[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50192-50209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-25138]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 50192]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture; Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are seeking comments on the draft 
Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. USDA and EPA 
are asking for comments from individuals, the livestock industry, 
State, Tribal, and local governments or subgroups thereof, 
universities, colleges, environmental groups, and other organizations. 
These comments will assist USDA and EPA in the development and 
implementation of a final strategy to reduce environmental risks 
associated with animal feeding operations (AFOs). The draft strategy 
was developed as part of the Clean Water Action Plan, which was 
announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore in February 
1998.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 19, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Please send comments to: Denise C. Coleman, Program Analyst, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, ATTN: AFO, P.O. Box 2890, 
Washington, D.C. 20013-2890.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph DelVecchio, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, 202-690-2632; fax: 202-720-8520; 
[email protected]; or William Hall, EPA, Office of Water, 202-
565-3030; fax: 202-260-1460; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft strategy states that owners and 
operators of AFOs should take action to reduce pollutant runoff. The 
draft strategy establishes a national performance expectation for all 
AFOs to be met by developing and implementing Comprehensive Nutrient 
Management Plans on AFOs. It explains voluntary and regulatory programs 
and their relationship. The strategy proposes incentives for owners and 
operators of AFOs to take early and voluntary actions and highlights 
several issues that must be addressed to successfully implement the 
Strategy. The full text of the Strategy follows.
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.057


BILLING CODE 3410-16-C

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Draft--Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

September 11, 1998.
    The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prohibit discrimination in 
their programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national 
origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. 
Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and 
marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by 
USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with 
disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the 
USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD) or the EPA 
Office of Civil Rights at (202) 260-4575.
    To file a complaint of discrimination to USDA, write USDA, 
Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th 
and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 
720-5964 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint to EPA, write to EPA, 
Office of Civil Rights, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460, or call 
(202) 260-4575 (voice) or (202) 260-3658 (TTY). USDA and EPA are equal 
opportunity providers and employers.

    Note: This document presents USDA and EPA's strategic plan for 
addressing the environmental and public health impacts associated 
with AFOs. It is not a substitute for existing Federal regulations 
and it does not impose any binding requirements on USDA, EPA, the 
States, Tribes, localities, or the regulated community. USDA and 
EPA's strategies for addressing AFOs may evolve and change as their 
understanding of the issues increases through further work and 
receipt of additional information.

Table of Contents

1.0  INTRODUCTION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
    1.1  Introduction
    1.2  Guiding Principles
2.0  AFOS AND WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
    2.1  Characteristics of AFOs
    2.2  Water Quality and Public Health Risks
3.0  THE NATIONAL GOAL AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION FOR AFOS
    3.1  Defining the Goal and Performance Expectation
    3.2  Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning
    3.3  Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Components
    3.4  Technical Assistance for CNMPs
4.0  RELATIONSHIP OF VOLUNTARY AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
    4.1  Voluntary Program for Most AFOs
    4.2  Regulatory Program for Some AFOs
    4.3  Land Application of Manure

[[Page 50193]]

    4.4  Priorities for the Regulatory Program
    4.5  CAFO CNMPs
    4.6  Smaller CAFOs Can Exit the Regulatory Program
    4.7  Good Faith Incentive
5.0  STRATEGIC ISSUES
    Overview of Strategic Issues
    Strategic Issue # 1 Building Capacity for CNMP Development and 
Implementation
    Strategic Issue # 2 Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-based 
Programs
    Strategic Issue # 3 Implementing and Improving the Existing 
Regulatory Program
    Strategic Issue # 4 Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation, 
Compliance Assistance, and Technology Transfer
    Strategic Issue # 5 Encouraging Industry Leadership
    Strategic Issue # 6 Data Coordination
    Strategic Issue # 7 Performance Measures and Accountability
6.0  ROLES

1.0  Introduction and Guiding Principles

1.1  Introduction

    Over the past quarter century, the United States has made 
tremendous progress in cleaning up its rivers, lakes, and coastal 
waters. In 1972, the Potomac River was too dirty to swim in, Lake Erie 
was dying, and the Cuyahoga River was so polluted it burst into flames. 
Many rivers and beaches were little more than open sewers. Today, water 
quality has improved dramatically and many rivers, lakes, and coasts 
are thriving centers of healthy communities.
    The improvement in the health of the nation's waters is a direct 
result of a concerted effort to enhance stewardship of natural 
resources and to implement the environmental provisions of Federal, 
State, Tribal and local laws. Pollution control and conservation 
programs have stopped billions of pounds of pollution from fouling the 
Nation's water, doubling the number of waters safe for fishing and 
swimming.
    Despite tremendous progress, 40 percent of the Nation's waterways 
assessed by States still do not meet goals for fishing, swimming, or 
both. Pollution from factories and sewage treatment plants has been 
dramatically reduced, but runoff from city streets, agricultural 
activities, including animal feeding operations (AFOs), and other 
sources continues to degrade the environment and puts drinking water at 
risk.
    A strong livestock industry (of which AFOs are a part) is essential 
to the nation's economic stability, the viability of many rural 
communities, and the sustainability of a healthful and high quality 
food supply for the American public.\1\ USDA and EPA recognize that 
farmers and ranchers are primary stewards of many of our nation's 
natural resources, have played a key role in past efforts to improve 
water quality, and will be important partners in implementing measures 
to protect the environment and public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The livestock industry accounts for half of all sales in 
U.S. agriculture today (source: USDA, Economic Research Service. 
``Key statistical indicators of the food and fiber sector''. 
Agricultural Outlook. March, 1998: 32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February of this year, President Clinton released the Clean 
Water Action Plan (CWAP), which provides a blueprint for restoring and 
protecting water quality across the Nation. The CWAP describes over 100 
specific actions to expand and strengthen existing efforts to protect 
water quality. It also identifies polluted runoff as the most important 
remaining source of water pollution and provides for a coordinated 
effort to reduce polluted runoff from a variety of sources. As part of 
this effort, the CWAP calls for the development of this USDA-EPA 
unified national strategy to minimize the water quality and public 
health impacts of AFOs.

1.2  Guiding Principles

    This USDA-EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding 
Operations reflects several guiding principles:
    (1) Minimize water quality and public health impacts from AFOs.
    (2) Focus on AFOs that represent the greatest risks to the 
environment and public health.
    (3) Ensure that measures to protect the environment and public 
health complement the long-term sustainability of livestock production 
in the United States.
    (4) Establish a national goal and environmental performance 
expectation for all AFOs.
    (5) Build on the strengths of USDA, EPA, State and Tribal agencies, 
and other partners and make appropriate use of diverse tools including 
voluntary, regulatory, and incentive-based approaches.
    (6) Foster public confidence that AFOs are meeting their 
performance expectations and that USDA, EPA, local governments, States, 
and Tribes are ensuring the protection of water quality and public 
health.
    (7) Coordinate activities among the USDA, EPA, and related State 
and Tribal agencies and other organizations that influence the 
management and operation of AFOs.
    (8) Focus technical and financial assistance to support AFOs in 
meeting the national performance expectation established in this 
Strategy.

2.0  AFOs and Water Quality and Public Health Risks

2.1  Characteristics of AFOs

    For purposes of this Strategy, AFOs are agricultural enterprises 
where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs 
congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and 
production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the 
animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in 
pastures or fields.
    Approximately 450,000 agricultural operations nationwide confine 
animals.\2\ USDA data indicate that the vast majority of farms with 
livestock are small. About 85% of these farms have fewer than 250 
animal units (AUs).\3\ An AU is equal to roughly one beef cow, 
therefore 1,000 AUs is equal to 1,000 beef cows or equivalent number of 
other animals.\4\ Of these, in 1992 about 6,600 had more than 1,000 AUs 
and are considered to be large operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information 
on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, June 1995.
    \3\ USDA-ERS. 1992 Farm Costs and Returns Survey.
    \4\ USDA and EPA currently use slightly different definitions 
for an animal unit, largely for the pork and poultry animal types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of domestic and export market forces, technological 
changes, and industry adaptations, the past several decades have seen 
substantial changes in America's animal production industries. These 
factors have promoted expansion of confined production units, with 
growth in both existing areas and new areas; integration and 
concentration of some of the industries; geographic separation of 
animal production and feed production operations; and the concentration 
of large quantities of manure and wastewater on farms and in some 
watersheds.
    In terms of production, the total number of animal units (AUs) in 
the U.S. increased by about 4.5 million (approximately three percent) 
between 1987 and 1992. During this same period, however, the number of 
AFOs decreased, indicating a consolidation within the industry overall 
and greater production from fewer, larger AFOs.\5\

    \5\ General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information 
on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, June 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 3410-16-D

[[Page 50194]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.058



BILLING CODE 3410-16-C

[[Page 50195]]

    Despite significant progress in reducing water pollution, serious 
water quality problems persist throughout the country. Recent State 
reports of water quality conditions indicate that:
     Of the rivers and streams surveyed (53 percent of all 
perennial stream miles) 36% were partially or fully impaired and 
another 8% were threatened;
     Of the surveyed lakes (40 percent of all lake acres) 39% 
were partially or fully impaired and another 10% were threatened; and
     Of the estuaries surveyed by coastal states (72 percent of 
all estuarine waters) 38% were impaired and another 4% were threatened;
     Of the Great Lakes shore miles surveyed (94 percent of all 
shore miles) 97% were impaired and another 1% were threatened.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. EPA 1998. National Water Quality Inventory--1996 Report 
to Congress, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this monitoring information, States have identified about 
15,000 individual waterbodies in 1996 that did not meet clean water 
goals.
    While many diverse sources contribute to water pollution, States 
report that agriculture is the most widespread source of pollution in 
the nation's surveyed rivers. In the 22 States that categorized impacts 
from specific types of agriculture, animal operations impact about 
35,000 river miles of those miles assessed.
    AFOs can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health, 
mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they 
generate.\8\ Manure and wastewater from AFOs have the potential to 
contribute pollutants such as nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), 
sediment, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia 
to the environment. Excess nutrients in water can result in or 
contribute to eutrophication, anoxia (i.e., low levels of dissolved 
oxygen), and, in combination with other circumstances, have been 
associated with outbreaks of microbes such as Pfiesteria piscicida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA, 1998, National Water Quality Inventory--1996 Report to 
Congress; Hunt, P.G., et al. 1995. Impact of animal waste on water 
quality in an eastern coastal plain watershed. IN: Animal Waste and 
the Land-Water Interface, Kenneth Steele, Ed., Lewis Publishers, 
Boca Raton, FL, 589 pp.; Ackerman and Taylor, 1995, Stream Impacts 
due to Feedlot Runoff. IN: Animal Waste and the Land-Water 
Interface; South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts, SD 
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and USDA Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, 1996, Final Report--Animal Waste 
Management Team; EPA Office of the Inspector General, March 1997, 
Animal Waste Disposal Issues, Audit Report No. E1XWF7-13-0085-
7100142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium, have been linked to impairments 
in drinking water supplies and threats to human health. Pathogens in 
manure can create a food safety concern if manure is applied directly 
to crops at inappropriate times. In addition, pathogens are responsible 
for some shellfish bed closures. Nitrogen, in the form of nitrate, can 
contaminate drinking water supplies drawn from ground water. Nutrients 
can also cause toxic algal blooms which may be harmful to human health.
    While there are other potential environmental impacts associated 
with AFOs (e.g., odor, habitat loss, ground water depletion), this 
Strategy focuses on addressing surface and ground water quality 
problems. This Strategy will indirectly benefit other resources.

