The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still discussing several issues relating to the new CAFO rule, scheduled to be finalized later this year. "EPA staff is preparing summaries of 19 issues for management to decide on the proposed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) rule," said Jean-Mari Peltier, counselor to the EPA administrator, at a meeting in Amarillo, Texas.

"It is too early to tell on some proposed regulations what the final outcome will be," says Ben Weinheimer, , Regulatory Manager for the Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA). There are certain areas in the proposal that TCFA is concerned with.

Some of the regulations that are being discussed include further provisions for restrictions of offsite land application of manure, according to Weinheimer.

One possibility would require a farmer to sign a statement with the EPA in regards to accepting the manure. The farmer could also be required to have a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) in order to put the manure on his farm.

"The problem with that is two-fold," says Weinheimer. "First, who really wants to sign a statement with the EPA? And second, it would cost money to write a NMP for the farm," he says. The EPA estimates that developing and managing a NMP would cost $1,300 per year per operation, regardless off size.

"This would place manure fertilizer at a great disadvantage to commercial products. It would be much easier to go to the local CO-OP and purchase fertilizer."

Another regulation under consideration proposes co-permitting individuals or companies with substantial control over cattle in a feedyard. Essentially this would require cattle owners to have their name on a permit in order to feed cattle at a feedyard. "The EPA is targeting poultry and swine integrators with this proposed regulation," Weinheimer says. But feedyards could possibly fall under the same rule.

Another area of concern of TCFA is on individual versus general permits. "General permits fit the feedyard industry because most all feedyards have similar environmental management techniques, like lagoon ponds," he says. But the regulation could change to require larger feedyards, those with 1,000 head or more, be individually permitted by the EPA. "The cost impact for the EPA is substantial. It would take a lot of time to individually permit all of these feedyards, with little or no changes in the permit."

Other areas the EPA is still discussing include requirement for retention pond liners, air emissions, Environmental Management Systems and recognition of state-equivalent programs.

The EPA estimates that up to 44,000 operations might be covered by the proposed regulations, depending on the final definition of a CAFO. Currently, only those with 1,000 head or more of beef cattle are defined as a CAFO. Under the proposed regulations, those with 500 head or more, or less likely 300 head or more, could be considered a CAFO.

The CAFO rule will be finalized in December, according to TCFA. ©