by the NPDES program while other

AFOs would be covered by the CZARA management measures. EPA and NOAA

should encourage States to consider the priorities of this Strategy

when implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

4.3 Land Application of Manure

EPA and USDA recognize that manure and other animal waste from

CAFOs is commonly applied to the land. Proper land application of these

resources has agricultural benefits, but improper land application can

cause water quality and potential public health impacts.

As noted above, the addition of pollutants from a discrete

conveyance (e.g. natural channel or gullies) to the waters is regulated

under the CWA as a point source discharge. At the same time, the Act

exempts ``agricultural stormwater discharges'' from the definition of a

point source. EPA has in the past, and will in the future, assume that

discharges from the vast majority of agricultural operations are

exempted from the NPDES program by this provision of the Act. The

agricultural stormwater exemption, however, does not apply in a small

number of circumstances that meet the following criteria:

The discharge is associated with the land disposal of

animal wastes (e.g. manure or other animal waste) originating from a

CAFO (which is defined as a point source in the CWA and is regulated as

a point source); and

The discharge is not the result of proper agricultural

practices (i.e., in general, the disposal occurred without a CNMP

developed by a public official or a certified private party or in a

manner inconsistent with the CNMP).

NPDES permits should assure that the animal waste from the CAFO

will be utilized properly and require reporting on whether the

permittee has a CNMP and whether it is being implemented properly.

4.4 Priorities for the Regulatory Program

The NPDES permit program authorized by the CWA will be used to

address the relatively small number of AFOs that are now causing water

quality or public health problems or that pose a significant risk to

water quality or public health. EPA and USDA believe that AFOs in

several situations are CAFOs and should be priorities for NPDES

permitting:

Significant Manure Production--Large facilities (those with greater

than 1000 animal units) produce quantities of manure that are a risk to

water quality and public health whether the facilities are well managed

or not. Because the amount of manure stored is so large, a spill while

handling manure or a breach of a storage system can release large

quantities of manure and wastewater into the environment causing

catastrophic water quality impacts and threatening public health. Land

application of large volumes of waste requires very careful planning to

avoid water quality and public health impacts.

Of the estimated 450,000 animal feeding operations, only about

6,600 facilities had over 1,000 animal units as of 1992. Due to

increases in the number of large facilities over the past six years,

EPA and USDA believe that as many as 10,000 such facilities may exist

today. EPA and USDA expect to update this estimate based on newer

information. Based on size alone, these facilities are considered to be

CAFOs and therefore are ``point sources'' subject to having an NPDES

permit if they cause the addition of pollutants to waters. EPA believes

that virtually all CAFOs with over 1,000 animal units are covered by

the permit program and are a priority for permit issuance.

Unacceptable Conditions--Some facilities have unacceptable

conditions that pose a significant risk of water pollution or public

health problems. Specifically, facilities that have man-made

conveyances that discharge animal waste to waters or have a direct

discharge to waters that pass through the facility or come into direct

contact with animals represent a significant risk to the environment

and public health and are a priority for permit issuance. (As noted,

AFOs with 300 or fewer AUs are CAFOs subject to permitting only where

they have been designated as CAFOs by the permitting authority.)

There is insufficient data on which to base an estimate of the

number of AFOs that have unacceptable conditions. EPA and USDA expect,

however, that many, if not most, AFOs that now have unacceptable

conditions will voluntarily address their unacceptable conditions to

avoid the requirement to have a permit under the NPDES program.

Significant Contributors to Water Quality Impairment--In cases

where water quality monitoring establishes that pollution from an

individual facility with fewer than 1,000 animal units or a collection

of facilities including those with fewer than 1,000 animal units is

significantly contributing to, or is likely to significantly contribute

to, impairment of a waterbody and nonattainment of a designated use,

the facility or collection of facilities should be a priority for the

NPDES permitting program.

Aggregate Water Quality Impacts on a Watershed Scale--EPA and USDA

encourage States to use existing watershed assessment processes to

determine whether a collection of AFOs is causing or contributing to

watershed impairment. States should identify such watersheds for

priority CAFO permitting. For example, the Clean Water Action Plan

provides for a Unified Watershed Assessment Process to identify

watersheds that are not meeting clean water and other natural resource

goals.

In addition, States may consider identifying watersheds based on

CWA section 303(d) lists or on assessments conducted by the interagency

State technical committee. Such assessments may indicate, for example,

that a high proportion of waters are impaired because of nutrient or

pathogen problems attributable to animal manure or wastewater; that a

watershed has more manure generated than there is land available to

land apply manure in the watershed; or that water pollution associated

with AFOs poses a significant threat to public health as a result of

contamination of drinking water sources. EPA estimates that the number

of AFOs that will be subject to the permit program as a result of

identified watershed impairments to be between 1,000-3,000.

Site-specific Water Quality Impacts--Where the NPDES permitting

authority has evidence that an individual AFO or group of AFOs

significantly contribute to nonattainment of the designated use of an

individual water body, these AFOs

[[Page 50201]]

should be a priority for permit issuance. Based on water quality

assessment information from States, the number of facilities that meet

these conditions is estimated to be between 1,000--3,000 facilities.

This section has described permitting and enforcement priorities

for the regulatory program based on existing CAFO regulations. EPA and

USDA expect that the total number of CAFOs in the situations described

above that will be priorities for coverage under NPDES permits will be

in the range 15,000--20,000. About 2,000 CAFOs now have NPDES permits.

EPA plans to refine and strengthen the existing regulations during the

next several years (see Section 5.0, Strategic Issue # 3).

4.5 CAFO CNMPs

NPDES permits for CAFOs will include conditions and other

requirements that minimize the threat to water quality and public

health and otherwise ensure compliance with the requirements of the

CWA. EPA will issue guidance on the development of permits for CAFOs

and will develop model permits. Among other things, the guidance will

provide that permits include conditions that ensure compliance with

national effluent guidelines applicable to CAFOs.

The EPA guidance will also recommend that CAFO permits require the

development of a CNMP and its implementation on a schedule established

in the permit. The guidance will incorporate NRCS's practice standards

as the appropriate practice standards for CAFO CNMPs. Where elements of

the CNMP are included in a NPDES permit, schedules for implementation

of the practices or actions will be consistent with requirements of the

CWA (i.e., compliance schedules will be consistent with State law and

not exceed the five year term of the permit). Finally, permits will

include any more stringent conditions that the permitting authority

determines are necessary to meet State water quality standards.