3.0  The National Goal and Performance Expectation for AFOs

3.1  Defining the Goal and Performance Expectation

    USDA and EPA's goal is for AFO owners and operators to take actions 
to minimize water pollution from confinement facilities and land 
application of manure. To accomplish this goal, this Strategy 
establishes a national performance expectation that all AFOs should 
develop and implement technically sound and economically feasible 
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) to minimize impacts on 
water quality and public health.

3.2  Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning

    In general terms, a CNMP identifies actions or priorities that will 
be followed to meet clearly defined nutrient management goals at an 
agricultural operation. Defining nutrient management goals and 
identifying measures and schedules for attaining the goals is critical 
to reducing threats to water quality and public health from AFOs.
    CNMPs should address, at a minimum, feed management, manure 
handling and storage, land application of manure, land management, 
record keeping, and other utilization options. While nutrients are 
often the major pollutants of concern, the plan should address risks 
from other pollutants, such as pathogens, to minimize water quality and 
public health impacts from AFOs. CNMPs should include a schedule to 
implement the management practices identified.
    In addition to protecting water quality and public health, CNMPs 
should be site-specific and be written to address the goals and needs 
of the individual owner/operator, as well as the conditions on the farm 
(e.g., soils, crops). Plans should also be periodically reviewed and 
revised in cases where a facility increases in size, changes its method 
of manure management, or if other operating conditions change. CNMPs 
should encourage and facilitate technical innovation and new approaches 
to manure and nutrient management. Development and implementation of 
CNMPs is the ultimate responsibility of the AFO operator, with 
assistance as needed from certified industry staff, government agency 
specialists, private consultants and other qualified vendors.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office 
Technical Guide (FOTG) is the primary technical reference for the 
development of CNMPs for AFOs. It contains technical information about 
utilization and conservation of soil, water, air, plant, and animal 
resources. The FOTG used in an individual field office is localized to 
consider particular characteristics for the geographic area for which 
it is prepared. The FOTG is divided into five sections:
    Section I  General Resource References--References, maps, price 
bases, typical crop budgets, and other information for use in 
understanding the field office working area or in making decisions 
about resource use and resource management.
    Section II  Soil and Site Information--Soils are described and 
interpreted to help make decisions about land use and management. In 
most cases, this will be a electronic database.
    Section III  Conservation Management Systems (CMS)--Guidance for 
developing conservation management systems. A description of the 
resource considerations and their acceptable levels of quality or 
criteria.
    Section IV  Practice Standards, Specifications and Supplements--
Contains standards and specifications for conservation practices used 
in the field office. The standards contained in the National Handbook 
of Conservation Practices (NHCP) may be supplemented to reflect local 
conditions. The NHCP contains standards and specifications for over 150 
conservation practices, many of which are applicable to CNMPs for AFOs. 
These standards are based on sound science and over 65 years of NRCS 
experience. New standards can be added to this handbook using a 
procedure outlined in the handbook that includes a public review/input 
process. Practice standards establish the minimum level of acceptable 
quality for planning, installing, operating, and maintaining 
conservation practices.

[[Page 50196]]

    Section V  Conservation Effects--Contains Conservation Practice 
Physical Effects (CPPE) matrices which outline the impact of practices 
on various aspects of the five major resources--soil, air, water, 
plants, and animals.

3.3  Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Components

    USDA and EPA agree that the following components should be included 
in a CNMP, as necessary. The specific practices used to implement each 
component may vary to reflect site-specific conditions or needs of the 
watershed.
    Feed Management--Where possible, animal diets and feed should be 
modified to reduce the amounts of nutrients in manure. For example, 
enzymes such as phytase can be added to animal diets to increase the 
utilization of phosphorus. Greater utilization of phosphorus by the 
animal reduces the amount of phosphorus excreted and produces a manure 
with a nitrogen-phosphorus ratio closer to that required by crop and 
forage plants.
    Manure Handling and Storage--Manure needs to be handled and stored 
properly to prevent water pollution from AFOs. Manure and wastewater 
handling and storage practices should also consider odor and other 
environmental and public health problems. Handling and storage 
considerations should include:
    Divert clean water--Siting and management practices should divert 
clean water from contact with feed lots and holding pens, animal 
manure, or manure storage systems. Clean water can include rainfall 
falling on roofs of facilities, runoff from adjacent lands, or other 
sources.
    Prevent leakage--Construction and maintenance of buildings, 
collection systems, conveyance systems, and storage facilities should 
prevent leakage of organic matter, nutrients, and pathogens to ground 
or surface water.
    Provide adequate storage--Dry manure, such as that produced in 
certain poultry and beef operations, should be stored in production 
buildings, storage facilities, or otherwise covered to prevent 
precipitation from coming into direct contact with the manure. Liquid 
manure storage systems should safely store the quantity and contents of 
animal manure and wastewater produced, contaminated runoff from the 
facility, and rainfall. Location of manure storage systems should 
consider proximity to waterbodies, floodplains, and other 
environmentally sensitive areas.
    Manure treatments--Manure should be handled and treated to reduce 
the loss of nutrients to the atmosphere during storage, to make the 
material a more stable fertilizer when land applied or to reduce 
pathogens, vector attraction and odors, as appropriate.
    Management of dead animals--Dead animals should be disposed of in a 
way that does not adversely affect ground or surface water or create 
public health concerns. Composting, rendering, and other practices are 
common methods used to dispose of dead animals.
    Land Application of Manure--Land application is the most common, 
and usually most desirable method of utilizing manure because of the 
value of the nutrients and organic matter. Land application should be 
planned to ensure that the proper amounts of all nutrients are applied 
in a way that does not cause harm to the environment or to public 
health. Land application in accordance with the CNMP should minimize 
water quality and public health risk. Considerations for appropriate 
land application should include:
    Nutrient balance--The primary purpose of nutrient management is to 
achieve the level of nutrients required to grow the planned crop by 
balancing the nutrients that are already in the soil and from other 
sources with those that will be applied in manure, biosolids and 
fertilizer. At a minimum, nutrient management should prevent the 
application of nutrients at rates that will exceed the capacity of the 
soil and planned crops to assimilate nutrients and prevent pollution. 
Soils and manure should be tested to determine nutrient content.
    Timing and methods of application--Care must be taken when land 
applying manure to prevent it from entering streams, other water 
bodies, or environmentally sensitive areas. The timing and method of 
application should prevent the loss of nutrients to ground or surface 
water and to minimize loss of nitrogen to the atmosphere. Manure 
application equipment should be calibrated to ensure that the quantity 
of material being applied is what is planned.
    Land Management--Tillage, crop residue management, grazing 
management, and other conservation practices should be utilized to 
minimize movement to surface and ground water of soil, organic 
materials, nutrients, and pathogens from lands where manure is applied. 
Forest riparian buffers, filter strips, field borders, contour buffer 
strips, and other conservation buffer practices should be installed to 
intercept, store and utilize nutrients or other pollutants that may 
migrate from fields to which manure is applied.
    Record Keeping--AFO operators should keep records that indicate the 
quantity of manure produced and ultimate utilization, including where, 
when, and amount of nutrients applied. Soil and manure testing should 
be incorporated into the records management system.
    Other Utilization Options--In vulnerable watersheds, where the 
potential for environmentally sound land application is limited, 
alternative uses of manure, such as the sale of manure to other 
farmers, composting and sale of compost to home owners, and using 
manure for power generation may need to be considered. All manure 
utilization options should be designed and implemented to reduce the 
risk to all environmental resources and must comply with Federal, 
State, Tribal and local law.

3.4  Technical Assistance for CNMPs

    AFO owners and operators may seek technical assistance for the 
development and implementation of CNMPs from qualified specialists, 
including staff from Federal agencies such as the NRCS, State, and 
Tribal agricultural and conservation agency staff, Cooperative 
Extension Service agents and specialists, Soil and Water Conservation 
Districts (SWCDs), integrators, industry associations, other AFO 
operators, and private consultants. Qualified specialists should assist 
in implementation and provide ongoing assistance through periodic 
reviews and revisions of CNMPs, as appropriate.
    The successful implementation of this Strategy depends on the 
availability of qualified specialists from either the private or public 
sectors to assist in the development and implementation of CNMPs. 
Measures to expand technical assistance resources are discussed more 
thoroughly in Section 5.0, Strategic Issue #1.

4.0  Relationship of Voluntary and Regulatory Programs

    Voluntary and regulatory programs serve complementary roles in 
providing AFO owners and operators and the animal agricultural industry 
with the assistance and certainty they need to achieve individual 
business and personal goals, and in ensuring protection of water 
quality and public health. The regulatory program focuses permitting 
and enforcement priorities on high risk operations, a small percentage 
of all AFOs (see Figure 2). For most AFOs, however, a variety of 
voluntary programs provide the technical and financial assistance to 
help producers meet technical standards and remain economically viable.

