This is a self-guided learning lesson about air and water regulations related to livestock and poultry production. Anticipated time for completion: 60 minutes. At the end is a quiz that can be submitted for a certificate of completion. Teachers/educators should check out the accompanying instructional materials.
This lesson includes 3 sections:
Water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Air quality regulations
Record keeping and its importance to regulatory compliance
Sections 1 and 2 include resources on the relationship between federal, state, and local authorities.
1. Water Quality Regulations, Including the Clean Water Act
Watch this 20 minute video presented by Thomas Bass, Montana State University.
Records protect producers and document that they are doing the right thing. Watch these four short videos that include viewpoints of regulators and farmers about the importance of records.
When you have completed the above activities, take this quiz. If you score at least 7 of 10 correct, you will receive a certificate of completion via email. If you are a member of an organization that requires continuing education units (CEUs), we recommend that you submit your certificate to them for consideration as a self-study credit. American Registry of Professional Animal Scientist (ARPAS) members can self-report their completion of this module at the ARPAS website.
Developing plans and keeping records are a necessary part of managing animals. Planning processes are designed to chart a path toward making the best possible management decisions. Good records are often the only way to demonstrate that they followed the plan or, in some cases, explain deviations from the plan. Permitted operations may be required to develop specified plans and keep related records. Even non-permitted operations may need plans and records for cost-share eligibility or to certify their products for a particular market.
Important note: Congress has prohibited EPA from expending any funds to implement subpart JJ (manure management) of the rule. Industry efforts to overturn subpart JJ are underway, but the outcome is unknown at this time. Though EPA cannot technically enforce the rule, livestock and poultry operations should remain aware of the requirements in the event the Congressional prohibition is allowed to expire.
Which Livestock or Poultry Facilities Meet the Reporting Threshhold?
Several industries are impacted by this rule, including animal agriculture. The rule estimates that around 100 animal facilities will meet the threshhold of 25,000 metric tons of annual carbon dioxide (equivalent) emissions. The following table was excerpted from page 558 of the rule after it was first published (2009). For updates, please visit the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.
Animal Population (Annual) Below Which Facilities Are Not Required to Report Emissions
Animal Group
Average Annual Animal Population (Head)
Beef
29,300
Dairy
3,200
Swine
34,100
Poultry: Layers
723,000
Poultry: Broilers
38,160,000
Poultry: Turkeys
7,710,000
Facilities below these populations will not be required to report emissions. Facilities that meet or exceed these populations will need to conduct an analysis to determine if they emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalent.
An important point in the reporting requirements for animal agriculture are that emissions need to be calculated and reported only for the manure management system. Enteric fermentation (fermentation occurring naturally in the rumen or gut) is not included. Emissions from land application of manure are also not included.
Large facilities with more than one type of animal (even if the species present do not individually meet the population listed above) will need to calculate a combined animal group factor.
Reducing GHG Emissions Can Change Reporting Requirements
Facilities that implement technologies or management that reduce their GHG emissions will be able to cease reporting:
after 5 consecutive years of emissions below 25,000 metric tons CO2e/year
after 3 consecutive years of emissions below 15,000 metric tons CO2e/year
if the GHG-emitting processes or operations are shut down
Learning More About Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Animal Agriculture
Animal feeding operations are the most likely type of animal agriculture operations to be subject to rules and regulations. Most of these center around the manure handling and storage practices and equipment. Record keeping and inspections are the cornerstone of compliance efforts by livestock and poultry producers.
Introduction
Record keeping and inspections are inextricably linked through the permit and nutrient management plan. In large part, only records can show an inspector that the operation is following its nutrient management plan (NMP) and permit requirements. Physical evidence of compliance or violations may only play a small part in many cases.
The NMP is only a plan and describes many issues in general terms, however records allow the producer to manage very specifically and document that the intent of the NMP has been followed. Record keeping also allows you to document small changes in implementation of the NMP that could be the result of unseasonable weather and other unexpected influences.
When all is said and done, an operation with well organized and complete records that document compliance with the permit and NMP, and where there is no physical evidence of an un-permitted discharge should pass an inspection with flying colors.
