As cited from EPA fact sheet “ Proposed Regulations to Address Water Pollution from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,” EPA 833-F-00-016, January 2001.

The following guide provides an overview of topics in the proposed CAFO rules.  The topics selected for review in this guide may help you in preparing comments to address the proposed CAFO rules.  The topics identified are not inclusive; rather the topics highlight major provisions of the proposed rules.

The guide identifies proposed rule changes by chapter, paragraph, subparagraph and paragraph title.  For example: VII. B.3 Three-Tier Structure.  Page numbers reference the printed version of the document as published in the Federal Register.   If you download the document off the internet, the page numbers will not match, but the chapter, paragraph and subparagraph can still be used to identify specific wording in the Federal Register document. 

In addition to the topics listed in this guide one or more questions are included.  You may choose to use these questions to assist in preparing your comments.  This document is designed only to serve as a guide. It is not designed to provide specific comments on the proposed rule changes.

This guide was prepared by faculty and staff of the College of Agriculture, Iowa State University and Iowa State University Extension.

Please direct your questions and comments regarding this guide to: Angela Rieck-Hinz, 2104 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.  Phone (515) 294-9590, or email amrieck@iastate.edu

A list of acronyms used in the following document:

AFO - Animal Feeding Operation
AU - Animal Unit
BPT - Best Practice Technology
CAFO - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CNMP - Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
DNR or IDNR - Iowa Department of Natural Resources
EPA or U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service)
PNP - Permit Nutrient Plan
PPM - Part Per Million
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

You can access a copy of the current rules and supporting materials by visiting: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/preamble.cfm?program_id=7  or you may call (202) 260-7786 and leave a message to request a copy of the document. You will reach a recording.  Ask for document number 40CFR, Parts 122 and 412 or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations; Proposed Rule.  The Federal Register document will be mailed directly to you.

Writing Effective Comments

Here are some tips from the EPA that may make your comments more effective.

• Be as specific as possible in stating your objection to/support for a component and your suggestions for alternative changes.
• Focus comments on issues where you can cite data to support your position.  Help EPA understand the practical (or impractical) implications of the proposed rules.
• If the language in the regulation is confusing to you, it is confusing to others.  Help EPA rewrite it to achieve their objectives. Tell EPA, from a scientific/technical/economic perspective, how the proposed rules can be cost-effective. 
• If EPA has left out elements that you believe are important to control pollution from CAFOs, please include your suggestions for additions or alternatives in your comments.  Include support for existing sections of the rule that you believe are important.  A component that does not receive support may not be retained in the final regulation.

Comments on the proposed CAFO regulations may be sent to the following address.  Comments must be postmarked by midnight July 30, 2001.  The EPA requests that you submit an original and three copies of your written comments and enclose any reference materials you cite.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Proposed Rule
USEPA Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington D.C. 20460

Comments may also be sent via email to: CAFOS.comments@epa.gov  Comments submitted electronically must reference the docket number OW-00-27.

Current Definition of a CAFO:  Under the Clean Water Act, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are defined as point sources of pollution and therefore are subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit regulations.  Under these regulations, CAFOs are defined as facilities with 1,000 or more animal units (AU).  This includes both confinement facilities and open feedlots.  An animal feeding operation (AFO) that confines 300 to 1,000 AU is defined as a CAFO if it discharges pollutants through a man-made structure or if pollutants are discharged to waterways that run through the facility or come into contact with the confined animals.  An AFO including those with fewer than 300 AU can be designated as a CAFO if it meets the above definitions and is a significant source of water pollution (one AU is equal to one beef animal, 0.7 dairy cows, or 2.5 finishing swine).

Proposed Changes to the Definition of a CAFO: The EPA has proposed two alternative criteria, two-tier or three-tier, for defining CAFOs as indicated below. Both tiers will require CAFOs, over the threshold criteria, to follow a nutrient management plan and capture and store runoff from a rainfall event up to the 25-year, 24-hour storm.

VII. B. 2 (p. 2996) Two-Tier Structure:  This proposal establishes which operations are defined as CAFOs based on size alone.  EPA proposed to lower the threshold from 1000 AU to 500 AU or 750 AU.  An AFO is a CAFO if it has the threshold number of AUs or more.  Facilities with less than the threshold AU may become CAFOs only if designated by the permit authority.  