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[[Page 50197]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.059



BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[[Page 50198]]

4.1  Voluntary Program for Most AFOs

    Voluntary programs provide an enormous opportunity to help AFO 
owners and operators and communities address water quality and public 
health concerns surrounding AFOs. For the vast majority of AFOs, 
voluntary efforts will be the principal approach to assist owners and 
operators in developing and implementing CNMPs, and in reducing water 
pollution and public health risks associated with AFOs. While CNMPs are 
not required for AFOs participating in voluntary programs, they are 
strongly encouraged as the best possible means of managing potential 
water quality and public health impacts from these operations. For 
those CNMPs that are developed as part of a State, Tribal, or Federal 
voluntary technical or financial assistance program, the responsible 
agency, in consultation with the local Soil and Water Conservation 
Districts, will approve the plan to ensure that it is sufficient to 
meet requirements for participation in such programs. AFO owners and 
operators will be full partners in the development and implementation 
of CNMPs through voluntary programs and will agree to implement those 
plans before receiving financial assistance.
    The voluntary approach is built on the ethic of land stewardship 
and sustainability. A sustainable society requires a sustainable 
environment-one depends upon the other. For generations, most producers 
have maintained agricultural productivity in harmony with a healthy 
land-the essence of land stewardship. Today, agricultural producers 
still have the responsibility to be good stewards of the land under 
their care. The voluntary development and implementation of a CNMP 
provide AFO operators with a way to embrace this stewardship ethic. 
USDA and EPA are proposing in this Strategy incentives to further the 
voluntary development and implementation of CNMPs.
    Implementing voluntary programs requires the support of local 
leadership and full participation in planning and implementing 
conservation activities. Partnerships with Federal and State agencies, 
groups, SWCDs, Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Councils, 
private landowners; and between local leadership and science-based 
technical assistance are essential to success. Locally led conservation 
efforts, environmental education programs, and financial and technical 
assistance all help to build the land stewardship ethic that is 
fundamental to the success of a voluntary approach.
    Locally Led Conservation--It is hard to overstate the importance of 
effective, locally led actions through the SWCDs in achieving national 
natural resource quality goals. This is particularly true for AFOs. 
USDA and EPA have a commitment to locally led conservation as one of 
the most effective ways to help individual landowners and communities 
achieve their conservation goals. Informed citizens are fundamental to 
making informed choices. Thus, locally led conservation is a logical 
complement to an investment in environmental education. Through the 
locally led approach, individuals can see how their actions fit with 
those of their neighbors.
    Partnerships with grassroots organizations such as SWCDs, RC&D 
Councils, and others that promote the use of CNMPs, can help attain the 
goal of this Strategy. Through the locally led process, natural 
resource concerns are identified and proposals for local priorities are 
developed. SWCDs convene a local work group comprised of the district 
board members and key staff, NRCS staff; Farm Service Agency county 
committees and key staffs; and Cooperative Extension Service and other 
Federal, State, and local agencies interested in natural resource 
conservation. The SWCDs gather community input and bring the views of 
these local interests to work groups. These local work groups have the 
ability to identify problems and develop solutions locally. Also, they 
have knowledge of what resources are available to plan and implement 
the CNMPs.
    Environmental Education--One of the best ways to help AFO operators 
or owners to participate in voluntary programs to reduce the potential 
impact of their operations on the environment is through education and 
outreach. There may be many well-managed AFOs, carefully following best 
management practices developed in the past, that are unintentionally 
contributing to water quality or other environmental degradation 
because of lack of access to the newest information. The agricultural 
research system continues to advance our understanding of the potential 
impacts of animal agriculture on the environment. USDA's Agricultural 
Research Service (ARS), Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service (CSREES); EPA; State and Local governments; Land 
Grant Colleges and Universities and other institutions of higher 
learning; and the private sector are all actively involved in 
communicating knowledge gained through the agricultural research system 
to AFO owners and operators.
    Through an aggressive environmental education and outreach effort, 
USDA and EPA believe that awareness of possible problems can be 
heightened and producers will be able to identify practices that may be 
contributing to water quality problems. Once producers have an 
understanding of potential problems and solutions, they can take a 
proactive role in developing their CNMP through the voluntary program.
    Technical And Financial Assistance Programs--There are numerous 
sources of technical and financial assistance, such as USDA, EPA, 
SWCDs, RC&D Councils, State agencies, and the private sector, to assist 
AFO owners and operators in developing and implementing CNMPs. Through 
technical assistance, owners and operators can receive help in 
developing CNMPs and implementing solutions. Financial cost-share and 
loan programs can help defray the costs of approved/needed structures 
(e.g., waste storage facilities for small operations) or to implement 
other practices, such as installation of conservation buffers to 
protect water quality. An increasing number of States have financial 
assistance programs that supplement or enhance Federal assistance.
    Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), NRCS's base conservation 
program, is a potential tool in helping landowners develop CNMPs. The 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Reserve Enhancement 
Program (CREP), and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) are 
assisting AFOs across the Nation in nutrient management. The Small 
Watershed Protection Program (PL 83-566) provides comprehensive 
resource management planning on a watershed basis to assist local land 
users in addressing water quality concerns related to AFOs. RC&D 
assists States and local units of government in planning, developing, 
and implementing programs for resource conservation and development. 
Plans address water quality, community and economic development, and 
other concerns of interest to the local citizens. The Conservation 
Buffer Initiative and the Watershed Survey and Planning Program also 
offer opportunities to assist livestock producers in managing their 
potential environmental risks.
    AFO owners and operators may also participate in other State and 
Federal programs to improve water quality and to develop and implement 
polluted runoff abatement activities, including State cost-share 
programs and EPA Section 319 nonpoint source grants and the State 
Revolving Fund (SRF) program authorized under the Clean Water Act

[[Page 50199]]

(CWA). Using all USDA, EPA, and other Federal, State and local programs 
together as tools helps leverage resources to help AFO owners and 
operators in voluntarily addressing water quality and public impacts.

4.2  Regulatory Program for Some AFOs

    The Federal CWA provides general authority for water pollution 
control programs, including several programs related to animal feeding 
operations (AFOs). A number of primarily large AFOs (i.e. about 2,000 
facilities) have been issued permits under section 402 of the CWA. 
These permits, called National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permits, include conditions to limit pollution problems. In 42 
States and the Virgin Islands, these NPDES permits are issued by States 
under authorization from EPA. These permits are generally written to 
implement national minimum standards (referred to as effluent 
guidelines) for large AFOs established in regulations. (A summary of 
the existing feedlots effluent limitations guidelines is included in 
Figure 3.) NPDES permits for AFOs must also include conditions that 
assure attainment of any applicable State- or Tribe-established water 
quality standards. These standards include designated uses, water 
quality criteria to protect these uses, and an antidegradation policy. 
Best management practices necessary to ensure compliance with the CWA, 
such as those included in CNMPs, may be imposed in NPDES permits. Where 
water quality standards are not attained, response actions are defined 
through the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process under Section 
303(d) of the Act and implemented through revised NPDES permits and 
other measures.

BILLING CODE 3410-16-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21SE98.060


BILLING CODE 3410-16-C
    The existing provisions of the CWA and related EPA regulations 
provide authority for including a significant number of AFOs in the 
permit program beyond those that now have permits. These statutory and 
regulatory authorities related to AFOs are described below along with 
the approach EPA will follow in setting priorities for carrying out 
these authorities.
    The CWA provides that no person may ``discharge'' a pollutant 
except in accordance with a permit issued under section 402 of the Act. 
A ``discharge'' is defined as ``any addition of any pollutant to 
navigable waters from any point source.'' The term ``pollutant'' is 
broadly defined in the CWA and includes animal waste and related 
material.
    The term ``point source'' as defined in the CWA includes any 
``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' and specifically 
includes a ``concentrated animal feeding operation'' (CAFO). Thus, a 
discharge from a CAFO is prohibited except in accordance with an NPDES 
permit.
    The term ``animal feeding operation'' or AFO is defined in EPA 
regulations as a ``lot or facility'' where animals ``have been, are, or 
will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 
days or more in any 12 month period and crops, vegetation, forage, 
growth or post harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing 
season over any portion of the lot or facility.''
    The regulations define a ``concentrated animal feeding operation'' 
or CAFO as an animal feeding operation where more than 1,000 ``animal 
units'' (as defined by the regulation) are confined at the facility; or 
more than 300 animal units are confined at the facility and:
     Pollutants are discharged into navigable waters through a 
manmade ditch, flushing system, or other similar man-made device; or
     Pollutants are discharged directly into waters that 
originate outside of and pass over, across, or through the facility or 
come into direct contact with the confined animals.
    Poultry operations that remove waste from pens and stack it in 
areas exposed to rainfall or an adjacent watercourse have established a 
crude liquid manure system for process wastewater that may discharge 
pollutants. These facilities are CAFOs and therefore point sources 
under the NPDES program if the number of animals confined at the 
facility meets the regulatory definition at 40 CFR Part 122. Appendix B 
or if the facility is designated as a CAFO.
    The regulations also provide, however, that no animal feeding 
operation is a CAFO as defined above if it discharges only in the event 
of a 25-year, 24-hour or larger storm event.
    In addition, the NPDES permit issuing agency may, after conducting 
an on-site inspection, designate an animal feeding operation of any 
size as a CAFO based on a finding that the facility ``is a significant 
contributor of pollution to the waters of the United States.'' A

[[Page 50200]]

facility with 300 animal units or less, however, may not be designated 
as a CAFO under this authority unless pollutants are discharged from a 
man-made device or are discharged directly into waters passing over, 
across or through the facility or that otherwise come into direct 
contact with the confined animals.
    Another regulatory program which addresses AFOs is the Coastal 
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program which is implemented under the 
authority of Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 
Amendments (CZARA) of 1990. Section 6217 requires the 29 States and 
territories with NOAA-approved Coastal Zone Management Programs to 
develop enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement nonpoint 
source controls, known as management measures. Two management measures 
address facility wastewater and runoff from smaller AFOs, and another 
management measure addresses nutrient management on farms. In CZARA 
areas, permitted CAFOs are covered by the NPDES program while other 
AFOs would be covered by the CZARA management measures. EPA and NOAA 
should encourage States to consider the priorities of this Strategy 
when implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

4.3  Land Application of Manure

    EPA and USDA recognize that manure and other animal waste from 
CAFOs is commonly applied to the land. Proper land application of these 
resources has agricultural benefits, but improper land application can 
cause water quality and potential public health impacts.
    As noted above, the addition of pollutants from a discrete 
conveyance (e.g. natural channel or gullies) to the waters is regulated 
under the CWA as a point source discharge. At the same time, the Act 
exempts ``agricultural stormwater discharges'' from the definition of a 
point source. EPA has in the past, and will in the future, assume that 
discharges from the vast majority of agricultural operations are 
exempted from the NPDES program by this provision of the Act. The 
agricultural stormwater exemption, however, does not apply in a small 
number of circumstances that meet the following criteria:
     The discharge is associated with the land disposal of 
animal wastes (e.g. manure or other animal waste) originating from a 
CAFO (which is defined as a point source in the CWA and is regulated as 
a point source); and
     The discharge is not the result of proper agricultural 
practices (i.e., in general, the disposal occurred without a CNMP 
developed by a public official or a certified private party or in a 
manner inconsistent with the CNMP).
    NPDES permits should assure that the animal waste from the CAFO 
will be utilized properly and require reporting on whether the 
permittee has a CNMP and whether it is being implemented properly.