CNMPs developed to meet the requirements of the NPDES permit

program in general must be developed by a person certified to develop

CNMPs, a qualified State agency official (e.g., cooperative extension

agent), or by NRCS. Private parties may be certified by State or

nonprofit groups (e.g., the Certified Crop Advisor Program of the

American Society of Agronomy) approved by USDA, or certified directly

by USDA through EQIP.

The ultimate responsibility for developing and implementing CNMPs

resides with the CAFO owner and/or operator. If the CNMP is developed

as a requirement of the NPDES permit program, the CNMP should be

consistent with this Strategy and the regulatory agency will ensure

that the CNMP meets the requirements of the CWA and is being

implemented. State or Federal enforcement agencies will work to ensure

compliance with permit requirements.

4.6 Smaller CAFOs Can Exit the Regulatory Program

Smaller CAFOs (those with fewer than 1000 AUs) that are not located

in watersheds that are identified as impaired should be allowed to exit

the permit program after the end of the five-year permit term. To exit

the program these facilities must demonstrate that they have

successfully addressed the initial condition that caused them to be

designated as CAFOs, are fully implementing their CNMP, and offer

evidence that they are in full compliance with their permit at the end

of the permit term.

4.7 Good Faith Incentive

In many cases, AFOs are taking early voluntary actions in good

faith to manage manure and wastewater in accordance with a CNMP. Some

AFOs that are voluntarily implementing a CNMP may, however, have a

discharge that makes them subject to the NPDES permitting program but

does not cause them to be included in the permitting priorities

described above (i.e., AFOs with 301-1000 AUs that do not discharge

through a man-made conveyance or directly into waters of the U.S. that

pass through their facility, and which are not significant contributors

to nonattainment of a designated use as determined through water

quality monitoring). NPDES permitting authorities will provide an

opportunity for these AFOs to address the cause of the discharge before

designating them as CAFOs.

5.0 Strategic Issues

Overview of Strategic Issues

This USDA/EPA Unified National Strategy on Animal Feeding

Operations addresses seven major strategic issues:

Strategic Issue # 1--Building Capacity for CNMP Development and

Implementation

Strategic Issue # 2--Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-Based Programs

Strategic Issue # 3--Implementing and Improving the Existing Regulatory

Program

Strategic Issue # 4--Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation,

Compliance Assistance, and Technology Transfer

Strategic Issue # 5--Encouraging Industry Leadership

Strategic Issue # 6--Data Coordination

Strategic Issue # 7--Performance Measures and Accountability

Strategic Issue # 1 Building Capacity for CNMP Development and

Implementation

Description

The successful implementation of this Strategy depends on the

availability of qualified specialists from either the public or private

sectors to assist in the development and implementation of CNMPs. AFO

owners and operators will need substantially increased access to

technical assistance from the private and public sectors to support a

strengthened regulatory program and, at the same time, implement an

accelerated effort to help owners and operators meet their stewardship

responsibilities through early, voluntary action.

Through prior or existing voluntary programs, NRCS has developed

CNMPs for AFOs. NRCS estimates that at least 300,000 AFOs need to

develop CNMPs or revise existing CNMPs to meet the performance

expectation of this Strategy. EPA estimates that between 15,000 to

20,000 operations will be considered CAFOs and be required to develop

and implement CNMPs as part of a permit.

Desired Outcomes

Increase the number of certified specialists to develop

CNMPs.

Ensure that CNMPs are implemented under the guidance of

qualified specialists.

Consistent quality of CNMP development and implementation.

All AFO owners have a CNMP developed by a certified

specialist by 2008.

Actions

USDA and EPA will take the following actions, to the extent

permitted by available appropriations, to increase the supply of

qualified technical specialists available to assist AFO owners and

operators develop and implement CNMPs:

1. USDA and EPA will review available certification programs for

those developing CNMPs for AFOs to ensure technical adequacy and will

provide training and standards for these certification programs to

improve their ability to certify CNMPs to AFOs.

2. Facilitate and encourage participation of private sector

[[Page 50202]]

consultants and technical advisors through certification, training, and

other activities to ensure private sector sources of assistance can be

effectively utilized by AFO owners and operators to develop and

implement CNMPs.

3. Increase funding within the USDA NRCS Conservation Technical

Assistance (CTA) Program and Cooperative Extension System to increase

technically qualified field staff, train existing Federal and

nonfederal staff, and provide enhanced technical support for Federal

and nonfederal technical advisors.

4. Explore options for training and certifying AFO operators to

develop and implement their own CNMPs.

5. USDA and EPA will facilitate the training of conservation

contractors in the installation of practices specified in a CNMP.

6. USDA and EPA will provide assistance in the form of computer

models or expert systems to assist in the development of CNMPs.

7. USDA and EPA will give priority to training those agencies and

organizations that deliver services at the local level. The voluntary

program is delivered at the local level through SWCDs, Cooperative

Extension Service, USDA Service Centers, and the private sector. These

local service providers should also be fully informed of the elements

of the regulatory programs.

8. USDA and EPA will sponsor a national meeting to solicit ideas on

how to build capacity for the development and implementation of CNMPs.

9. USDA will develop agreements with third-party vendors similar to

the 1998 agreement with the Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs will

provide technical assistance to agricultural producers in nutrient

management, pest management, and residue management. Any assistance

provided under third party vendor agreements will meet NRCS standards

and specifications, or State standards if more restrictive.

10. USDA, EPA, and the States should each analyze the potential

impact of this Strategy on public and private resources and their

availability to develop and implement CNMPs.

Strategic Issue #2--Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-Based Programs

Description

USDA and EPA agree that the release of pollutants to surface or

groundwater from an AFO is to be minimized regardless of size or

management activity. It is the ultimate responsibility of individual

owners and operators, and the companies and industries they are

involved with, to minimize the release of pollutants from their

operations. Under this Strategy, most AFOs will minimize the risk of

pollution by voluntarily developing and implementing a CNMP.

Desired Outcomes

All AFOs develop and implement CNMPs by 2008.

Minimize pollution from AFOs to the greatest extent

practical.

Ensure the maximum environmental benefit is obtained per

public dollar expended.

Ensure adequate financial incentives are available to

minimize the economic impact of implementing CNMPs.

Ensure that limited resource, minority, and other

underserved producers have the opportunity to participate fully in the

voluntary programs.