VII. B.3 (p. 2998) Three-Tier Structure: This proposal retains the existing three-tier structure, but amends conditions under which the middle tier, 300 to 1,000 AU, would be defined as CAFOs.  It would require all middle tier AFOs to either apply for NPDES permit or certify to the permit authority they do not meet any of the conditions that would require them to obtain a permit.

Should EPA lower AU requirements to be defined as a CAFO?  If so, what is the appropriate size?  Is size alone a sufficient measure of who should be permitted?  Are other factors such as management system, distance to water, topography, etc., regardless of size better criteria?

VII.C.1 (p. 3004) Change the AFO Definition to Clearly Distinguish Pasture Land.  The proposed language would clarify that animals are not considered to be “stabled or confined” when they are in areas such as pastures or rangeland that sustain crops or forage during the entire time animals are present.

Does the EPA clearly define the exception to winter-feeding areas?  Are there other specific examples when the vegetation requirements may not apply? 

VII.C.2.b (p. 3005) How will Operations with Mixed Animal Types be Counted? EPA currently requires the operator to add all animals at the site to determine the total animal units in determining if it is a CAFO.  They are proposing to drop this mixed calculation, but if any one species meets the CAFO definition, manure from all animals on the site is subject to permit conditions.

How should EPA count AUs in mixed animal operations in making a CAFO determination?  For example, if a farm has over 2,500 hogs in confinement (more than 1,000 AU) and a small open cattle feedlot (less than 300 AU), should the feedlot be required to meet all the CAFO permit requirements?

Proposed Changes to the Definition of Co-permitting:
VII.C.5 (p. 3023) Co-permitting Entities that Exert Substantial Operational Control over a CAFO.  EPA is proposing that permit authorities co-permit entities that exercise substantial operation control over CAFOs along with the owner/operator of the facility.

Should the fact that an entity owns the animals that are raised in a CAFO be sufficient to require the entity to be a joint permittee?  How could EPA structure the co-permitting provisions to achieve the intended environmental outcome without causing negative impacts to the growers? Should EPA retain the provision that requires the state to make a determination that an entity exercises control over CAFOs? Should an Environmental Management System developed by a processor be adequate to waive the co-permitting requirement?

Proposed Changes in Land Application of Manure from CAFOs

VII.D.2 (p. 3029) How is EPA Interpreting the Agricultural Storm Water Exemption with Respect to Land Application of CAFO generated manure?  Currently run-off from manure applied to fields at recommended rates is not considered a discharge because of the storm water exemption and therefore does not require a NPDES permit for the field.  EPA is proposing to revise the storm water definition such that the permit exemption for agricultural storm water would apply to field runoff only if the manure were applied at a proper nitrogen (or phosphorus) based application rate.  Production areas (lots) are not eligible for the storm water exemption.

Should EPA revise the storm water exemption for land application?  Should land application be exempt only if applied at recommended rates using best management practices?  How should producers document that they followed recommended rates?

VII.E.1 (p. 3032) What is a Permit Nutrient Plan (PNP)?  EPA is proposing to require all CAFO operators to develop and implement a Permit Nutrient Plan or PNP.  The PNP is a site-specific plan that describes how the operator intends to meet the effluent discharge limitations and other requirements of the NPDES permit.  The EPA is proposing to require that a PNP be developed or reviewed and modified by a certified planner.  A PNP will establish the allowable manure application rate for land applying manure and wastewater and will document how that rate is derived.  The PNP would also address other site-specific conditions that could affect manure and wastewater application.  It would describe manure and soil sampling techniques as well as calibration of manure application equipment and operational procedures for equipment at the production area. 

Should a PNP be required as part of the permit process?  Should producers be allowed to develop and document their own plans?  Should states be allowed to develop the standards for manure nutrient management plans in lieu of PNPs? Are current state-required manure management plans adequate to meet the needs of a PNP?

VII.E.5.b (p. 3039) Would Timing Restrictions on Land Application of CAFO-generated Manure be Required?  EPA is considering establishing a national prohibition on applying CAFO-generated manure to frozen, snow covered or saturated ground.  Application on frozen ground may be appropriate in some areas provided there are restrictions on the slope of ground and proximity to surface water.