4.4  Priorities for the Regulatory Program

    The NPDES permit program authorized by the CWA will be used to 
address the relatively small number of AFOs that are now causing water 
quality or public health problems or that pose a significant risk to 
water quality or public health. EPA and USDA believe that AFOs in 
several situations are CAFOs and should be priorities for NPDES 
permitting:
    Significant Manure Production--Large facilities (those with greater 
than 1000 animal units) produce quantities of manure that are a risk to 
water quality and public health whether the facilities are well managed 
or not. Because the amount of manure stored is so large, a spill while 
handling manure or a breach of a storage system can release large 
quantities of manure and wastewater into the environment causing 
catastrophic water quality impacts and threatening public health. Land 
application of large volumes of waste requires very careful planning to 
avoid water quality and public health impacts.
    Of the estimated 450,000 animal feeding operations, only about 
6,600 facilities had over 1,000 animal units as of 1992. Due to 
increases in the number of large facilities over the past six years, 
EPA and USDA believe that as many as 10,000 such facilities may exist 
today. EPA and USDA expect to update this estimate based on newer 
information. Based on size alone, these facilities are considered to be 
CAFOs and therefore are ``point sources'' subject to having an NPDES 
permit if they cause the addition of pollutants to waters. EPA believes 
that virtually all CAFOs with over 1,000 animal units are covered by 
the permit program and are a priority for permit issuance.
    Unacceptable Conditions--Some facilities have unacceptable 
conditions that pose a significant risk of water pollution or public 
health problems. Specifically, facilities that have man-made 
conveyances that discharge animal waste to waters or have a direct 
discharge to waters that pass through the facility or come into direct 
contact with animals represent a significant risk to the environment 
and public health and are a priority for permit issuance. (As noted, 
AFOs with 300 or fewer AUs are CAFOs subject to permitting only where 
they have been designated as CAFOs by the permitting authority.)
    There is insufficient data on which to base an estimate of the 
number of AFOs that have unacceptable conditions. EPA and USDA expect, 
however, that many, if not most, AFOs that now have unacceptable 
conditions will voluntarily address their unacceptable conditions to 
avoid the requirement to have a permit under the NPDES program.
    Significant Contributors to Water Quality Impairment--In cases 
where water quality monitoring establishes that pollution from an 
individual facility with fewer than 1,000 animal units or a collection 
of facilities including those with fewer than 1,000 animal units is 
significantly contributing to, or is likely to significantly contribute 
to, impairment of a waterbody and nonattainment of a designated use, 
the facility or collection of facilities should be a priority for the 
NPDES permitting program.
    Aggregate Water Quality Impacts on a Watershed Scale--EPA and USDA 
encourage States to use existing watershed assessment processes to 
determine whether a collection of AFOs is causing or contributing to 
watershed impairment. States should identify such watersheds for 
priority CAFO permitting. For example, the Clean Water Action Plan 
provides for a Unified Watershed Assessment Process to identify 
watersheds that are not meeting clean water and other natural resource 
goals.
    In addition, States may consider identifying watersheds based on 
CWA section 303(d) lists or on assessments conducted by the interagency 
State technical committee. Such assessments may indicate, for example, 
that a high proportion of waters are impaired because of nutrient or 
pathogen problems attributable to animal manure or wastewater; that a 
watershed has more manure generated than there is land available to 
land apply manure in the watershed; or that water pollution associated 
with AFOs poses a significant threat to public health as a result of 
contamination of drinking water sources. EPA estimates that the number 
of AFOs that will be subject to the permit program as a result of 
identified watershed impairments to be between 1,000-3,000.
    Site-specific Water Quality Impacts--Where the NPDES permitting 
authority has evidence that an individual AFO or group of AFOs 
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the designated use of an 
individual water body, these AFOs

[[Page 50201]]

should be a priority for permit issuance. Based on water quality 
assessment information from States, the number of facilities that meet 
these conditions is estimated to be between 1,000--3,000 facilities.
    This section has described permitting and enforcement priorities 
for the regulatory program based on existing CAFO regulations. EPA and 
USDA expect that the total number of CAFOs in the situations described 
above that will be priorities for coverage under NPDES permits will be 
in the range 15,000--20,000. About 2,000 CAFOs now have NPDES permits. 
EPA plans to refine and strengthen the existing regulations during the 
next several years (see Section 5.0, Strategic Issue # 3).

4.5  CAFO CNMPs

    NPDES permits for CAFOs will include conditions and other 
requirements that minimize the threat to water quality and public 
health and otherwise ensure compliance with the requirements of the 
CWA. EPA will issue guidance on the development of permits for CAFOs 
and will develop model permits. Among other things, the guidance will 
provide that permits include conditions that ensure compliance with 
national effluent guidelines applicable to CAFOs.
    The EPA guidance will also recommend that CAFO permits require the 
development of a CNMP and its implementation on a schedule established 
in the permit. The guidance will incorporate NRCS's practice standards 
as the appropriate practice standards for CAFO CNMPs. Where elements of 
the CNMP are included in a NPDES permit, schedules for implementation 
of the practices or actions will be consistent with requirements of the 
CWA (i.e., compliance schedules will be consistent with State law and 
not exceed the five year term of the permit). Finally, permits will 
include any more stringent conditions that the permitting authority 
determines are necessary to meet State water quality standards.
    CNMPs developed to meet the requirements of the NPDES permit 
program in general must be developed by a person certified to develop 
CNMPs, a qualified State agency official (e.g., cooperative extension 
agent), or by NRCS. Private parties may be certified by State or 
nonprofit groups (e.g., the Certified Crop Advisor Program of the 
American Society of Agronomy) approved by USDA, or certified directly 
by USDA through EQIP.
    The ultimate responsibility for developing and implementing CNMPs 
resides with the CAFO owner and/or operator. If the CNMP is developed 
as a requirement of the NPDES permit program, the CNMP should be 
consistent with this Strategy and the regulatory agency will ensure 
that the CNMP meets the requirements of the CWA and is being 
implemented. State or Federal enforcement agencies will work to ensure 
compliance with permit requirements.

4.6  Smaller CAFOs Can Exit the Regulatory Program

    Smaller CAFOs (those with fewer than 1000 AUs) that are not located 
in watersheds that are identified as impaired should be allowed to exit 
the permit program after the end of the five-year permit term. To exit 
the program these facilities must demonstrate that they have 
successfully addressed the initial condition that caused them to be 
designated as CAFOs, are fully implementing their CNMP, and offer 
evidence that they are in full compliance with their permit at the end 
of the permit term.

4.7  Good Faith Incentive

    In many cases, AFOs are taking early voluntary actions in good 
faith to manage manure and wastewater in accordance with a CNMP. Some 
AFOs that are voluntarily implementing a CNMP may, however, have a 
discharge that makes them subject to the NPDES permitting program but 
does not cause them to be included in the permitting priorities 
described above (i.e., AFOs with 301-1000 AUs that do not discharge 
through a man-made conveyance or directly into waters of the U.S. that 
pass through their facility, and which are not significant contributors 
to nonattainment of a designated use as determined through water 
quality monitoring). NPDES permitting authorities will provide an 
opportunity for these AFOs to address the cause of the discharge before 
designating them as CAFOs.

5.0  Strategic Issues

Overview of Strategic Issues

    This USDA/EPA Unified National Strategy on Animal Feeding 
Operations addresses seven major strategic issues:

Strategic Issue # 1--Building Capacity for CNMP Development and 
Implementation
Strategic Issue # 2--Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-Based Programs
Strategic Issue # 3--Implementing and Improving the Existing Regulatory 
Program
Strategic Issue # 4--Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation, 
Compliance Assistance, and Technology Transfer
Strategic Issue # 5--Encouraging Industry Leadership
Strategic Issue # 6--Data Coordination
Strategic Issue # 7--Performance Measures and Accountability

Strategic Issue # 1  Building Capacity for CNMP Development and 
Implementation

Description
    The successful implementation of this Strategy depends on the 
availability of qualified specialists from either the public or private 
sectors to assist in the development and implementation of CNMPs. AFO 
owners and operators will need substantially increased access to 
technical assistance from the private and public sectors to support a 
strengthened regulatory program and, at the same time, implement an 
accelerated effort to help owners and operators meet their stewardship 
responsibilities through early, voluntary action.
    Through prior or existing voluntary programs, NRCS has developed 
CNMPs for AFOs. NRCS estimates that at least 300,000 AFOs need to 
develop CNMPs or revise existing CNMPs to meet the performance 
expectation of this Strategy. EPA estimates that between 15,000 to 
20,000 operations will be considered CAFOs and be required to develop 
and implement CNMPs as part of a permit.
Desired Outcomes
     Increase the number of certified specialists to develop 
CNMPs.
     Ensure that CNMPs are implemented under the guidance of 
qualified specialists.
     Consistent quality of CNMP development and implementation.
     All AFO owners have a CNMP developed by a certified 
specialist by 2008.
Actions
    USDA and EPA will take the following actions, to the extent 
permitted by available appropriations, to increase the supply of 
qualified technical specialists available to assist AFO owners and 
operators develop and implement CNMPs:
    1. USDA and EPA will review available certification programs for 
those developing CNMPs for AFOs to ensure technical adequacy and will 
provide training and standards for these certification programs to 
improve their ability to certify CNMPs to AFOs.
    2. Facilitate and encourage participation of private sector

[[Page 50202]]

consultants and technical advisors through certification, training, and 
other activities to ensure private sector sources of assistance can be 
effectively utilized by AFO owners and operators to develop and 
implement CNMPs.
    3. Increase funding within the USDA NRCS Conservation Technical 
Assistance (CTA) Program and Cooperative Extension System to increase 
technically qualified field staff, train existing Federal and 
nonfederal staff, and provide enhanced technical support for Federal 
and nonfederal technical advisors.
    4. Explore options for training and certifying AFO operators to 
develop and implement their own CNMPs.
    5. USDA and EPA will facilitate the training of conservation 
contractors in the installation of practices specified in a CNMP.
    6. USDA and EPA will provide assistance in the form of computer 
models or expert systems to assist in the development of CNMPs.
    7. USDA and EPA will give priority to training those agencies and 
organizations that deliver services at the local level. The voluntary 
program is delivered at the local level through SWCDs, Cooperative 
Extension Service, USDA Service Centers, and the private sector. These 
local service providers should also be fully informed of the elements 
of the regulatory programs.
    8. USDA and EPA will sponsor a national meeting to solicit ideas on 
how to build capacity for the development and implementation of CNMPs.
    9. USDA will develop agreements with third-party vendors similar to 
the 1998 agreement with the Certified Crop Advisors (CCAs). CCAs will 
provide technical assistance to agricultural producers in nutrient 
management, pest management, and residue management. Any assistance 
provided under third party vendor agreements will meet NRCS standards 
and specifications, or State standards if more restrictive.
    10. USDA, EPA, and the States should each analyze the potential 
impact of this Strategy on public and private resources and their 
availability to develop and implement CNMPs.