Actions

1. National Standards

Develop and Revise Practice Standards--To ensure that conservation

policies and practices are current and sufficient to address water

quality risks associated with AFOs, NRCS, in consultation with EPA and

with input from States and other stakeholders, will identify practice

standards which need to be developed or revised and propose a schedule

for development or revision by November 1998. The process of revising

practice standards at both the national and local level involves the

public review of new or revised standards. The process should be

streamlined to the maximum extent possible.

2. Planning and Implementation

AFO CNMP Guidance--USDA's NRCS has national responsibility for

conservation planning policy and procedures and will provide guidance,

in consultation with EPA, by January 1999 that can be used by AFO

owners, operators, and others to develop a CNMP.

Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning requires that

individuals, including AFO owners and operators, qualified in the

technical issues associated with AFOs, should develop the CNMP. Good

CNMPs are the result of a process that ensures all elements of an

operation are considered and that causes of problems, rather than

symptoms, are addressed. The CNMP guidance will indicate what should be

contained in the CNMP (such as aerial photos or plan maps, planned

conservation practices and schedule of implementation, engineering

designs for any constructed facilities for storing or handling manure,

records of soil and nutrient tests, appropriate rates of land

application to prevent the application of nutrients at rates that will

exceed the capacity of the soil and planned crops to assimilate

nutrients and prevent pollution, and records of practices and actions).

3. Outreach and Program Delivery

Fair and equitable treatment--USDA and EPA agree and will ensure

through aggressive outreach that the technical and financial assistance

provided in the voluntary efforts recommended by this Strategy will be

available to persons without regard to race, color, national origin,

gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, and marital or family status. These outreach efforts are

already underway and will accelerate with the release of this Strategy.

4. Financial Assistance for CNMP Implementation

Financial assistance can ease the burden on AFO owners and

operators who are implementing CNMPs. Financial assistance will be

particularly important in helping existing AFOs improve the

environmental performance of their operations. Failure to fully fund

assistance at requested levels will seriously constrain our ability to

accelerate progress through voluntary action and sometimes causes an

economic hardship for AFOs. This is particularly true of limited

resource farmers.

The primary source of USDA assistance to AFO owners and operators

is the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), which was

initiated in the 1996 Farm Bill. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

and the Small Watershed Protection Program (PL 83-566) are also

available to AFO owners and operators meeting program eligibility

requirements. EQIP has been funded at $200 million in 1997 and 1998.

Approximately 45 percent of the funds were spent in each of these years

to fund contracts with AFOs to develop and provide cost share

incentives to help implement CNMPs that consider most of the issues

this Strategy recommends be addressed in a CNMP. The requests for funds

for AFOs during each of those years was for approximately $230

million--three times the amount available. The Administration has

requested $300 million for EQIP for FY 1999.

The CRP provides farmers rental payments to set aside lands for

various environmental purposes. The continuous sign-up provision of CRP

targets the establishment of conservation buffers which are

[[Page 50203]]

recognized as an important component of a CNMP. A provision of CRP,

referred to as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

allows States to join with the Federal government to increase rental

rates paid to land owners by increasing funding for the CRP program

with State funds. USDA established the Conservation Buffer Initiative

in 1996 with the specific goal of establishing two million miles of

buffers by 2002. In 1998, approximately $500 million was expended

through CRP to establish an estimated 172,000 miles of buffers

throughout the United States.

The PL 83-566 program received $86 million in FY 1997 and

approximately $20 million was spent on 228 watershed plans that address

water quality. A majority of these watershed plans address AFOs.

EPA has two funds that can be partially used to help many AFOs meet

the performance expectation. The first is the 319 program, also known

as the Nonpoint Source Management Program. Under section 319 of the

CWA, States, Territories, and Tribes apply for and receive grants from

EPA to implement nonpoint source pollution controls. Over $670 million

have been available from this fund since 1990, with approximately 39

percent being directed toward agricultural issues, including AFOs.

The second EPA fund is the Clean Water SRF, which is a program used

to make low interest loans (as low as zero percent) for important water

quality projects. Managed by the States, the SRF program in each State

can fund nonpoint source eligible implementation projects such as

animal waste storage facilities. The SRF program is funding

approximately three billion dollars in projects each year with a

cumulative total over the years of $20 billion. Since 1997, the SRF

program has funded over $650 million in nonpoint source-eligible

projects to clean up polluted runoff (including AFOs).

Currently, many States have cost-share programs that address water

quality issues. Funds from these programs are available to owners or

operators to assist in development and implementation of CNMPs. USDA

and EPA strongly support such programs.

Options to help provide Federal financial assistance to AFO

operators to develop and implement CNMPs include:

Continue and increase the USDA-EPA collaboration on AFO

issues particularly at the field level, to better target and leverage

available resources from all applicable programs to assist AFOs in

addressing water quality issues.

Target Federal financial assistance to existing AFOs who

need to develop or revise CNMPs to meet the performance expectation

established by this Strategy.

Significantly increase EQIP funding as requested in the

President's budget to meet the expressed demand from AFO owners and

operators for financial assistance.

Encourage AFO owners and operators to take full advantage

of the CRP program and establish conservation buffers as part of their

CNMPs. Also encourage States to collaborate with the Federal government

through the CREP provision of the CRP program.

Encourage States to use 319 funding in implementing

programs that address management issues of AFOs. In particular, EPA

will work with States to target the requested increase in 319 funds to

impaired watersheds.

EPA will work with States to increase the number and

dollar amount of loans made through the Clean Water SRF for priority

projects to prevent polluted runoff, with the goal of increasing the

annual percentage of funds loaned for this purpose to at least 10

percent (or about $200 million) by the year 2001. EPA will also work

with States toward the goal of increasing to 25 the number of States

using integrated priority-setting systems to make clean water funding

decisions by the year 2000. EPA will work with States to promote the

use of these funds for AFO implementation measures.

Encourage States and Tribes to address AFO issues as they

work with the community to develop watershed restoration action

strategies for priority watersheds under the CWAP.

Develop a tool package of financial assistance programs

that will be available so that AFO owners, counties, SWCDs, and States

can assess options and understand how to receive financial assistance.

Strategic Issue #3 Implementing and Improving the Existing Regulatory

Program

Description

The CWA provides that all ``point sources'' of water pollution that

discharge or add pollution to waters are subject to having a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under section 402

of the Act. Section 502 of the Act defines ``concentrated animal

feeding operations'' or CAFOs as point sources. EPA regulations provide

detailed criteria for determining when an AFO is also a CAFO subject to

the NPDES permit program (see also Section 4.2 and 4.4 of this

Strategy).

