 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
Cattle feeders are watching closely the Clinton administration's Clean Water Action Plan that is supposed to be implemented late this summer. The administration rolled out the plan in February, 1998. A year later, they are reviewing the progress they have made. They determined that while pollution from factories and sewage treatment plants has been dramatically reduced, the Environmental Protection Agency claims runoff from agricultural activities continue to degrade the environment. In order to reduce such pollution, they developed a Unified Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations under the Clean Water Action Plan. There are about 15,000 to 20,000 entities that EPA believes will be affected by the strategy. Those entities are Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). They are defined as lotted facilities with more than 1,000 head of beef cattle with no vegetative growth in the pens. Animal Feeding Operations or AFOs hold less than 1,000 head and are typically not affected by the strategy. "The EPA encourages AFOs to voluntarily comply with regulations," says Ben Weinheimer, regulatory affairs manager for Texas Cattle Feeders Association. But unless the AFO is a significant contributor to pollution, there is not a mandatory compliance policy, he says. "However, the EPA can evaluate each AFO. For example, if the EPA discovers an AFO whose pens drain directly into a stream, it can designate the AFO as a CAFO regardless of size due to water pollution," Weinheimer says. "Then the AFO must comply with CAFO regulations." The EPA has put a number of topics in the strategy related to feed management, manure handling and storage, land application of manure, land management and other utilization options, Weinheimer says. "As far as nutrient management and record keeping of land that is owned by a CAFO, that can be accomplished," he says. "We already do that." The feeding operations most immediately affected would be those that are greater than 1,000 animal units that have not yet obtained a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. "EPA's goal and their strategy indicates that all those greater than 1,000 head would have some type of permit," Weinheimer says. "Their intentions, at this time, are to use the Region 6 permit as the model permit, which we (most TCFA member yards) are currently permitted under. They want to use it as a model permit for the nation." This is good news for cattle feeders in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, which make up EPA's Region 6. The TCFA was involved in the process of developing that permit. "Due to the fact that EPA headquarters intends to move forward using the Region 6 permit as the model permit, we should see minimal impact in this first round of new permitting, other than a few administrative changes," Weinheimer says. There will be other parts of the nation that will likely be very affected by the permitting. This is primarily due to the fact that the EPA themselves or the state agencies that they've delegated the program to have been lax in implementing stringent requirements for CAFOs. "Their goal is to get those large CAFOs that aren't permitted within regulations and permit them." Although much of the strategy follows the Region 6 permit, there are a few areas of the strategy cattlemen are concerned about. One area that Weinheimer questions would require the owners and operators of CAFOs to be responsible for what a farmer does with manure that they take from the feedyard. Cattle feeders also question whether they should be held accountable for how the manure is used by a farmer spreading it on his crops. There is no delineation between the use of organic fertilizers such as feedyard manure and commercial fertilizers. There is no provision for such accountability by the makers of commercial fertilizers. Weinheimer said the data that the EPA is using to base their decisions on this part of the strategy is incomplete at best. He questions how a feedyard operator can be held accountable for the farming practices of another individual. Cattleman are also concerned about the EPA's one-size fits all approach to the strategy, both with differing species and with differing geographic locations. What works for a covered feeding operation concerning pork or poultry is not necessarily viable for a cattle feeding operation covering a much larger area. The strategy also calls for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans for all Animal Feeding Operations by 2009. "The USDA and EPA stated that there would be flexibility as to what is included in this plan, however, it is our impression that all operators will have the same basic requirements," says Ross Wilson, TCFA vice president. One of those mentioned is feed management. While EPA has backed off on dictating feed management, it is still included in the strategy and there is a concern that there will be mandatory feed requirements in the permits. "Feeding practices vary regionally and even seasonally and the goal is efficiency and productivity," Wilson says. In Idaho, he said, many of the lots feed potato by-products and even feed french fries that are rejected from fast food restaurants. These examples of variations in feed would make it extremely difficult to regulate and should not be addressed under the Clean Water Act. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
All information is copywrited by Feed Lot magazine and cannot be printed or re-printed
without the publishers express consent. Please contact
Feed Lot Magazine for reprint and copy authorization.
|
||||