Required Records
Record keeping requirements can vary by state; however, it will be very likely that permitted operations will at a minimum be required to maintain: a basic NMP, with supporting materials and records on how the plan was followed. A CAFO, covered by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (even if administered by a state) has very prescriptive record keeping requirements. The EPA CAFO brochure titled, “What Are the Federal Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements” outlines these requirements, however the final word on what is required will be described in the permit.
General records include: manure generation and inventory; manure and waste water transfers; manure storage inspections; storage capacity and levels; amounts and dates of any discharges; and mortality management. The remaining records are linked to land application and determination of rates. They include: Manure and wastewater analysis; soil tests; crop yield expectations; rate calculation method (nutrient budgets); actual application locations, date and amounts; weather conditions; and equipment inspections and calibrations.
The records described in the previous paragraph may be reviewed during an inspection. However, many of them will also be summarized and reported to EPA or the state permitting authority on an annual basis (CAFO Reports). The same EPA brochure explains these requirements. Briefly, they include: animal inventory; annual manure production; annual manure export; acres of land applied to and acres of land included in the NMP; documentation of any discharges; and is there a valid NMP for the operation.
Other Record Keeping Benefits
Records have many other benefits beyond simply complying with the permit and validating the NMP. Records can assist in making important business decisions that impact the bottom line. New levels of efficiency can be attained by examining records such as yields, soil tests and manure and fertilizer usage. Finally, they offer a reduction in liability for producers. In the event of an accusation of environmental mismanagement, records help defend practices and document responsibility.
Inspections
Historically inspections have primarily been complaint driven. However, all NPDES permitted farms will be inspected by a regulatory agency at a routine interval (typically once a year); depending on the state, smaller AFOs may be included in a routine inspection schedule as well. Inspectors are looking for compliance with the permit and associated nutrient management plan, and that required management practices are documented. They will also look for any signs that indicate a discharge has occurred.
One producer’s solution to record management.
During an inspection, operators should have all relevant paperwork in order and available, including: permit, NMP, records and other supporting documents. The operator, planner or consultant should all be able to explain any components of the NMP. The EPA and their cooperating state counterparts are largely concerned with the 9 minimum practices for a NMP. These include:
Ensure Adequate (waste) Storage
Ensure Proper Management of Mortalities
Divert Clean Water From Production Area
Prevent Direct Contact of Livestock (with waters of the state/U.S.)
Proper Chemical Handling
Conservation Practices to Reduce Nutrient Loss
Protocols for Manure and Soil Testing
Protocols for Land Application of Manure and Wastewater
Record Keeping
Inspection Preparation
It is very helpful for a producer to conduct or initiate an educational or non-regulatory mock-inspection. This can be done with the confidential help of a third party. In some states, Extension may be able to assist. Additionally, many states may make their inspection protocol available. EPA has published a fact sheet titled: What to Expect when EPA Inspects Your Livestock Operation.
Other tools are available, such as the nationally adapted Farm*A*Syst self assessment modules. These may not specifically address a permitted operation, but they help address environmental risk and liability based on practices. Conducting modules with farm/ranch staff or your county agent may give insight into areas that need improvement prior to a visit from regulators.
Participating in a USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service program may also offer an opportunity for a general assessment. Once again, this may be helpful in identifying critical areas, though likely will not directly address regulations. If a consultant is employed by the operation, that person may also assist in assessing the operation prior to a regulatory inspection.
Related FAQs
Question #27793, During a regulatory inspection, what is likely to be most scrutinized? link
Question #27791, What are the most important things a producer can do to prepare for a regulatory inspection? link
Author: Thomas Bass, Montana State University
Reviewers: Saqib Mukhtar, Texas AgriLife Extension; Carol Galloway, USEPA; and Charles Fulhage, University of Missouri
There are many resources available to assist producers in learning about which regulations apply to their operation. This page focuses on water-related programs.
Federal Programs
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) regulations: Animal feeding operations can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health, mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate. Manure and wastewater from AFOs have the potential to contribute pollutants such as nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment. These pollutants can cause several types of water quality and public health impacts, such as contamination of drinking water supplies and fish kills.Concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge into waters of the U.S. are required to apply for a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) program: If your farm stores oil, fuel, or oil products, you should take note of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) program. Regulated facilities, including some farms, must develop and implement SPCC Plans that establish procedures and equipment requirements to help prevent oil discharges from reaching waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) regulations under the Clean Water Act
EPA Final CAFO Regulations (July 30, 2012)
The final 2012 federal CAFO regulations include revisions to remove the 5th Circuit Court’s vacated elements, and the 2008 and 2003 Final CAFO Rules.