This Strategy clarifies the applicability and the requirements of

the existing regulatory program, identifies permitting and enforcement

priorities, and describes EPA's plans to strengthen and improve

existing regulations. For those facilities covered by the NPDES

permitting program, CNMPs will identify steps to protect water quality

and public health and will be a key element of the permit.

Desired Outcomes

Minimize pollution from CAFOs to the greatest extent

practicable.

Ensure the maximum environmental benefit is obtained per

public dollar expended.

Develop draft comprehensive CAFO permitting guidance and

model permits by October 1998 and final guidance by January 1999.

Develop comprehensive State CAFO permitting strategies

beginning in early 1999.

Issue Round I NPDES permits to all CAFOs beginning in

Spring 1999.

Revise the NPDES CAFO permitting regulations by December

2001.

Review and revise as appropriate the effluent limitation

guideline for poultry and swine by December 2001 and for beef and dairy

by December 2002.

Large CAFOs (greater than 1,000 AUs) have developed and

are implementing CNMPs by 2003.

All CAFOs in States where EPA administers the NPDES

program have developed and are implementing CNMPs by 2003.

Issue Round II NPDES permits to all CAFOs beginning in

2005.

All CAFOs in NPDES authorized States have developed and

are implementing CNMPs in 2005.

Actions

1. Improve Implementation of the Existing CWA Permitting Program

EPA will work with States to establish a two-phase approach to

permitting CAFOs. Round I of CAFO permitting will occur under EPA's

existing CAFO regulations. In Round II permits, core permit elements

may be expanded to reflect revisions to the effluent guideline, permit

program regulations, and State-adopted water quality standards for

nutrients.

A. Round I Permits

In Round I, EPA will work with NPDES-authorized States to issue

Statewide general NPDES permits to cover all CAFOs with greater than

1000

[[Page 50204]]

AUs and CAFOs with between 300-1000 AUs that have unacceptable

conditions. These general permits will be issued starting in Spring

1999 and affected CAFOs will be expected to submit a notice of intent

to be covered by the permit. General permits will require facilities to

develop and implement CNMPs on a schedule identified in the permit,

develop record keeping procedures, and routinely report on the

implementation of the CNMP.

EPA and the NPDES-authorized States should use individual NPDES

permits in Round I for exceptionally large operations, new operations

or those undergoing significant expansion, operations with historical

compliance problems, or operations with significant environmental

concerns. States have flexibility in determining which CAFOs should

have individual NPDES permits and should address this topic in State

CAFO permitting strategies (see Section 1D below).

Also in Round I, EPA will work with the States and Tribes to issue

watershed general permits for facilities in selected watersheds,

including those identified as not meeting clean water goals. States are

encouraged to develop watershed general permits for watersheds where

there are aggregate water quality impacts from AFOs on a watershed

scale (see Section 4.4).

Watershed general permits are based on existing EPA and State

permitting authority. EPA's regulations on general permits (40 CFR

122.28) allow the issuance of a single permit to cover facilities that

share common elements (e.g., CAFOs) within a specific geographic area

(e.g., watershed). To be covered under a watershed general permit

during Round I, AFOs with fewer than 1000 AUs need to be individually

designated as ``significant contributors'' of water pollution and AFOs

with fewer than 301 AUs also need to meet specific criteria (e.g., have

a man-made conveyance through which pollutants are discharged into

navigable waters or a direct discharge to waters passing through the

facility).

These watershed general permits will allow for tailoring of NPDES

permit requirements to the needs of a watershed. Watershed general

permits could also tailor permit requirements to the realities of

manure and wastewater management practices in a given locality and

promote more effective public participation than would a Statewide

general permit. Watershed general permits must be written to reflect

any TMDL developed for the watershed. EPA encourages permit writers to

use their best judgment in developing such permits.

States should also issue individual permits to individual

facilities that are significant contributors of water pollution to

waters that do not attain water quality standards, due in whole or part

to AFOs.

B. Round II Permits

Round II permitting will include reissuance of Statewide general

permits, individual permits, and watershed general permits; will begin

at the end of the five-year permit term of Round I (i.e., about 2005);

and will incorporate new requirements resulting from revisions to the

existing CAFO effluent guideline and NPDES permitting regulations.

In addition to potential regulatory revisions that may affect CAFO

permitting, Round II CAFO permits will incorporate requirements that

reflect ongoing activities related to nutrient water quality criteria

development. On June 25, 1998, EPA announced a national strategy for

the development of regional nutrient criteria. The strategy describes

the approach EPA will take for development of scientific information

related to nutrients and to working with States to ensure adoption of

nutrient criteria into State water quality standards. EPA will

establish numeric criteria for nutrients within three years of their

issuance or by 2000, as specified in the Clean Water Action Plan. EPA

expects all States and Tribes to adopt and implement numerical nutrient

criteria into their water quality standards by December 31, 2003. All

NPDES permits must be revised to incorporate requirements to meet

State-adopted nutrient criteria as the permits are issued or reissued.

In Round II, EPA and States will continue to identify watersheds

where cumulative effects of AFOs cause nonattainment of water quality

standards and EPA and States will continue to identify as a priority

for individual permits certain exceptionally large operations, those

undergoing significant expansion or those with significant public

interest.

Finally, in Round II, EPA will not include, and recommend that

States not include, in reissued Statewide general permits any CAFO with

fewer than 1000 AUs (or whatever appropriate threshold may exist

because of revised regulations) that was included in a Round I permit

if the CAFO is not located in a watershed that is identified as

impaired and if the CAFO has successfully addressed the initial

condition that caused them to be a CAFO, is fully implementing a CNMP,

and offers evidence that it is in full compliance with its permit at

the end of the permit term (See Section 4.6).

C. CAFO Permitting Guidance and Model Permits

EPA will develop comprehensive guidance on NPDES permitting of

CAFOs including development of Statewide, individual, and watershed

general permits. EPA will also develop model Statewide, individual, and

watershed general permits. Guidance and model permits will be issued in

draft by October 1998 and in final form by January 1999.