Strategic Issue #2--Accelerating Voluntary, Incentive-Based Programs

Description
    USDA and EPA agree that the release of pollutants to surface or 
groundwater from an AFO is to be minimized regardless of size or 
management activity. It is the ultimate responsibility of individual 
owners and operators, and the companies and industries they are 
involved with, to minimize the release of pollutants from their 
operations. Under this Strategy, most AFOs will minimize the risk of 
pollution by voluntarily developing and implementing a CNMP.
Desired Outcomes
     All AFOs develop and implement CNMPs by 2008.
     Minimize pollution from AFOs to the greatest extent 
practical.
     Ensure the maximum environmental benefit is obtained per 
public dollar expended.
     Ensure adequate financial incentives are available to 
minimize the economic impact of implementing CNMPs.
     Ensure that limited resource, minority, and other 
underserved producers have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
voluntary programs.
Actions
1. National Standards
    Develop and Revise Practice Standards--To ensure that conservation 
policies and practices are current and sufficient to address water 
quality risks associated with AFOs, NRCS, in consultation with EPA and 
with input from States and other stakeholders, will identify practice 
standards which need to be developed or revised and propose a schedule 
for development or revision by November 1998. The process of revising 
practice standards at both the national and local level involves the 
public review of new or revised standards. The process should be 
streamlined to the maximum extent possible.
2. Planning and Implementation
    AFO CNMP Guidance--USDA's NRCS has national responsibility for 
conservation planning policy and procedures and will provide guidance, 
in consultation with EPA, by January 1999 that can be used by AFO 
owners, operators, and others to develop a CNMP.
    Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning requires that 
individuals, including AFO owners and operators, qualified in the 
technical issues associated with AFOs, should develop the CNMP. Good 
CNMPs are the result of a process that ensures all elements of an 
operation are considered and that causes of problems, rather than 
symptoms, are addressed. The CNMP guidance will indicate what should be 
contained in the CNMP (such as aerial photos or plan maps, planned 
conservation practices and schedule of implementation, engineering 
designs for any constructed facilities for storing or handling manure, 
records of soil and nutrient tests, appropriate rates of land 
application to prevent the application of nutrients at rates that will 
exceed the capacity of the soil and planned crops to assimilate 
nutrients and prevent pollution, and records of practices and actions).
3. Outreach and Program Delivery
    Fair and equitable treatment--USDA and EPA agree and will ensure 
through aggressive outreach that the technical and financial assistance 
provided in the voluntary efforts recommended by this Strategy will be 
available to persons without regard to race, color, national origin, 
gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 
orientation, and marital or family status. These outreach efforts are 
already underway and will accelerate with the release of this Strategy.
4. Financial Assistance for CNMP Implementation
    Financial assistance can ease the burden on AFO owners and 
operators who are implementing CNMPs. Financial assistance will be 
particularly important in helping existing AFOs improve the 
environmental performance of their operations. Failure to fully fund 
assistance at requested levels will seriously constrain our ability to 
accelerate progress through voluntary action and sometimes causes an 
economic hardship for AFOs. This is particularly true of limited 
resource farmers.
    The primary source of USDA assistance to AFO owners and operators 
is the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), which was 
initiated in the 1996 Farm Bill. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 
and the Small Watershed Protection Program (PL 83-566) are also 
available to AFO owners and operators meeting program eligibility 
requirements. EQIP has been funded at $200 million in 1997 and 1998. 
Approximately 45 percent of the funds were spent in each of these years 
to fund contracts with AFOs to develop and provide cost share 
incentives to help implement CNMPs that consider most of the issues 
this Strategy recommends be addressed in a CNMP. The requests for funds 
for AFOs during each of those years was for approximately $230 
million--three times the amount available. The Administration has 
requested $300 million for EQIP for FY 1999.
    The CRP provides farmers rental payments to set aside lands for 
various environmental purposes. The continuous sign-up provision of CRP 
targets the establishment of conservation buffers which are

[[Page 50203]]

recognized as an important component of a CNMP. A provision of CRP, 
referred to as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 
allows States to join with the Federal government to increase rental 
rates paid to land owners by increasing funding for the CRP program 
with State funds. USDA established the Conservation Buffer Initiative 
in 1996 with the specific goal of establishing two million miles of 
buffers by 2002. In 1998, approximately $500 million was expended 
through CRP to establish an estimated 172,000 miles of buffers 
throughout the United States.
    The PL 83-566 program received $86 million in FY 1997 and 
approximately $20 million was spent on 228 watershed plans that address 
water quality. A majority of these watershed plans address AFOs.
    EPA has two funds that can be partially used to help many AFOs meet 
the performance expectation. The first is the 319 program, also known 
as the Nonpoint Source Management Program. Under section 319 of the 
CWA, States, Territories, and Tribes apply for and receive grants from 
EPA to implement nonpoint source pollution controls. Over $670 million 
have been available from this fund since 1990, with approximately 39 
percent being directed toward agricultural issues, including AFOs.
    The second EPA fund is the Clean Water SRF, which is a program used 
to make low interest loans (as low as zero percent) for important water 
quality projects. Managed by the States, the SRF program in each State 
can fund nonpoint source eligible implementation projects such as 
animal waste storage facilities. The SRF program is funding 
approximately three billion dollars in projects each year with a 
cumulative total over the years of $20 billion. Since 1997, the SRF 
program has funded over $650 million in nonpoint source-eligible 
projects to clean up polluted runoff (including AFOs).
    Currently, many States have cost-share programs that address water 
quality issues. Funds from these programs are available to owners or 
operators to assist in development and implementation of CNMPs. USDA 
and EPA strongly support such programs.
    Options to help provide Federal financial assistance to AFO 
operators to develop and implement CNMPs include:
     Continue and increase the USDA-EPA collaboration on AFO 
issues particularly at the field level, to better target and leverage 
available resources from all applicable programs to assist AFOs in 
addressing water quality issues.
     Target Federal financial assistance to existing AFOs who 
need to develop or revise CNMPs to meet the performance expectation 
established by this Strategy.
     Significantly increase EQIP funding as requested in the 
President's budget to meet the expressed demand from AFO owners and 
operators for financial assistance.
     Encourage AFO owners and operators to take full advantage 
of the CRP program and establish conservation buffers as part of their 
CNMPs. Also encourage States to collaborate with the Federal government 
through the CREP provision of the CRP program.
     Encourage States to use 319 funding in implementing 
programs that address management issues of AFOs. In particular, EPA 
will work with States to target the requested increase in 319 funds to 
impaired watersheds.
     EPA will work with States to increase the number and 
dollar amount of loans made through the Clean Water SRF for priority 
projects to prevent polluted runoff, with the goal of increasing the 
annual percentage of funds loaned for this purpose to at least 10 
percent (or about $200 million) by the year 2001. EPA will also work 
with States toward the goal of increasing to 25 the number of States 
using integrated priority-setting systems to make clean water funding 
decisions by the year 2000. EPA will work with States to promote the 
use of these funds for AFO implementation measures.
     Encourage States and Tribes to address AFO issues as they 
work with the community to develop watershed restoration action 
strategies for priority watersheds under the CWAP.
     Develop a tool package of financial assistance programs 
that will be available so that AFO owners, counties, SWCDs, and States 
can assess options and understand how to receive financial assistance.

Strategic Issue #3  Implementing and Improving the Existing Regulatory 
Program

Description
    The CWA provides that all ``point sources'' of water pollution that 
discharge or add pollution to waters are subject to having a National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under section 402 
of the Act. Section 502 of the Act defines ``concentrated animal 
feeding operations'' or CAFOs as point sources. EPA regulations provide 
detailed criteria for determining when an AFO is also a CAFO subject to 
the NPDES permit program (see also Section 4.2 and 4.4 of this 
Strategy).
    This Strategy clarifies the applicability and the requirements of 
the existing regulatory program, identifies permitting and enforcement 
priorities, and describes EPA's plans to strengthen and improve 
existing regulations. For those facilities covered by the NPDES 
permitting program, CNMPs will identify steps to protect water quality 
and public health and will be a key element of the permit.
Desired Outcomes
     Minimize pollution from CAFOs to the greatest extent 
practicable.
     Ensure the maximum environmental benefit is obtained per 
public dollar expended.
     Develop draft comprehensive CAFO permitting guidance and 
model permits by October 1998 and final guidance by January 1999.
     Develop comprehensive State CAFO permitting strategies 
beginning in early 1999.
     Issue Round I NPDES permits to all CAFOs beginning in 
Spring 1999.
     Revise the NPDES CAFO permitting regulations by December 
2001.
     Review and revise as appropriate the effluent limitation 
guideline for poultry and swine by December 2001 and for beef and dairy 
by December 2002.
     Large CAFOs (greater than 1,000 AUs) have developed and 
are implementing CNMPs by 2003.
     All CAFOs in States where EPA administers the NPDES 
program have developed and are implementing CNMPs by 2003.
     Issue Round II NPDES permits to all CAFOs beginning in 
2005.
     All CAFOs in NPDES authorized States have developed and 
are implementing CNMPs in 2005.
Actions
1. Improve Implementation of the Existing CWA Permitting Program
    EPA will work with States to establish a two-phase approach to 
permitting CAFOs. Round I of CAFO permitting will occur under EPA's 
existing CAFO regulations. In Round II permits, core permit elements 
may be expanded to reflect revisions to the effluent guideline, permit 
program regulations, and State-adopted water quality standards for 
nutrients.
A. Round I Permits
    In Round I, EPA will work with NPDES-authorized States to issue 
Statewide general NPDES permits to cover all CAFOs with greater than 
1000