Consolidated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Regulations (38 pp., 452K)
This document consolidates the current federal CAFO regulatory requirements included in the 2012 CAFO Rule Revision to remove the 5th Circuit Court’s vacated elements, and include the 2008 and 2003 final CAFO rules into a single document.
NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual for CAFOs
Provides information to states, producers, and the general public including: 1) general information on Clean Water Act and NPDES requirements for CAFOs, 2) information to explain CAFO permitting requirements under the CWA, and 3) technical information to help states and producers understand options for nutrient management planning.
State technical standards for nutrient management Note: EPA is in the process of working with the states to have technical standards posted on this site. As of July 2012, 11 states have been added.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS office),
Soil & Water conservation district, or
county zoning office
to find out about local or area programs or regulations that apply to you. The Soil & Water conservation districts and NRCS offices also good sources of information about cost-share or financial assistance programs that can help reduce the financial burden associated with complying with regulations.
Why is State Specific Nutrient Management Information Important?
State or regionally specific factors such as climate and soils impact the many manure nutrient management recommendations for application rates and best management practices (BMPs). In addition, state specific public policy may also establish minimum expectations and required practices.
Finally, state land grant university research may have identified preferred procedures for implementing crop nutrient recommendations or manure nutrient management that may differ from other states. Regardless of the driving force, it is recommended that nutrient management plans follow state specific recommendations for crop nutrient requirements, crop availability of manure nutrients, BMPs, and planning and record expectations.
Click on Your State to View Links to State-Specific Nutrient Management Information
If there is no information linked to your state on this map, it is recommended that you contact your land grant university, county Cooperative Extension office, or county or state USDA Natural Resources Conservation office. If your farm falls among those covered by state or federal regulation, your state’s environmental regulatory agency should also be contacted.
Additional Information Sources on State Specific Nutrient Management
The Manure Management Planner computer program developed at Purdue University is one source of state specific information. The software currently supports 34 states (AL, AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IN, IL, IA, KS, MA, KY, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA and WI) by automatically generating fertilizer recommendations and estimating manure N availability based on each state’s Extension and/or NRCS guidelines. Check with your state to be sure the Manure Management Planner meets state specific nutrient management plan criteria.
Page Manager. Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska, rkoelsch1@ unl.edu
Reviewers: Doug Beegle, Pennsylvania State University, and John Lory, University of Missouri
Update: March, 2017. The Trump administration has issued an executive order directing the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to review the rule and revise or rescind the rule as appropriate. More…
Update: February, 2016. Multiple challenges to the rule in district courts were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Full text of ruling….
Update: October, 2015. A ruling by a district court in North Dakota (August 27) blocked the implementation of the rule. EPA felt that the injunction only applied to the 13 states that were involved in bringing the lawsuit and announced it would apply the rule in the other 37 states as scheduled. On October 9, 2015 a federal appeals court ruled that the injunction applied to all states & territories and that EPA could not implement the rule as they planned.
Update: August, 2015. The finalized rule has been published
In this webcast, Rose Kwok of EPA’s Office of Water, and Ken Kopocis, senior advisor in the EPA’s Office of Water, will explain the proposed rule and discuss what the proposal would mean to the agriculture sector. This presentation was originally broadcast on June 20, 2014. More…Continue reading “EPA’s Proposed Waters of the U.S. Regulations”
Using the nitrogen reduction planning model involves three steps. The first step is to select a watershed, enter hypothetical adoption rates for each BMP, and compare the effectiveness and cost of the individual BMPs. The second step is to compare suites of the BMPs that would attain any given reduction in the N load at minimum cost. The third step is to “drill down” to the details and assumptions behind the models of effectiveness and costs of any particular BMP and make any adjustments to reflect your particular situation.
Why Develop a Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool?