A key subject to be addressed in the guidance is the process for

establishing schedules for development of CNMPs for those facilities

covered by individual and general permits. These schedules for

development of CNMPs should be appropriate to the circumstances in each

State and should be described in detail in State-specific permitting

strategies (see below). At a minimum, State-specific permitting

strategies should provide for the development of CNMPs for the largest

CAFOs (i.e., greater than 1,000 AUs) by 2003 and all CAFOs by 2005. In

States where EPA administers the NPDES program, permits will require

that all CAFOs have CNMPs by 2003.

The guidance will also address issues such as who is required to

obtain a permit, elements of a permit (which may differ for new or

expanding CAFOs and existing CAFOs), and different types of permits,

including watershed general permits, consistent with the permitting

priorities described in Section 4.4. EPA expects that permit elements

will include specific performance measures for CNMP implementation,

reporting (including reporting on CNMPs for land application and their

implementation), and monitoring.

The model permits will provide that CNMPs developed pursuant to a

permit, or that are directly related to issuance of a permit, should be

provided to the permitting authority by the permittee. Some States have

adopted approaches in their permitting programs that recognize the

environmental responsibilities of corporate entities that participate

in the operation of CAFOs. EPA will explore options for including such

approaches in its model permits.

USDA and EPA agree that a CNMP developed by public sector parties

or certified private parties should be a condition of an individual or

general NPDES permit. EPA guidance will indicate that the CNMP should

be the principal substantive pollution control provision of the permit

and will

[[Page 50205]]

incorporate NRCS's practice standards as the appropriate practice

standards for CAFO CNMPs. Permits will include other provisions

including any more stringent conditions necessary to meet the

requirements of the CWA (See Section 4.5).

D. State-Specific CAFO Permitting Strategies

EPA and USDA recognize that the current law and regulations provide

authority to issue permits to a larger group of CAFOs than is

identified in the priorities described in Section 4.4. However, States

are asked to prioritize NPDES permit issuance to address AFOs that fall

into the three priority permitting categories, at a minimum, and any

other AFOs the State determines should have permits consistent with the

authority of the current law, following the general guidelines for

Round I and Round II permitting described above.

Some States have significantly greater numbers of AFOs requiring

permits than do other States. The capacity for development of CNMPs in

the public and private sector will vary from State to State. Resources

available for the management of the NPDES program also vary from State

to State. And, the extent to which smaller AFOs (i.e. under 1,000

animal units) are significant contributors to water quality problems on

a site-specific or watershed basis will vary among States. State-

specific CAFO permitting strategies should address timing and

approaches to permitting, including the basis for using individual and

general permits and should reflect stakeholder and public input to the

extent practicable.

EPA will assist States in evaluating their CAFO permitting efforts

and in developing, beginning in early 1999, comprehensive strategies

consistent with this national Strategy to enhance permitting,

inspection, and enforcement activities for CAFOs. EPA will also work

with States to develop performance measures that track environmental

progress and programmatic efforts. Finally, EPA will work to develop

State-specific CAFO permitting strategies in cooperation with States

that do not administer the NPDES program.

EPA will work with States to ensure that EPA enforcement priorities

are designed to complement and ensure successful implementation of this

Strategy and are otherwise consistent with State-specific permitting

strategies. However, notwithstanding these priorities, it should also

be recognized that EPA may initiate enforcement action at any facility

at any time under the Agency's authorities to address imminent and

substantial endangerments.

Several States have permitting or licensing programs that address

environmental issues and requirements for AFOs that go beyond the NPDES

program. EPA intends to work with States to ensure that State and

Federal programs work together smoothly to protect water quality and

public health. EPA will also work with States that are authorized to

administer the NPDES program to ensure that State programs meet the

NPDES substantive and procedural requirements and issue NPDES permits.

However, this Strategy is not intended to preclude States from adopting

more stringent approaches in their NPDES programs.

2. Review and Revision of Existing Regulations

A. Feedlots Effluent Limitations Guidelines

EPA will, with input from USDA, States, Tribes, other Federal

Agencies and the public, review and revise as appropriate, the effluent

limitation guideline for poultry and swine by December 2001 and for

beef and dairy cattle by December 2002. NRCS and other USDA agencies

will participate on the regulatory workgroup to revise the regulations.

In 1974, EPA promulgated the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New

Source Performance Standards for the Feedlots Point Source Category (40

CFR 412). The effluent guidelines for feedlots applies to a subset of

operations in the following animal sectors: beef and dairy cattle,

swine, sheep, horses, broiler and layer chickens, turkeys, and ducks.

The guideline establishes a ``no discharge'' requirement for

process wastewater which, in general, includes the manure from the

feedlot as well as any precipitation that comes into contact with the

manure or any products used in or resulting from the production of

animals or direct products (e.g., milk, eggs). The requirement

prohibits discharges except those that result from chronic or

catastrophic events, including from a 25-year, 24-hour or larger storm

event where a facility has been appropriately designed and constructed.

This ``no discharge'' standard applies to existing as well as new

facilities.

EPA expects that revisions to the effluent guidelines will:

Be closely coordinated with any changes to the NPDES

permitting regulations.

Consider innovative and alternative technologies including

the viability of treatment and discharge technologies and technologies

that do not involve storage of liquid manure.

Assess different management practices that minimize the

discharge of pollutants and the cross-media transfer of pollutants.

Evaluate alternative use and disposal options for manure

that nonetheless capture their nutrient/energy value.

Evaluate options for regulating dry manure handling

systems.

Evaluate the need for different requirements for new or

expanding and existing facilities.

B. NPDES Permit Regulations

EPA will, with input from USDA, States, Tribes, other Federal

Agencies, and the public, revise the NPDES permit program regulations

regarding CAFOs by December 2001.

EPA intends to revise the existing permitting regulations to

clarify expectations and requirements for CAFOs as well as to reflect

the changes in the industry. NRCS and other USDA agencies will

participate on the regulatory workgroup to revise the regulations.

Revision of the permitting regulations will be closely coordinated with

the revision of the Feedlots Effluent Limitations Guideline (40 CFR

Part 412) because of the commonality of issues and the administrative

efficiencies for EPA, States and all interested groups. Permits in

effect on the date of new regulations will remain in effect until

subsequently changed to incorporate the new requirements.

Key permitting issues that EPA intends to consider during the

regulatory revision process include:

Establishing specific requirements for new and

significantly expanding facilities and monitoring requirements for

permitted facilities.

Clarifying requirements for effective management of manure

and wastewater from CAFOs whether they are handled on-site or off-site.

