7.6 Environmental Management

Animal Feeding Operations (AFO’s)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES) do not stand alone in protecting America's waters from NPS runoff from animal feeding operations. In particular, the state-led programs, when coupled with various Farm Bill, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act incentives and support, can provide significant and continuing opportunity for major environmental quality protection. Federal water policies must recognize that the value of the state programs, if enhanced through federal efforts, could provide a firm foundation for a sound national NPS policy, including addressing the runoff associated with animal agriculture. States should have the flexibility and the authority to protect their natural resources from potential negative impacts resulting from livestock production by enacting statutes, regulations, and voluntary programs based upon sound science, economic feasibility, and the specific needs of the state. As an example, natural resource protection on medium-sized livestock farms will be best served by state programs which match requirements with available resources, because conservation does not occur without farm viability. States implementing effective zero discharge programs for confined animal feeding operations (CAFO’s) should not be forced to require CAFO’s to also have NPDES permits.

EPA does not have authority under the CWA to subject the land application of manure to some form of NPDES permit requirements, as it has recently sought to do. The intent of the CWA is clear – non-point sources of pollution are not subject to mandatory regulations under the CWA, but are to be addressed through voluntary, outcome-based programs. The legislative language makes a clear and concise distinction between point and non-point source management. The land application of manure has been a standard practice in agriculture since humans first introduced livestock into their agricultural activities. It has been an integral part of agriculture’s fertility and land improvement ever since. As such, and as for any of the other agricultural activities taking place across the land, the land application of manure is a nonpoint source activity under the CWA. It is imperative that the federal clean water program not require states to operate in any different manner.

Congress must support USDA’s incentives and NRCS technical assistance to help producers deal with their livestock manure management challenges, and EPA must continue to work with USDA in support of these efforts. Private sources of technical assistance on nutrient management matters will increase in importance as animal agriculture works to improve its manure management activities. Although the private technical assistance delivery system has been growing dramatically in recent years, it is nowhere near the capacity needed to prepare the number and kind of plans that EPA and USDA have envisioned. The federal agencies must not rely on the private sector delivery system beyond its capacity to provide solid and technically sound assistance. To do so would result in poor nutrient management plans, little help to the environment, and great damage to the credibility and future usefulness of this fledgling service sector. Such an initiative must build off the existing federal-state public conservation delivery system. The private sector can provide little of the needed services without maintaining a viable NRCS field staff and county Soil and Water Conservation District capability.

Compliance with state and federal regulations by livestock operations should offer some form of presumption of compliance with the objectives of regulatory programs and provide reduced liability associated with off-farm environmental degradation or nuisance law suits. This so-called environmental assurance concept or "safe harbor", which incorporates relief from additional regulations and enforcement, is necessary to ensure active voluntary participation.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been regulating Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for more than 25 years. In many cases, the states preceded the federal government in both recognizing and regulating issues related to animal feeding operations. Throughout the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, a number of states set higher or more restrictive standards for CAFOs, usually as a result of local issues or information. Some states developed permit programs and/or required design criteria for protection of both surface water and ground water. Other states implemented voluntary, incentive-based programs with strategies for nutrient management. These efforts have been led by state agriculture and conservation agencies working together with federal agencies, livestock and poultry industries, land grant universities, engineering consultants, scientists, and other local stakeholders.

Both state and federal CAFO rules have been reevaluated and updated over the past several years to keep up with industry changes, new technologies, and public perceptions. EPA finalized new regulations for CAFOs in 2003 which expanded the number of operations covered by the Clean Water Act (CWA) permit program to an estimated 15,500 operations. New permit requirements were added to include comprehensive nutrient management planning, and to extend coverage to include all poultry operations of a certain size. EPA is currently revising its 2003 CAFO rules to conform to a ruling of the 2^nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2005. EPA proposed a revised rule in 2006, but it has not yet been finalized.

NASDA supports EPA’s proposed 2006 revised rule. Now, the state agriculture departments and other agricultural stakeholders are anxiously awaiting the agency’s final rule. We have urged EPA to limit the final rule to the issues addressed by the court ruling and to provide more clarity on the regulatory obligations of livestock operations. States will need time to modify their CAFO programs to conform with the final rule. In late July, EPA announced that certain compliance deadlines would be extended until February 2009. This is helpful and will allow the states and other stakeholders an opportunity to adjust to the new requirements.

Although states have additional time to implement the new CAFO program requirements, the changes will create a resource and administrative challenge for state agriculture and conservation agencies. EPA has estimated that the CAFO regulations could result in compliance costs of $850 million to $940 million per year.