[[Page 50204]]

AUs and CAFOs with between 300-1000 AUs that have unacceptable 
conditions. These general permits will be issued starting in Spring 
1999 and affected CAFOs will be expected to submit a notice of intent 
to be covered by the permit. General permits will require facilities to 
develop and implement CNMPs on a schedule identified in the permit, 
develop record keeping procedures, and routinely report on the 
implementation of the CNMP.
    EPA and the NPDES-authorized States should use individual NPDES 
permits in Round I for exceptionally large operations, new operations 
or those undergoing significant expansion, operations with historical 
compliance problems, or operations with significant environmental 
concerns. States have flexibility in determining which CAFOs should 
have individual NPDES permits and should address this topic in State 
CAFO permitting strategies (see Section 1D below).
    Also in Round I, EPA will work with the States and Tribes to issue 
watershed general permits for facilities in selected watersheds, 
including those identified as not meeting clean water goals. States are 
encouraged to develop watershed general permits for watersheds where 
there are aggregate water quality impacts from AFOs on a watershed 
scale (see Section 4.4).
    Watershed general permits are based on existing EPA and State 
permitting authority. EPA's regulations on general permits (40 CFR 
122.28) allow the issuance of a single permit to cover facilities that 
share common elements (e.g., CAFOs) within a specific geographic area 
(e.g., watershed). To be covered under a watershed general permit 
during Round I, AFOs with fewer than 1000 AUs need to be individually 
designated as ``significant contributors'' of water pollution and AFOs 
with fewer than 301 AUs also need to meet specific criteria (e.g., have 
a man-made conveyance through which pollutants are discharged into 
navigable waters or a direct discharge to waters passing through the 
facility).
    These watershed general permits will allow for tailoring of NPDES 
permit requirements to the needs of a watershed. Watershed general 
permits could also tailor permit requirements to the realities of 
manure and wastewater management practices in a given locality and 
promote more effective public participation than would a Statewide 
general permit. Watershed general permits must be written to reflect 
any TMDL developed for the watershed. EPA encourages permit writers to 
use their best judgment in developing such permits.
    States should also issue individual permits to individual 
facilities that are significant contributors of water pollution to 
waters that do not attain water quality standards, due in whole or part 
to AFOs.
B. Round II Permits
    Round II permitting will include reissuance of Statewide general 
permits, individual permits, and watershed general permits; will begin 
at the end of the five-year permit term of Round I (i.e., about 2005); 
and will incorporate new requirements resulting from revisions to the 
existing CAFO effluent guideline and NPDES permitting regulations.
    In addition to potential regulatory revisions that may affect CAFO 
permitting, Round II CAFO permits will incorporate requirements that 
reflect ongoing activities related to nutrient water quality criteria 
development. On June 25, 1998, EPA announced a national strategy for 
the development of regional nutrient criteria. The strategy describes 
the approach EPA will take for development of scientific information 
related to nutrients and to working with States to ensure adoption of 
nutrient criteria into State water quality standards. EPA will 
establish numeric criteria for nutrients within three years of their 
issuance or by 2000, as specified in the Clean Water Action Plan. EPA 
expects all States and Tribes to adopt and implement numerical nutrient 
criteria into their water quality standards by December 31, 2003. All 
NPDES permits must be revised to incorporate requirements to meet 
State-adopted nutrient criteria as the permits are issued or reissued.
    In Round II, EPA and States will continue to identify watersheds 
where cumulative effects of AFOs cause nonattainment of water quality 
standards and EPA and States will continue to identify as a priority 
for individual permits certain exceptionally large operations, those 
undergoing significant expansion or those with significant public 
interest.
    Finally, in Round II, EPA will not include, and recommend that 
States not include, in reissued Statewide general permits any CAFO with 
fewer than 1000 AUs (or whatever appropriate threshold may exist 
because of revised regulations) that was included in a Round I permit 
if the CAFO is not located in a watershed that is identified as 
impaired and if the CAFO has successfully addressed the initial 
condition that caused them to be a CAFO, is fully implementing a CNMP, 
and offers evidence that it is in full compliance with its permit at 
the end of the permit term (See Section 4.6).
C. CAFO Permitting Guidance and Model Permits
    EPA will develop comprehensive guidance on NPDES permitting of 
CAFOs including development of Statewide, individual, and watershed 
general permits. EPA will also develop model Statewide, individual, and 
watershed general permits. Guidance and model permits will be issued in 
draft by October 1998 and in final form by January 1999.
    A key subject to be addressed in the guidance is the process for 
establishing schedules for development of CNMPs for those facilities 
covered by individual and general permits. These schedules for 
development of CNMPs should be appropriate to the circumstances in each 
State and should be described in detail in State-specific permitting 
strategies (see below). At a minimum, State-specific permitting 
strategies should provide for the development of CNMPs for the largest 
CAFOs (i.e., greater than 1,000 AUs) by 2003 and all CAFOs by 2005. In 
States where EPA administers the NPDES program, permits will require 
that all CAFOs have CNMPs by 2003.
    The guidance will also address issues such as who is required to 
obtain a permit, elements of a permit (which may differ for new or 
expanding CAFOs and existing CAFOs), and different types of permits, 
including watershed general permits, consistent with the permitting 
priorities described in Section 4.4. EPA expects that permit elements 
will include specific performance measures for CNMP implementation, 
reporting (including reporting on CNMPs for land application and their 
implementation), and monitoring.
    The model permits will provide that CNMPs developed pursuant to a 
permit, or that are directly related to issuance of a permit, should be 
provided to the permitting authority by the permittee. Some States have 
adopted approaches in their permitting programs that recognize the 
environmental responsibilities of corporate entities that participate 
in the operation of CAFOs. EPA will explore options for including such 
approaches in its model permits.
    USDA and EPA agree that a CNMP developed by public sector parties 
or certified private parties should be a condition of an individual or 
general NPDES permit. EPA guidance will indicate that the CNMP should 
be the principal substantive pollution control provision of the permit 
and will

[[Page 50205]]

incorporate NRCS's practice standards as the appropriate practice 
standards for CAFO CNMPs. Permits will include other provisions 
including any more stringent conditions necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CWA (See Section 4.5).
D. State-Specific CAFO Permitting Strategies
    EPA and USDA recognize that the current law and regulations provide 
authority to issue permits to a larger group of CAFOs than is 
identified in the priorities described in Section 4.4. However, States 
are asked to prioritize NPDES permit issuance to address AFOs that fall 
into the three priority permitting categories, at a minimum, and any 
other AFOs the State determines should have permits consistent with the 
authority of the current law, following the general guidelines for 
Round I and Round II permitting described above.
    Some States have significantly greater numbers of AFOs requiring 
permits than do other States. The capacity for development of CNMPs in 
the public and private sector will vary from State to State. Resources 
available for the management of the NPDES program also vary from State 
to State. And, the extent to which smaller AFOs (i.e. under 1,000 
animal units) are significant contributors to water quality problems on 
a site-specific or watershed basis will vary among States. State-
specific CAFO permitting strategies should address timing and 
approaches to permitting, including the basis for using individual and 
general permits and should reflect stakeholder and public input to the 
extent practicable.
    EPA will assist States in evaluating their CAFO permitting efforts 
and in developing, beginning in early 1999, comprehensive strategies 
consistent with this national Strategy to enhance permitting, 
inspection, and enforcement activities for CAFOs. EPA will also work 
with States to develop performance measures that track environmental 
progress and programmatic efforts. Finally, EPA will work to develop 
State-specific CAFO permitting strategies in cooperation with States 
that do not administer the NPDES program.
    EPA will work with States to ensure that EPA enforcement priorities 
are designed to complement and ensure successful implementation of this 
Strategy and are otherwise consistent with State-specific permitting 
strategies. However, notwithstanding these priorities, it should also 
be recognized that EPA may initiate enforcement action at any facility 
at any time under the Agency's authorities to address imminent and 
substantial endangerments.
    Several States have permitting or licensing programs that address 
environmental issues and requirements for AFOs that go beyond the NPDES 
program. EPA intends to work with States to ensure that State and 
Federal programs work together smoothly to protect water quality and 
public health. EPA will also work with States that are authorized to 
administer the NPDES program to ensure that State programs meet the 
NPDES substantive and procedural requirements and issue NPDES permits. 
However, this Strategy is not intended to preclude States from adopting 
more stringent approaches in their NPDES programs.
2. Review and Revision of Existing Regulations
A. Feedlots Effluent Limitations Guidelines
    EPA will, with input from USDA, States, Tribes, other Federal 
Agencies and the public, review and revise as appropriate, the effluent 
limitation guideline for poultry and swine by December 2001 and for 
beef and dairy cattle by December 2002. NRCS and other USDA agencies 
will participate on the regulatory workgroup to revise the regulations.
    In 1974, EPA promulgated the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New 
Source Performance Standards for the Feedlots Point Source Category (40 
CFR 412). The effluent guidelines for feedlots applies to a subset of 
operations in the following animal sectors: beef and dairy cattle, 
swine, sheep, horses, broiler and layer chickens, turkeys, and ducks.
    The guideline establishes a ``no discharge'' requirement for 
process wastewater which, in general, includes the manure from the 
feedlot as well as any precipitation that comes into contact with the 
manure or any products used in or resulting from the production of 
animals or direct products (e.g., milk, eggs). The requirement 
prohibits discharges except those that result from chronic or 
catastrophic events, including from a 25-year, 24-hour or larger storm 
event where a facility has been appropriately designed and constructed. 
This ``no discharge'' standard applies to existing as well as new 
facilities.
    EPA expects that revisions to the effluent guidelines will:
     Be closely coordinated with any changes to the NPDES 
permitting regulations.
     Consider innovative and alternative technologies including 
the viability of treatment and discharge technologies and technologies 
that do not involve storage of liquid manure.
     Assess different management practices that minimize the 
discharge of pollutants and the cross-media transfer of pollutants.
     Evaluate alternative use and disposal options for manure 
that nonetheless capture their nutrient/energy value.
     Evaluate options for regulating dry manure handling 
systems.
     Evaluate the need for different requirements for new or 
expanding and existing facilities.
B. NPDES Permit Regulations
    EPA will, with input from USDA, States, Tribes, other Federal 
Agencies, and the public, revise the NPDES permit program regulations 
regarding CAFOs by December 2001.
    EPA intends to revise the existing permitting regulations to 
clarify expectations and requirements for CAFOs as well as to reflect 
the changes in the industry. NRCS and other USDA agencies will 
participate on the regulatory workgroup to revise the regulations. 
Revision of the permitting regulations will be closely coordinated with 
the revision of the Feedlots Effluent Limitations Guideline (40 CFR 
Part 412) because of the commonality of issues and the administrative 
efficiencies for EPA, States and all interested groups. Permits in 
effect on the date of new regulations will remain in effect until 
subsequently changed to incorporate the new requirements.
    Key permitting issues that EPA intends to consider during the 
regulatory revision process include:
     Establishing specific requirements for new and 
significantly expanding facilities and monitoring requirements for 
permitted facilities.
     Clarifying requirements for effective management of manure 
and wastewater from CAFOs whether they are handled on-site or off-site.
     Explore alternative ways of defining CAFOs.
     Consider requirements for CAFOs to conduct self-
evaluations of CNMP implementation and keep records of such evaluations 
on-site.
     Considering large poultry operations, consistent 
with the size threshold for other animal sectors, as CAFOs, regardless 
of the type of watering or manure handling system.
     Clarifying who may designate and the criteria for 
designating certain AFOs as CAFOs.
     Providing for the protection of sensitive water bodies 
such as source water protection areas, Outstanding