Explore alternative ways of defining CAFOs.

Consider requirements for CAFOs to conduct self-

evaluations of CNMP implementation and keep records of such evaluations

on-site.

Considering large poultry operations, consistent

with the size threshold for other animal sectors, as CAFOs, regardless

of the type of watering or manure handling system.

Clarifying who may designate and the criteria for

designating certain AFOs as CAFOs.

Providing for the protection of sensitive water bodies

such as source water protection areas, Outstanding

[[Page 50206]]

National Water Resources, wetlands and other areas.

Providing for expedited designation of smaller AFOs in

watersheds identified for watershed general permits.

Removing the exemption from permitting for AFOs

that only discharge during a 24-hour 25-year or larger storm event.

New, improved public review of general permit conditions

applicable to individual facilities, including public notice of

facilities to be covered.

Consider defining all facilities regardless of size that

have a man-made conveyance as a CAFO.

Explore alternative approaches to ensuring that corporate

entities support the efforts of individual AFOs to comply with permits

and develop and implement CNMPs.

3. Improve Implementation of the Existing CWA Compliance and

Enforcement Program

The following actions are designed to improve implementation of the

existing CWA compliance and enforcement program for CAFOs and support

implementation of this Strategy:

CAFO Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan Revisions--EPA will

revise its CAFO Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan as necessary

to ensure that EPA and State enforcement priorities support

implementation of this Strategy. However, EPA may initiate emergency

actions at any time against any AFO that presents an imminent or

substantial endangerment.

Compliance Assistance--EPA will continue and expand compliance

assistance efforts led by the National Agricultural Compliance

Assistance Center consistent with the Strategy and changes to the

regulatory program. As regulations are revised and implemented, EPA's

initial efforts will focus on compliance assistance and later shift to

a greater focus on enforcement activities.

CAFO Inspections--EPA will work with States to establish

commitments for inspection of CAFOs with the goal of inspecting

existing CAFOs (including unannounced periodic inspections to determine

if CAFO CNMPs are being implemented) and other facilities that may need

to be designated as CAFOs because they may fall into one of the

categories that are priorities for NPDES permitting. EPA expects that

training will be necessary for inspectors and will engage specialists

familiar with AFOs and associated management practices to assist in

this training.

Strategic Issue # 4 Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation,

Compliance Assistance, and Technology Transfer

Description

Coordinated research, technical innovation, compliance assistance,

and technology transfer relative to the environmental management of

AFOs are critical components of this Strategy. USDA and EPA, together

with other Federal partners, will establish coordinated research,

technical innovation, and technology transfer activities, and

compliance assistance, and establish a single point information center.

Knowledge gaps exist in our understanding of the effects of AFOs on

natural resources and environmental quality. Some of this lack of

understanding is due to the fragmented structure of our research and

data collection efforts, information residing in multiple locations

with much of the information obtained with objectives different from

those of this Strategy and different information being used by AFO

managers, technical assistance specialists and regulators. For example,

research is done primarily from an animal production and natural

resource management perspective by the Agricultural Research Service

(ARS), Economic Research Service (ERS), and the land-grant colleges and

universities, among others. These entities also do research on economic

issues such as economic impact, cost/benefit analyses, policy analyses,

and resource use and environmental implications. EPA, U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS), and university researchers conduct research on AFOs from

an environmental quality viewpoint. EPA and USDA will, in coordination

with the private sector, the land grant colleges and universities and

others, develop a coordinated plan for research, development, and

assessment.

Desired Outcomes

A coordinated approach to research, technical innovation,

compliance assistance, and technology transfer.

Actions

A. Coordinated Research Plan--USDA and EPA will develop a

coordinated AFO research plan by October 1999. This plan will establish

priorities for future research including:

1. Methods to better manage manure to address nutrients, pathogens,

and other pollutants.

2. Modification of animal diets to reduce nutrients in manure.

3. Mitigation of sites with excessive pollutants.

4. Evaluation of impacts of best management practices from farm and

watershed perspectives.

5. Educational materials for all audiences that meet their

conservation, regulatory, and production needs.

6. Alternative uses of animal manure, such as for energy production

or for high value, low volume fertilizers.

7. Assessment of the climate change effects of methane and NOx

emissions from AFOs.

8. Assessment of the problem of air deposition of nutrients.

9. Assessment of food safety impacts from AFOs including pathogens,

hormones, antibiotics, and metals and the water quality impacts

resulting from the discharge of these and other compounds to the

environment.

10. Assessment of the quality of existing monitoring data.

11. Alternatives to production methods that use animal confinement.

12. Establishment of soil phosphorous threshold levels.

13. Alternatives for transporting manure, manure distribution, and

composting.

14. Water quality risk of dry manure management.

B. Coordinated Technology Transfer Plan--USDA and EPA will develop

a coordinated AFO technology transfer plan by October 1999. The plan

will describe how to disseminate the results of all research conducted

by the agencies. The plan will also describe the establishment of a

website on which to post all data results, analyses of the resulting

information, comments or responses to the results or analyses,

automated nutrient management tools, and any scholarly papers about the

research project or related information.

C. Virtual Center--USDA and EPA will develop a Virtual Center with

the goal of creating a single point of reference for both agencies, the

individual producers, the livestock industry, and the general public.

EPA and USDA will commit to developing a process for setting research

priorities, coordinating research activities, participating in joint

research endeavors, and sharing research results. The Virtual Center

will consist of a website to be maintained by personnel from both USDA

and EPA where research results, analyses, comments and responses to the

research and scholarly papers on the research project or related

information would be available to all.

Options

There are two options for realizing the three actions described

above in this section. Regardless of which option is

[[Page 50207]]

chosen, EPA and USDA will coordinate with the National Agricultural

Library in Beltsville, Maryland, which currently serves as a USDA

repository for research data and results, as well as the National

Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center. These options are not

mutually exclusive nor exhaustive:

1. Develop a National AFO Information and Research Center.

USDA and EPA would develop a National AFO Information and Research

Center. Appropriate EPA offices and USDA agencies would provide support

to the Center. Other Federal agencies (e.g., USGS, Department of

Energy) that are conducting relevant research, information management,

and technical assistance activities would be invited to join as

associated members. Members of the Center would contribute both

financial and personnel support to the Center's activities. The Center

would develop and manage a coordinated research program, compliance

assistance, data exchange and coordinated technical assistance. In the

short term, the Center would be tasked to complete the three action

items described above.