States will need to increase our efforts to identify, permit and inspect CAFOs. A major challenge is the ability of producers and state agency personnel to prepare the thousands of new nutrient management plans that will be required under the new rule. Livestock operators will need to address multiple nutrients in their waste management plans. They will need additional technical assistance, education, and training to comply with their permits. This creates additional demands on the state agriculture and conservation agencies which provide technical and financial assistance.

The key to achieving the national goal of assuring that animal feeding operations are managed to protect water quality is to provide states with the flexibility and resources to meet legal and programmatic responsibilities. We strongly believe that programs for managing animal nutrients are most appropriately implemented at the state and local level.

Classification of Agricultural Byproducts in Environmental Regulations

Livestock manure, poultry litter, crop residue disposal and other agricultural byproducts contain or volatilize into naturally occurring organic compounds such as orthophosphate, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. These naturally occurring organic compounds result from routine agricultural operations and therefore do not meet the definition of a "hazardous chemical" under the Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA), or a Superfund "release" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), nor do these compounds contain a "hazardous substance" as defined under CERCLA. As such, these agricultural byproducts produced during routine agricultural operations should not be subject to the provisions of EPCRA and CERCLA.

Rangelands, Pasturelands & Grasslands

NASDA recognizes the importance of grasslands and rangelands. These land resources account for almost one-half of the total area in the United States and are found in all 50 states.

Our land resources are important to agricultural and livestock production but also provide many benefits to society: clean air and water, open space, recreation and wildlife habitat. These lands are the base of our protein food supply and the proper grazing of these lands is essential to maintaining a healthy landscape and environment.

NADSA strongly supports efforts to promote and enhance the stewardship of these lands. The conservation programs of the NRCS, Forest Service, BLM, and EPA are strongly supported by state departments of agriculture.

NASDA fully supports the ongoing research by USDA’s Agriculture Research Service (ARS) National Program in Rangeland, Pasture and Forages. This research will produce valuable scientific information and new tools for assessing and managing rangelands and pasture lands. NASDA appreciates the contribution of the Universities and Extension programs in this nation. The ability of this nation’s people to feed themselves with less than 10% of their income is in a significant degree due to their efforts.

Noxious Weeds

 

Funding for Noxious Weed Programs

Funding for weed management efforts should emphasize supporting cooperative and coordinated approaches among all types of landowners within a geographically defined area. Partial or incomplete cooperation undermines the ability of State departments of agriculture to successfully implement statewide noxious weed management plans. The groundwork for such cooperation with federal land management agencies has been established with the passage of federal legislation such as the Natural Resource Protection Cooperative Agreement Act (H.R. 658/S. 2739) as well as specific funding streams such as the USDA-US Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection Program. Allocating additional funding to federal agencies will enhance their ability to be full partners with state agencies and local communities. When federal agencies have infused new funds to jump start local efforts to manage noxious weeds, they has cost-effectively prevented the spread of noxious weeds onto uninfested public and private lands and established long-term partnerships to address local and regional weed management needs. Any policies dealing with noxious weeds should build on this type of success where the federal government can contribute funds to efforts that emphasize cooperation and coordination amongst the public and private landowners in a defined area.

Congress should fund legislation that supports coordinated management of noxious weeds. This funding should be channeled through block grants to the states in order to implement state strategic plans to stop the spread of noxious weeds. It is at the state level that most of the strategic planning for noxious weed management is carried out. State departments of agriculture have knowledge of the individual weed management areas and are the most qualified to administer funding to the wide variety of weed management areas within a state.

Congress should pass and fund legislation that creates a national Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) Fund for use by States and local governments in the rapid elimination of new invasive plant species to the United States or its regions. Numerous recent studies, some notably conducted by the Government Accountability Office, have concluded that investing in EDRR efforts is one of the most cost-effective strategies the Federal government could employ to make a tangible difference in invasive species management. Administering a dedicated and stable funding source that can help States and local governments respond quickly and aggressively to new invasions will greatly improve the State’s and the Nation’s ability to prevent the establishment and spread of additional noxious weeds.

 

Regulatory Environment

State and federal lands must be subject to the same regulations and expectations regarding the control of noxious weeds that private landowners are.

The Federal Noxious Weed Act has not kept up with the increase in global trade. Many invasive plants are not restricted under the Federal Noxious Weed Act, rendering the current permitting system inadequate to stop the introduction of detrimental species. Federal agencies responsible for routine inspections of imported goods at US ports-of-entry need regulatory tools and training to identify and quarantine suspected invasive plants without limitations or questioning of their authority. Therefore, NASDA supports the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) efforts to update and strengthen the regulations in 7 CFR 319.7, also known as Quarantine 37 (Q 37). These are principal quarantine regulations governing the import of plants for planting and will significantly help to prevent the inadvertent introduction of invasive plants.