[[Page 50206]]

National Water Resources, wetlands and other areas.
     Providing for expedited designation of smaller AFOs in 
watersheds identified for watershed general permits.
     Removing the exemption from permitting for AFOs 
that only discharge during a 24-hour 25-year or larger storm event.
     New, improved public review of general permit conditions 
applicable to individual facilities, including public notice of 
facilities to be covered.
     Consider defining all facilities regardless of size that 
have a man-made conveyance as a CAFO.
     Explore alternative approaches to ensuring that corporate 
entities support the efforts of individual AFOs to comply with permits 
and develop and implement CNMPs.
3. Improve Implementation of the Existing CWA Compliance and 
Enforcement Program
    The following actions are designed to improve implementation of the 
existing CWA compliance and enforcement program for CAFOs and support 
implementation of this Strategy:
    CAFO Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan Revisions--EPA will 
revise its CAFO Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan as necessary 
to ensure that EPA and State enforcement priorities support 
implementation of this Strategy. However, EPA may initiate emergency 
actions at any time against any AFO that presents an imminent or 
substantial endangerment.
    Compliance Assistance--EPA will continue and expand compliance 
assistance efforts led by the National Agricultural Compliance 
Assistance Center consistent with the Strategy and changes to the 
regulatory program. As regulations are revised and implemented, EPA's 
initial efforts will focus on compliance assistance and later shift to 
a greater focus on enforcement activities.
    CAFO Inspections--EPA will work with States to establish 
commitments for inspection of CAFOs with the goal of inspecting 
existing CAFOs (including unannounced periodic inspections to determine 
if CAFO CNMPs are being implemented) and other facilities that may need 
to be designated as CAFOs because they may fall into one of the 
categories that are priorities for NPDES permitting. EPA expects that 
training will be necessary for inspectors and will engage specialists 
familiar with AFOs and associated management practices to assist in 
this training.

Strategic Issue # 4  Coordinated Research, Technical Innovation, 
Compliance Assistance, and Technology Transfer

Description
    Coordinated research, technical innovation, compliance assistance, 
and technology transfer relative to the environmental management of 
AFOs are critical components of this Strategy. USDA and EPA, together 
with other Federal partners, will establish coordinated research, 
technical innovation, and technology transfer activities, and 
compliance assistance, and establish a single point information center.
    Knowledge gaps exist in our understanding of the effects of AFOs on 
natural resources and environmental quality. Some of this lack of 
understanding is due to the fragmented structure of our research and 
data collection efforts, information residing in multiple locations 
with much of the information obtained with objectives different from 
those of this Strategy and different information being used by AFO 
managers, technical assistance specialists and regulators. For example, 
research is done primarily from an animal production and natural 
resource management perspective by the Agricultural Research Service 
(ARS), Economic Research Service (ERS), and the land-grant colleges and 
universities, among others. These entities also do research on economic 
issues such as economic impact, cost/benefit analyses, policy analyses, 
and resource use and environmental implications. EPA, U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS), and university researchers conduct research on AFOs from 
an environmental quality viewpoint. EPA and USDA will, in coordination 
with the private sector, the land grant colleges and universities and 
others, develop a coordinated plan for research, development, and 
assessment.
Desired Outcomes
    A coordinated approach to research, technical innovation, 
compliance assistance, and technology transfer.
Actions
    A. Coordinated Research Plan--USDA and EPA will develop a 
coordinated AFO research plan by October 1999. This plan will establish 
priorities for future research including:
    1. Methods to better manage manure to address nutrients, pathogens, 
and other pollutants.
    2. Modification of animal diets to reduce nutrients in manure.
    3. Mitigation of sites with excessive pollutants.
    4. Evaluation of impacts of best management practices from farm and 
watershed perspectives.
    5. Educational materials for all audiences that meet their 
conservation, regulatory, and production needs.
    6. Alternative uses of animal manure, such as for energy production 
or for high value, low volume fertilizers.
    7. Assessment of the climate change effects of methane and NOx 
emissions from AFOs.
    8. Assessment of the problem of air deposition of nutrients.
    9. Assessment of food safety impacts from AFOs including pathogens, 
hormones, antibiotics, and metals and the water quality impacts 
resulting from the discharge of these and other compounds to the 
environment.
    10. Assessment of the quality of existing monitoring data.
    11. Alternatives to production methods that use animal confinement.
    12. Establishment of soil phosphorous threshold levels.
    13. Alternatives for transporting manure, manure distribution, and 
composting.
    14. Water quality risk of dry manure management.
    B. Coordinated Technology Transfer Plan--USDA and EPA will develop 
a coordinated AFO technology transfer plan by October 1999. The plan 
will describe how to disseminate the results of all research conducted 
by the agencies. The plan will also describe the establishment of a 
website on which to post all data results, analyses of the resulting 
information, comments or responses to the results or analyses, 
automated nutrient management tools, and any scholarly papers about the 
research project or related information.
    C. Virtual Center--USDA and EPA will develop a Virtual Center with 
the goal of creating a single point of reference for both agencies, the 
individual producers, the livestock industry, and the general public. 
EPA and USDA will commit to developing a process for setting research 
priorities, coordinating research activities, participating in joint 
research endeavors, and sharing research results. The Virtual Center 
will consist of a website to be maintained by personnel from both USDA 
and EPA where research results, analyses, comments and responses to the 
research and scholarly papers on the research project or related 
information would be available to all.
Options
    There are two options for realizing the three actions described 
above in this section. Regardless of which option is

[[Page 50207]]

chosen, EPA and USDA will coordinate with the National Agricultural 
Library in Beltsville, Maryland, which currently serves as a USDA 
repository for research data and results, as well as the National 
Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center. These options are not 
mutually exclusive nor exhaustive:
    1. Develop a National AFO Information and Research Center.
    USDA and EPA would develop a National AFO Information and Research 
Center. Appropriate EPA offices and USDA agencies would provide support 
to the Center. Other Federal agencies (e.g., USGS, Department of 
Energy) that are conducting relevant research, information management, 
and technical assistance activities would be invited to join as 
associated members. Members of the Center would contribute both 
financial and personnel support to the Center's activities. The Center 
would develop and manage a coordinated research program, compliance 
assistance, data exchange and coordinated technical assistance. In the 
short term, the Center would be tasked to complete the three action 
items described above.
    2. Establish a National AFO Information and Research Working Group.
    USDA and EPA would establish a National AFO Information and 
Research Working Group. Appropriate EPA offices and USDA agencies would 
provide support to the working group. Other Federal agencies that are 
conducting relevant research, information management, and technical 
assistance activities would be invited to join as members. Members of 
the working group would contribute both financial and personnel support 
to the working group's activities, although each cooperating agency 
would be directly responsible for the management of its human and 
financial resources. The working group would develop and manage a 
coordinated research, information exchange, and technical assistance 
program. The working group would also collaborate and coordinate 
activities with other appropriate entities. The Working Group would be 
tasked to complete the three action items described above.

Strategic Issue #5  Encouraging Industry Leadership

Description
    This Strategy intends to provide strong incentives for AFO owners 
and operators to develop and implement CNMPs. Other sections of the 
animal agriculture industry can also play a key role in helping to 
encourage adoption of these CNMPs and address water quality problems on 
individual AFOs. An example is the Comprehensive Environmental 
Framework for Pork Production Operations recommended by the National 
Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production. The Dialogue included 
representatives from State Agriculture and Environmental Agencies, 
USDA, EPA, and the pork industry. The National Pork Producers Council 
is recommending that the Framework would apply to all commercial pork 
production operations. The poultry industry is currently conducting a 
similar dialogue. These industry-led initiatives can significantly 
increase the voluntary adoption of CNMPs to protect water quality. In 
addition to the animal agriculture industry, other groups ( i.e., co-
ops, the Certified Crop Advisors, and the National Association of 
Independent Crop Consultants) can play a key role in helping AFOs 
protect water quality and public health.
    USDA and EPA invite comments on how the agricultural and livestock 
industries can play an active role in ensuring that all AFOs have 
CNMPs.
Desired Outcomes
    The animal agriculture industry will take the lead in promoting and 
ensuring the protection of water quality on individual AFOs though 
development and implementation of CNMPs on all AFOs.
Actions
    The following are actions that USDA and EPA may take to promote 
industry involvement. USDA and EPA request comment on which of these 
actions or other actions would benefit most from Federal involvement.
    Industry-Led Initiatives--USDA and EPA will work with industry, in 
particular integrators, to identify opportunities for greater industry 
involvement in pollution prevention. This could include the integrators 
providing technical, educational, and financial assistance to producers 
and/or requiring CNMPs in contracts with producers. This could also 
include industry use of climate, soil, and crop information supplied by 
USDA and EPA to locate future operations. USDA and EPA will promote 
industry-led dialogues in different AFO sectors such as the recently 
concluded pork dialogue and the ongoing poultry dialogue.
    Manure Brokering Networks--USDA and EPA will investigate with the 
industry the potential for manure brokering networks to make sure 
excess manure is available to the cropland which needs it.
    AFO Owner/Operator Peer Network--USDA and EPA will promote with the 
industry a peer network of AFO owners and operators willing to assist 
other producers in their area with questions or assistance on CNMPs.
    AFO Awards Program--USDA and EPA will work with AFO Industry groups 
to develop an awards program to promote innovative and effective water 
quality management of AFOs.
    Disseminate Information--USDA and EPA will work with industry 
(associations, integrators, etc.) to disseminate information on the 
revised NPDES regulations and effluent guidelines, beginning in 2001.
    Locally-Led Watershed Efforts--USDA and EPA will work with the AFO 
industry to promote locally led watershed efforts.
    Industry-Developed Planning Tools--USDA and EPA will encourage and 
support industry efforts to develop and distribute planning tools to 
members to enable them to develop and implement CNMPs.
    Environmental Reviews--USDA and EPA will promote industry efforts 
to conduct environmental reviews of members' AFOs to evaluate 
environmental performance and assist in enhancing environmental 
protection.
    Manure/Fertilizer/Biosolids Dialogue--USDA and EPA will encourage 
dialogue on how to maximize the benefits of using manure, fertilizer, 
and biosolids.
    Marketing and Promotion Orders--The 1996 Farm Bill authorized 
conservation as a purpose for marketing and promotion orders. Marketing 
and promotion orders allow an agriculture industry (e.g., livestock) to 
assess a charge on the product to be used for conservation and 
environmental activities. These marketing and promotion orders generate 
needed funds for an activity and can provide financial support for all 
its producers (e.g., growers). In implementing a marketing and 
promotion order (i.e., check-off program) through the Secretary of 
Agriculture, additional revenue can be generated to support, while 
maintaining a level playing field throughout the industry, needed 
nutrient management practices.