A watershed-level nitrogen reduction planning tool (Excel spreadsheet) compares the effectiveness and cost of nine different “best management practices” (BMPs), alone and in combination, for reducing N loads leaving a Minnesota watershed. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is developing a new set of standards for nitrate nitrogen in surface waters based on aquatic life toxicity. The tool was developed to assist the agency and local resource managers to better understand the feasibility and cost of various “best management practices” to reduce N loading from Minnesota cropland.
What Did We Do?
The BMPs are: reducing corn N fertilizer rates to extension recommended rates, changing fertilizer application timing, seeding cover crops, installing tile line bioreactors or controlled drainage, planting riparian buffers, or converting some corn and soybean acres to a perennial crop. The spreadsheet does its analysis for a watershed that the user selects. However, the N loadings and crop economic calculations are done first by agroecoregion before aggregating the results into the watershed of interest. Agroecoregions are units having relatively homogeneous climate, soil and landscapes, and land use/land cover. The spreadsheet includes area data for the fifteen high-N HUC8 watersheds that make up roughly the southern half of the state, along with the state as a whole. When the user selects a watershed for analysis, formulas retrieve results as an area-weighted average of the agroecoregions making up that watershed. Each of the fifteen HUC8 watersheds includes between four and nine agroecoregions.
The N loadings from each agroecoregion are calculated in three categories: drainage tile discharges, leaching from cropland, and runoff. Nitrogen loading amounts modeled are “edge-of-field” measures that do not account for denitrification losses that occur beyond the edge of field as groundwater travels towards and is discharged to streams. The BMPs consider only loading from cropland, but loading from forests and impervious urban and suburban land is also included in the totals.
What Have We Learned?
The EPA’s Science Advisory Board has said that a 45% reduction in both N and P is needed in the Mississippi River to reduce the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. This tool suggests that the BMPs considered are not likely to achieve much more than half that reduction even at high adoption rates. Reducing N fertilizer rates on corn down to extension-recommended levels and shifting from fall to spring or sidedressed applications tend to be among the cheaper BMPs to adopt, but the results vary across watersheds and weather scenarios. Various other factors such as crop and fertilizer prices also affect the results, hence the need for a computer tool.
Future Plans
The tool and results of a larger project will be reviewed during the first half of 2013. The tool may then play a role in implementation of the new N state standards in the state.
Authors
William F. Lazarus, Professor and Extension Economist, University of Minnesota wlazarus@umn.edu
Geoff Kramer, Research Fellow, Department of Biosystems and Bioproducts Engineering, University of Minnesota
David J. Mulla, Professor, Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota
David Wall, Senior Hydrologist, Watershed Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Additional Information
The latest version of the tool and an overview paper are available at the author’s project page.
Davenport, M. A., and B. Olson. “Nitrogen Use and Determinants of Best Management Practices: A Study of Rush River and Elm Creek Agricultural Producers Final Report, submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as part of a comprehensive report on nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters.” Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, September 2012.
Fabrizzi, K., and D. Mulla. “Effectiveness of Best Management Practices for Reductions in Nitrate Losses to Surface Waters In Midwestern U.S. Agriculture. Report submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as part of a comprehensive report on nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters.” September 2012.
Lazarus, W. F., et al. “Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool (NBMP.xlsm) for Comparing the Economics of Practices to Reduce Watershed Nitrogen Loads.” December 11, 2012, http://wlazarus.cfans.umn.edu/.
Mulla, D. J., et al. “Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading, Sources and Pathways for Minnesota Surface Waters. Report submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as part of a comprehensive report on nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters.” Department of Soil, Water & Climate, University of Minnesota, September 2012.
Acknowledgements
Partial support for this project was provided by the Minnesota Legislature.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Nitrate issues from a regional perspective will be discussed in this webcast. Recent findings in California and the proposed solutions will be presented, as will nitrate issues in the Southeast, Midwest, and Intermountain West. This presentation was originally broadcast on May 18, 2012. More…Continue reading “Nitrates in Groundwater”
Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Important note: Congress has prohibited EPA from expending any funds to implement subpart JJ (manure management) of the rule. Industry efforts to overturn subpart JJ are underway, but the outcome is unknown at this time. Though EPA cannot technically enforce the rule, livestock and poultry operations should remain aware of the requirements in the event the Congressional