2. Establish a National AFO Information and Research Working Group.

USDA and EPA would establish a National AFO Information and

Research Working Group. Appropriate EPA offices and USDA agencies would

provide support to the working group. Other Federal agencies that are

conducting relevant research, information management, and technical

assistance activities would be invited to join as members. Members of

the working group would contribute both financial and personnel support

to the working group's activities, although each cooperating agency

would be directly responsible for the management of its human and

financial resources. The working group would develop and manage a

coordinated research, information exchange, and technical assistance

program. The working group would also collaborate and coordinate

activities with other appropriate entities. The Working Group would be

tasked to complete the three action items described above.

Strategic Issue #5 Encouraging Industry Leadership

Description

This Strategy intends to provide strong incentives for AFO owners

and operators to develop and implement CNMPs. Other sections of the

animal agriculture industry can also play a key role in helping to

encourage adoption of these CNMPs and address water quality problems on

individual AFOs. An example is the Comprehensive Environmental

Framework for Pork Production Operations recommended by the National

Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production. The Dialogue included

representatives from State Agriculture and Environmental Agencies,

USDA, EPA, and the pork industry. The National Pork Producers Council

is recommending that the Framework would apply to all commercial pork

production operations. The poultry industry is currently conducting a

similar dialogue. These industry-led initiatives can significantly

increase the voluntary adoption of CNMPs to protect water quality. In

addition to the animal agriculture industry, other groups ( i.e., co-

ops, the Certified Crop Advisors, and the National Association of

Independent Crop Consultants) can play a key role in helping AFOs

protect water quality and public health.

USDA and EPA invite comments on how the agricultural and livestock

industries can play an active role in ensuring that all AFOs have

CNMPs.

Desired Outcomes

The animal agriculture industry will take the lead in promoting and

ensuring the protection of water quality on individual AFOs though

development and implementation of CNMPs on all AFOs.

Actions

The following are actions that USDA and EPA may take to promote

industry involvement. USDA and EPA request comment on which of these

actions or other actions would benefit most from Federal involvement.

Industry-Led Initiatives--USDA and EPA will work with industry, in

particular integrators, to identify opportunities for greater industry

involvement in pollution prevention. This could include the integrators

providing technical, educational, and financial assistance to producers

and/or requiring CNMPs in contracts with producers. This could also

include industry use of climate, soil, and crop information supplied by

USDA and EPA to locate future operations. USDA and EPA will promote

industry-led dialogues in different AFO sectors such as the recently

concluded pork dialogue and the ongoing poultry dialogue.

Manure Brokering Networks--USDA and EPA will investigate with the

industry the potential for manure brokering networks to make sure

excess manure is available to the cropland which needs it.

AFO Owner/Operator Peer Network--USDA and EPA will promote with the

industry a peer network of AFO owners and operators willing to assist

other producers in their area with questions or assistance on CNMPs.

AFO Awards Program--USDA and EPA will work with AFO Industry groups

to develop an awards program to promote innovative and effective water

quality management of AFOs.

Disseminate Information--USDA and EPA will work with industry

(associations, integrators, etc.) to disseminate information on the

revised NPDES regulations and effluent guidelines, beginning in 2001.

Locally-Led Watershed Efforts--USDA and EPA will work with the AFO

industry to promote locally led watershed efforts.

Industry-Developed Planning Tools--USDA and EPA will encourage and

support industry efforts to develop and distribute planning tools to

members to enable them to develop and implement CNMPs.

Environmental Reviews--USDA and EPA will promote industry efforts

to conduct environmental reviews of members' AFOs to evaluate

environmental performance and assist in enhancing environmental

protection.

Manure/Fertilizer/Biosolids Dialogue--USDA and EPA will encourage

dialogue on how to maximize the benefits of using manure, fertilizer,

and biosolids.

Marketing and Promotion Orders--The 1996 Farm Bill authorized

conservation as a purpose for marketing and promotion orders. Marketing

and promotion orders allow an agriculture industry (e.g., livestock) to

assess a charge on the product to be used for conservation and

environmental activities. These marketing and promotion orders generate

needed funds for an activity and can provide financial support for all

its producers (e.g., growers). In implementing a marketing and

promotion order (i.e., check-off program) through the Secretary of

Agriculture, additional revenue can be generated to support, while

maintaining a level playing field throughout the industry, needed

nutrient management practices.

Strategic Issue #6 Data Coordination

Description

Several kinds of data are useful in assessing and managing the

water quality impacts of AFOs. Ambient water quality information allows

the identification of water quality impacts that may be attributable to

AFOs. Aggregate information about multiple

[[Page 50208]]

AFOs can be used to target both regulatory and voluntary activities,

including watershed-level planning. Finally, information about

individual AFOs is helpful for those assisting owners and operators in

developing CNMPs, identifying facilities that may be subject to the

regulatory program, and for the development and implementation of

watershed-level plans. These three kinds of data are available from

multiple sources, including USDA, EPA, USGS, Army Corps of Engineers,

and State agencies.

Recently, questions have been raised regarding the public

availability of some types of information related to AFOs- in

particular, data related to individual AFOs used by USDA to assist in

conservation planning. USDA and EPA affirm the need to protect the

trust relationship that exists between farmers and USDA and as

characterized by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman's call to

``maintain a firewall between voluntary and regulatory programs.'' On

May 22, 1998, NRCS issued a policy statement that prohibits the release

of AFO-specific information in conservation plans and case files that

has been developed through voluntary technical and financial assistance

programs. In accordance with EPA regulations most information on

individual facilities, collected or generated as part of the NPDES

program, is publicly available.

Desired Outcomes

USDA/EPA coordination on data sharing that protects the trust

relationship between USDA and farmers and provides regulatory

authorities with information that is useful in protecting water

quality.

Actions

Joint Policy Statement on Data Coordination--EPA and USDA will

develop a joint policy statement on information coordination. Both

agencies agree to review existing policies and guidance based on the

joint policy statement.

Water Quality Inventory Enhancements--EPA will improve the 305(b)

Water Quality Inventory to better report the water quality impacts

caused by AFOs.

Cost-Benefit Methodology--EPA and USDA will develop a joint

evaluation of the costs and benefits of this Strategy and options

considered in developing revised CAFO regulations. USDA and EPA will

convene an interagency economic analysis work group to develop the

economic analysis methodology and data that may be used in the

analysis.