Strategic Issue #6  Data Coordination

Description
    Several kinds of data are useful in assessing and managing the 
water quality impacts of AFOs. Ambient water quality information allows 
the identification of water quality impacts that may be attributable to 
AFOs. Aggregate information about multiple

[[Page 50208]]

AFOs can be used to target both regulatory and voluntary activities, 
including watershed-level planning. Finally, information about 
individual AFOs is helpful for those assisting owners and operators in 
developing CNMPs, identifying facilities that may be subject to the 
regulatory program, and for the development and implementation of 
watershed-level plans. These three kinds of data are available from 
multiple sources, including USDA, EPA, USGS, Army Corps of Engineers, 
and State agencies.
    Recently, questions have been raised regarding the public 
availability of some types of information related to AFOs- in 
particular, data related to individual AFOs used by USDA to assist in 
conservation planning. USDA and EPA affirm the need to protect the 
trust relationship that exists between farmers and USDA and as 
characterized by Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman's call to 
``maintain a firewall between voluntary and regulatory programs.'' On 
May 22, 1998, NRCS issued a policy statement that prohibits the release 
of AFO-specific information in conservation plans and case files that 
has been developed through voluntary technical and financial assistance 
programs. In accordance with EPA regulations most information on 
individual facilities, collected or generated as part of the NPDES 
program, is publicly available.
Desired Outcomes
    USDA/EPA coordination on data sharing that protects the trust 
relationship between USDA and farmers and provides regulatory 
authorities with information that is useful in protecting water 
quality.
Actions
    Joint Policy Statement on Data Coordination--EPA and USDA will 
develop a joint policy statement on information coordination. Both 
agencies agree to review existing policies and guidance based on the 
joint policy statement.
    Water Quality Inventory Enhancements--EPA will improve the 305(b) 
Water Quality Inventory to better report the water quality impacts 
caused by AFOs.
    Cost-Benefit Methodology--EPA and USDA will develop a joint 
evaluation of the costs and benefits of this Strategy and options 
considered in developing revised CAFO regulations. USDA and EPA will 
convene an interagency economic analysis work group to develop the 
economic analysis methodology and data that may be used in the 
analysis.
    CAFO Inventory--To ensure a program that is consistent with NPDES 
program activities, EPA will develop an inventory of facilities subject 
to regulatory activities.

Strategic Issue #7--Performance Measures and Accountability

Description
    USDA and EPA believe that it is critical to establish performance 
measures to gauge our success in implementing this Strategy and meeting 
relevant goals in each agency's strategic plan established under the 
Government Performance and Results Act. Three types of performance 
measures are important. First, USDA and EPA are committed to completing 
each of the actions described under the strategic issues. Second, there 
are a number of programmatic activities (e.g., number of AFOs with 
CNMPs, number of CAFOs covered by NPDES permits) that we will evaluate 
to measure the level of activity being devoted to addressing water 
quality impacts from AFOs. Finally, and most importantly, USDA and EPA 
will develop appropriate environmental outcome measures to measure our 
progress in implementing this Strategy.
    We recognize that measurement of AFO progress in addressing water 
quality issues will take time for two reasons: (1) it will take time to 
develop appropriate measures; and (2) it will take time for water 
quality progress to be achieved (maybe decades in some watersheds).
Desired Outcomes
    An effective performance measurement system for AFOs that includes 
appropriate programmatic output and environmental outcomes that allows 
USDA, EPA and other stakeholders to determine the level of success and 
to improve AFO-related programs.
Actions
    Performance Measurement--USDA, EPA, and other Federal agencies will 
establish a joint work group to develop a coordinated set of 
programmatic outputs and environmental outcome measures for this 
Strategy and identify a baseline against which to measure performance. 
The work group will seek input from States and SWCDs and will develop a 
performance measurement approach for AFOs by October 1999.
    Watershed Nutrient Load Estimates--USDA and EPA will estimate by 
January 2000 a baseline of nutrient loads to watersheds with potential 
excess nutrients from animal waste using data from fertilizer sales, 
USGS/EPA nutrient loading analysis, Census of Agriculture, permit 
limits, and other estimates.

6.0  Roles

    The successful implementation of this Strategy calls for a number 
of individuals and organizations to fulfill several key roles. These 
key roles are described in the following paragraphs.
     Federal Government--It is the Federal government's 
responsibility to establish minimum national expectations, technical 
standards, and regulatory requirements for AFOs, and to help provide 
the tools to achieve these expectations, standards, and requirements. 
EPA, through the CWA, Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, and 
the Safe Drinking Water Act, is charged with the regulatory 
responsibilities, including permitting, compliance assurance, and 
enforcement, that relate to AFOs. USDA, through conservation, research, 
and education provisions of the Farm Bill and other legislation, is 
largely responsible for programs that help AFOs meet performance 
expectations through voluntary efforts. There are many ways that USDA, 
EPA, and other Federal agencies can work together to assist animal 
producers and the public including collaboration on research, 
education, technical assistance and financial assistance. USDA and EPA, 
in particular, will work closely and cooperatively, to ensure that the 
goals and expectations of this Strategy are met and its guiding 
principles are reflected in our combined and independent activities.
     State/Local Government--State and local governments often 
have the responsibility for implementing Federal programs. For example, 
42 States and the Virgin Islands are authorized to implement the 
current CWA provisions that affect CAFOs. States also implement various 
nonpoint source control programs, including cost-share programs. States 
and SWCDs are key partners in implementing environmental and 
conservation programs. State Land Grant Universities are the primary 
mechanism to deliver agricultural research and extension programs. 
State, local, and Federal governments, and private sector partners work 
together to ensure that the actions taken on the ground are appropriate 
and cost effective. State and local governments also help determine 
where water quality and public health protection must be enhanced 
beyond the minimum performance expectations established through Federal 
programs, and often deal with local issues such as siting and odor.

[[Page 50209]]

     Individual Producers--No matter what size an operation or 
from what management activity, the release of pollutants to surface or 
groundwater from an AFO is to be avoided. It is the responsibility of 
individual owners and operators, and the companies and industries they 
are involved with, to minimize the release of pollutants from AFOs. 
Every operation should be implementing a CNMP that minimizes the risks 
of pollution.
     Integrators--Integrators should ensure that their contract 
growers are environmentally responsible. Feed mills and processing 
plants should incorporate the environmental impacts of the dissociated 
production operations into the siting and sizing of their plants. 
Integrators can also help develop alternatives for manure use and 
transport.
     Livestock Industry--The livestock industry as a whole has 
an obligation to educate its members and to provide leadership to 
ensure that its practices do not adversely impact society or the 
environment. Many sectors of the livestock industry have shown 
leadership by moving forward to establish new, industry-led efforts to 
improve the siting and management of AFOs, and to provide training to 
operators. This leadership must be enhanced and continue.
     Other Private Sector--The private sector can continue to 
contribute to new technologies and innovative strategies that 
capitalize on the nutrient and energy value of animal manure and 
related by-products of AFOs. This would include vendors and consultants 
of animal manure treatment and management systems. Various 
organizations, including livestock organizations and AFO-related 
companies provide educational programs to inform AFO owners and 
operators about Federal and State goals, standards, rules, and 
permitting processes, and to teach them how they can protect 
environmental quality and comply with regulatory provisions. The 
agricultural and environmental consulting community can also respond by 
helping to ensure that appropriate technical resources are available to 
assist with development of CNMPs for producers. Fertilizer producers 
and dealers can provide information on integrating use of manure and 
other nutrient sources to ensure appropriate nutrient use.
     Research and Educational Institutions--Public and private 
research organizations provide much of the knowledge and technology to 
better manage and utilize manure and related by-products of livestock 
production. USDA's and EPA's research, education, and technical 
assistance programs will provide leadership in developing new and 
innovative technologies for AFOs and analyzing their effectiveness.
     Watershed or Community Responsibilities--Every watershed 
where the concentration of AFOs is a potential source of pollution 
should have a watershed- or area-wide plan that helps AFO owners, 
operators, and others to work together to prevent pollution. Such 
planning is particularly important in areas where problems exist, such 
as where the quantity of manure and nutrients produced by AFOs exceeds 
what can be safely applied to land to meet crop needs. Locally led 
watershed efforts promote coordinated and integrated decision making to 
find sound, locally acceptable ways to achieve environmental quality.
     Environmental Groups--Environmental groups and grass-roots 
organizations play an important role in focusing public attention on 
environmental concerns with respect to animal production activities. 
Environmental groups can provide ``on-site'' reports about specific 
environmental quality concerns and can educate its members, the general 
public, the agricultural community and the media about important 
environmental concerns at the local, State, and national level.

    Signed in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 1998.
James R. Lyons,
Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Dana D. Minerva,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
[FR Doc. 98-25138 Filed 9-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-p