A protective rule in Q 37 should utilize a pre-import "screening" mechanism. Plants that are non-invasive should be permitted entry while plants with uncertain risk must be subject to further testing and study prior to granting permission for import. USDA-APHIS is urged to fully staff the development and implementation of this important regulation.

The federal government should devise means to more closely monitor movement of invasive species through both traditional channels and through Internet sales. Closer regulation must be paired with an increased effort to educate wholesale and retail members of the nursery industry as well as the end-buyers.

 

Research Needs

As global trade increases, the number of species introductions will continue to rise. The federal government should fund research to evaluate the risk or invasiveness of newly introduced species. Furthermore, it should fund research that seeks to reduce the number of accidental introductions through packing materials, shipping ballast, etc.

Research should focus on finding economically feasible management strategies. Many of the technological advances in controlling weeds in cropland situations have been a direct result of federally funded agricultural research. However, funding for research focused on the biology, ecology, and sustainable management strategies of invasive noxious weeds has been limited. Funding for these programs has declined by as much as 50 percent during the past decade. The cost of many of the current management strategies for noxious weeds on rangelands rival the purchase price of land in some areas of the country.

Noxious weeds continue to spread across the United States causing significant economic and environmental damage. While there have been many new herbicides developed and registered for agronomic crops, there remains an inadequate selection for the long term control of invasive, noxious weeds. Strong federal support is needed to ensure the availability of environmentally sound tools. The U.S. EPA should expedite the regulatory approval of effective noxious weed control herbicides. As new, ecologically-sound herbicides are approved by EPA, federal land management agencies such as NPS, BLM, and USFS should temporarily increase personnel needed to speed the approval of such herbicides for use on federal lands and avoid unnecessary delays. Furthermore, there is a need for enhanced research of biological controls as long-term control options for established noxious weed populations. USDA APHIS and the Agricultural Research Service should invest additional resources in the discovery, selection, and introduction of new biological control agents for noxious weed control.

 

Noxious Weeds on Federal Land

Section 15 of the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) should be adhered to by all managers of federal land. This act requires each federal agency to 1) designate an office or person to develop and coordinate an undesirable plants management program for control of undesirable plants on federal lands under the agency's jurisdiction; 2) establish and adequately fund an undesirable plants management program through the agency's budgetary process; 3) complete and implement cooperative agreements with state agencies regarding the management of undesirable species on federal lands under the agency's jurisdiction; and 4) establish integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant species targeted under cooperative agreements. The act stipulates that in the event an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required under NEPA, the federal agencies shall complete such assessment or statements within one year after the requirement for such assessment or statement is ascertained. Unfortunately, one year is an inadequate and unrealistic timeframe to complete NEPA assessments or statements. It then goes on to detail the cooperative agreements with state agencies the federal agencies shall enter into.

One of the critical components of the Federal Noxious Weed Act is the requirement that the federal government should adequately fund noxious weed management. It is imperative that the federal government adequately fund noxious weed management at a level commensurate with the scope of the problem on federal lands. The amount budgeted for noxious weed management on federally owned lands is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of infested acres.

 

Accountability

Funding allocations should be divided with separate amounts designated for planning and actual land management activities. With the current fiscal procedures, federal land management areas that do not want to raise public ire by using herbicides for noxious weed treatments simply stall actual management decisions by dragging out the planning process. Furthermore, federal land management agencies should comply with statewide weed management plans. It is counterproductive when an agency does not work towards state-mandated eradication of a certain noxious weed when adjacent private landowners and local governments must and do comply. Cooperation and coordinated action across the landscape is the only way to achieve statewide weed management goals.

The standard of accountability for weed management within the federal government needs to be increased. Inventories of noxious weeds should be completed and available to the states. Furthermore, inventories should reflect the numbers of acres treated, the efficacy of the treatments used, the number of acres replanted with desirable species, and the cost per treated acre.

State strategic noxious weed management plans are developed in consultation with federal agencies. When these plans are adopted, federal agencies should be full partners in implementing them. States have a legitimate role in developing these plans in order to achieve coordinated efforts across the landscape. Federal agencies should be held accountable for their partnership role. As in state budgets, line items within federal agency budgets should be established specifically for the control of noxious weeds. This will ensure that noxious weed management is a high priority and will reduce the potential for funds to be spent on unrelated projects such as wildfire mitigation, wild horse management, or pine beetle control efforts.