CAFO Inventory--To ensure a program that is consistent with NPDES

program activities, EPA will develop an inventory of facilities subject

to regulatory activities.

Strategic Issue #7--Performance Measures and Accountability

Description

USDA and EPA believe that it is critical to establish performance

measures to gauge our success in implementing this Strategy and meeting

relevant goals in each agency's strategic plan established under the

Government Performance and Results Act. Three types of performance

measures are important. First, USDA and EPA are committed to completing

each of the actions described under the strategic issues. Second, there

are a number of programmatic activities (e.g., number of AFOs with

CNMPs, number of CAFOs covered by NPDES permits) that we will evaluate

to measure the level of activity being devoted to addressing water

quality impacts from AFOs. Finally, and most importantly, USDA and EPA

will develop appropriate environmental outcome measures to measure our

progress in implementing this Strategy.

We recognize that measurement of AFO progress in addressing water

quality issues will take time for two reasons: (1) it will take time to

develop appropriate measures; and (2) it will take time for water

quality progress to be achieved (maybe decades in some watersheds).

Desired Outcomes

An effective performance measurement system for AFOs that includes

appropriate programmatic output and environmental outcomes that allows

USDA, EPA and other stakeholders to determine the level of success and

to improve AFO-related programs.

Actions

Performance Measurement--USDA, EPA, and other Federal agencies will

establish a joint work group to develop a coordinated set of

programmatic outputs and environmental outcome measures for this

Strategy and identify a baseline against which to measure performance.

The work group will seek input from States and SWCDs and will develop a

performance measurement approach for AFOs by October 1999.

Watershed Nutrient Load Estimates--USDA and EPA will estimate by

January 2000 a baseline of nutrient loads to watersheds with potential

excess nutrients from animal waste using data from fertilizer sales,

USGS/EPA nutrient loading analysis, Census of Agriculture, permit

limits, and other estimates.

6.0 Roles

The successful implementation of this Strategy calls for a number

of individuals and organizations to fulfill several key roles. These

key roles are described in the following paragraphs.

Federal Government--It is the Federal government's

responsibility to establish minimum national expectations, technical

standards, and regulatory requirements for AFOs, and to help provide

the tools to achieve these expectations, standards, and requirements.

EPA, through the CWA, Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, and

the Safe Drinking Water Act, is charged with the regulatory

responsibilities, including permitting, compliance assurance, and

enforcement, that relate to AFOs. USDA, through conservation, research,

and education provisions of the Farm Bill and other legislation, is

largely responsible for programs that help AFOs meet performance

expectations through voluntary efforts. There are many ways that USDA,

EPA, and other Federal agencies can work together to assist animal

producers and the public including collaboration on research,

education, technical assistance and financial assistance. USDA and EPA,

in particular, will work closely and cooperatively, to ensure that the

goals and expectations of this Strategy are met and its guiding

principles are reflected in our combined and independent activities.

State/Local Government--State and local governments often

have the responsibility for implementing Federal programs. For example,

42 States and the Virgin Islands are authorized to implement the

current CWA provisions that affect CAFOs. States also implement various

nonpoint source control programs, including cost-share programs. States

and SWCDs are key partners in implementing environmental and

conservation programs. State Land Grant Universities are the primary

mechanism to deliver agricultural research and extension programs.

State, local, and Federal governments, and private sector partners work

together to ensure that the actions taken on the ground are appropriate

and cost effective. State and local governments also help determine

where water quality and public health protection must be enhanced

beyond the minimum performance expectations established through Federal

programs, and often deal with local issues such as siting and odor.

[[Page 50209]]

Individual Producers--No matter what size an operation or

from what management activity, the release of pollutants to surface or

groundwater from an AFO is to be avoided. It is the responsibility of

individual owners and operators, and the companies and industries they

are involved with, to minimize the release of pollutants from AFOs.

Every operation should be implementing a CNMP that minimizes the risks

of pollution.

Integrators--Integrators should ensure that their contract

growers are environmentally responsible. Feed mills and processing

plants should incorporate the environmental impacts of the dissociated

production operations into the siting and sizing of their plants.

Integrators can also help develop alternatives for manure use and

transport.

Livestock Industry--The livestock industry as a whole has

an obligation to educate its members and to provide leadership to

ensure that its practices do not adversely impact society or the

environment. Many sectors of the livestock industry have shown

leadership by moving forward to establish new, industry-led efforts to

improve the siting and management of AFOs, and to provide training to

operators. This leadership must be enhanced and continue.

Other Private Sector--The private sector can continue to

contribute to new technologies and innovative strategies that

capitalize on the nutrient and energy value of animal manure and

related by-products of AFOs. This would include vendors and consultants

of animal manure treatment and management systems. Various

organizations, including livestock organizations and AFO-related

companies provide educational programs to inform AFO owners and

operators about Federal and State goals, standards, rules, and

permitting processes, and to teach them how they can protect

environmental quality and comply with regulatory provisions. The

agricultural and environmental consulting community can also respond by

helping to ensure that appropriate technical resources are available to

assist with development of CNMPs for producers. Fertilizer producers

and dealers can provide information on integrating use of manure and

other nutrient sources to ensure appropriate nutrient use.

Research and Educational Institutions--Public and private

research organizations provide much of the knowledge and technology to

better manage and utilize manure and related by-products of livestock

production. USDA's and EPA's research, education, and technical

assistance programs will provide leadership in developing new and

innovative technologies for AFOs and analyzing their effectiveness.

Watershed or Community Responsibilities--Every watershed

where the concentration of AFOs is a potential source of pollution

should have a watershed- or area-wide plan that helps AFO owners,

operators, and others to work together to prevent pollution. Such

planning is particularly important in areas where problems exist, such

as where the quantity of manure and nutrients produced by AFOs exceeds

what can be safely applied to land to meet crop needs. Locally led

watershed efforts promote coordinated and integrated decision making to

find sound, locally acceptable ways to achieve environmental quality.

Environmental Groups--Environmental groups and grass-roots

organizations play an important role in focusing public attention on

environmental concerns with respect to animal production activities.

Environmental groups can provide ``on-site'' reports about specific

environmental quality concerns and can educate its members, the general

public, the agricultural community and the media about important

environmental concerns at the local, State, and national level.

Signed in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 1998.

James R. Lyons,

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Dana D. Minerva,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

[FR Doc. 98-25138 Filed 9-18-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-16-p