Should manure application be restricted on snow covered, frozen or saturated ground? Should certain criteria such as slope be a limiting factor if applying manure to snow covered, frozen or saturated ground?

VII.E.5.f (p. 3041). Erosion Control.  EPA is requesting public comment on the suitability of requiring erosion control as a special condition of an NPDES permit to protect water quality from sediment eroding from fields where CAFO manure is applied to crops. 

What, if any, erosion control practices should be required as part of the permit?  Would current conservation practices implemented by the NRCS meet this erosion control provision?

Effluent Guidelines

VIII.C.3 (p. 3053) Best Practicable Control Technology Limitations Currently Available (BPT).   In addition to other requirements, Option 1(nitrogen-based planning) of BPTs would prohibit application of manure and wastewater within 100 feet of surface waters, tile drain inlets, sinkholes and agricultural drainage wells.

Is this practice reasonable? Currently, Iowa has separation distances for land application of manure from open feedlots and confinement feeding operations, regardless of size.  Are these regulations adequate to meet the needs of effluent guidelines?  For more information on Iowa separation distances, please see publication DNR 113 – Separation Distances for Land Application of Manure from Open Feed Lots and Confinement Feeding Operations, January 2000

http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/immag/pubs/sepdstb41.doc

Option 2 of BPTs would retain all requirements of Option 1, but requires manure application rates to be based on phosphorus (p. 3056).

Should EPA:   1) approve/disapprove the phosphorus method developed by the states? 2) establish standards that must be included in the Phosphorus Index? 3) establish minimum standards on how specific criteria must be factored into a Phosphorus Index, i.e., specifying weights for various factors? 4) establish a standard for the phosphorus threshold method, i.e., using 1 ppm P in the runoff as the basis for the threshold? 5) establish soil sampling protocols?
Iowa NRCS has adopted a Phosphorus Index.  For more information please see http://www.ia.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Phosphorus/phosphorusstandard.html

Should EPA require training for people  who apply manure? (p. 3057)

Is this a reasonable expectation? Currently the State of Iowa requires certification of all commercial manure applicators.  In addition, the law requires confinement site operators with >200,000 lbs of swine or poultry or >400,000 lbs of beef or dairy in confinement to be certified to land apply manure.  If EPA requires training for people land applying manure are the current State rules sufficient? For more information see http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/immag/mac.html

Section IX. A. (p.3070) How Do the Proposed Changes Affect State CAFO Programs?  This proposed rule requires states to revise their NPDES permit programs as necessary to be consistent with the revised federal requirements.  State permit programs are not required to be identical to federal programs, however, they must be at least as stringent as the federal programs.  States are not precluded from imposing requirements that are more stringent than those required under federal regulations.

Will there be multiple layers of regulations to meet State, Federal CAFO, Federal AFO, or local regulations?  What happens if producers are required to file multiple manure management plans to meet requirements of the federal CAFO programs, USDA’s CNMP program, and state or local plans? 

Economics

X.F.1.a (p. 3088) Economic Impacts to Existing CAFOs under the Proposed Regulations.    Three criteria are used for economic achievability of the proposed regulatory options: 1) sales test; 2) projected post-compliance 10-year cash flow; and 3) post compliance debt to asset ratio.  EPA estimates that 1,420 hog operations, 320 dairies, 150 broiler operations, and 10 beef operations would experience financial stress.

Sales Test:  If the cost of compliance is less than 3% of gross revenues from animal sales and up to 5% under certain conditions, the option is “affordable”. 

10-Year Cash Flow:  The post compliance 10-year cash flow should be positive.  Analysis indicated that some operations would experience financial stress assuming that no cost of compliance is passed through to processors or consumers.

Debt to Asset Ratio: If the post compliance debt to asset ratio is projected to be less than 40% the option is affordable.  Because EPA could not find a statistically valid data series for beef feedlot balance sheet information, they used cow-calf balance sheet information to represent feedlots.

Are these effective measures of the economic impact on livestock operations?  What is an acceptable cost for farmers to pay to protect water quality? How much would proposed changes cost to implement on your operation?