January 13, 1999

Denise C. Coleman
USDA, NRCS
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013-2890

Dear Ms. Coleman:

The Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture (Wallace Institute) welcomes the opportunity to provide input into the process of developing a draft unified strategy for animal feeding operations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Wallace Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, research and educational organization. Established in 1983, the Institute encourages the adoption of low-cost, resource-conserving, and environmentally sound farming methods.

The Wallace Institute is generally encouraged that the USDA and EPA have undertaken a joint effort to address the present and potential environmental problems originating from animal feeding operations (AFOs), especially concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Furthermore, we agree with the draft strategy's effort to encourage, through voluntary and non-voluntary means, the development of comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs) for all AFOs. In addition, the Wallace Institute agrees with the move to differentiate CAFOs from other smaller and less-intensive AFOs, with regard to regulatory approaches. This strategy potentially enables the USDA and EPA to better target and control pollution caused by the animal agriculture industry.

There are a number of areas, however, in which the draft strategy is potentially lacking. Rather than attempt to address all of these shortcomings in depth, we focus on four that we consider critical. These four are: (1) the designation of the owner and/or operator as the sole responsible party, regardless of the structure of the animal sector in which the owner and/or operator is participating, for developing and implementing CNMPs; (2) the dearth of language or efforts to promote sustainable alternatives to purely confined animal operations, despite the fact that land application of manure remains the primary method of manure management; (3) the use of general and watershed permits in place of individual permits, in efforts to implement and improve the existing regulatory program; and (4) the lack of explicit efforts to make information regarding CAFOs, including their monitoring and permitting, available to the public.

#1. The designation of the owner and/or operator as the sole responsible party, regardless of the structure of the animal sector in which the owner and/or operator is participating, for developing and implementing CNMPs.

On page 17 of the draft strategy, it is asserted that "the ultimate responsibility for developing and implementing CNMPs resides with the CAFO owner and/or operator." However, such a regulatory strategy is tenable only if the owner and/or operator has effective managerial control over the CAFO. Within the poultry industry, and increasingly the swine industry, the owner and/or operator operates under resource-providing production contracts, where the integrator, not the operator, owns the animals. Such contracts also stipulate that other key aspects of the operation are controlled by the integrator, not the operator. These key aspects include the relative structure and size of the operation (number of animals), building and equipment design (including waste treatment facilities), the quality and type of inputs (including animal feed), and even many day-to-day production decisions. In addition, the integrating firms tend to be large-scale corporations and therefore have greater financial and technical resources than most operators.

To realize positive environmental management outcomes, the party with the ability to invest in pollution control technologies and make critical management decisions should be the party responsible for developing and successfully implementing nutrient management plans. In the case of operations carried out under resource-providing production contracts, the responsible party should be the integrator, not the owner and/or operator. When operations are independent, or operating under less restrictive contract arrangements (e.g., the marketing contracts common in the dairy industry), the responsible party should be the owner and/or operator.

The guiding principle should be to hold responsible the party that has the greater level of control over critical aspects of the production operation.

#2. The dearth of language or efforts to promote sustainable alternatives to purely confined animal operations, despite the fact that land application of manure remains the primary method of manure management.

Implicit in the need for a draft unified strategy is the fact that concentrated animal production, with fewer and larger farms and production centered within limited geographic regions, brings with it certain types of environmental problems. While the draft strategy is an attempt to minimize problems with existing and future concentrated confinement operations, it falls short because it does not consider the development and promotion of alternative, more dispersed production regimes. A more dispersed production system could potentially minimize or eliminate the types of environmental problems that concern the agricultural industry, citizens and citizen groups, and rural residents.

The dominant management technique for manure disposal or utilization remains land application. Given USDA estimates that areas with concentrated production often contain large surpluses of nutrients, and that CAFOs are often specialized operations not integrated with non-animal crop production, there is need for a strategy that promotes dispersal of production and/or integration with non-animal crop production, along with regulation of existing (and future) specialized CAFOs. The current draft strategy attempts only to accomplish the latter goal.

In addition to the more traditional independent and diversified crop and livestock production, which is still present but may be quickly disappearing, promising alternatives (such as intensively managed pasture systems for beef, dairy, poultry, and swine) have been developed. Research on such systems by private groups and university scientists, some of which has been funded by the USDA through its four regional Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) programs, has shown they can be economically viable and environmentally responsible alternatives to purely confined animal production. Ignoring the existence of viable alternatives to the current concentrated confinement systems amounts to an endorsement, over other current and future alternatives, of the concentrated confinement approach to animal agriculture. The Wallace Institute believes that developing environmental standards for animal agriculture, without considering the full range of production options, will ultimately not prove cost-effective.

#3. The use of general and watershed permits in place of individual permits, in efforts to implement and improve the existing regulatory program.

The draft strategy proposes that the majority of existing CAFOs be brought under the proposed regulatory framework through a general permit process and, where appropriate, a watershed general permitting process based on existing EPA regulations. Although the need to bring existing operations under a regulatory framework and to tailor permit requirements to the ecological needs and constraints of particular watersheds is apparent, these goals can be accomplished through the issuance of individual permits, if such permits are designed to meet watershed-level goals. Individual permits that are designed specifically to limit nutrient loadings into a watershed (from all operations within it) to a predetermined level, have the advantage—over watershed general permits—of closer scrutiny of each operation, which should promote more effective environmental management.

#4. The lack of explicit efforts to make information regarding CAFOs, including their monitoring and permitting, available to the public.

A number of industries that potentially or currently release toxic materials into the environment are required to provide the EPA with information on the types and amounts of such materials, which the agency makes public through its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). This process provides a valuable tool for individuals and groups interested in monitoring industrial firms' impacts on the environment and public health.

Manure spills and other CAFO-related events that pollute water should be eligible for inclusion in the TRI. CNMPs and other information required for issuing permits to CAFOs should also be made available to the public. This type of action would assist the EPA in realizing its desired outcome under Strategic Issue #7, Performance Measures and Accountability.

The Wallace Institute thanks the USDA and EPA for this opportunity to provide input into the proposed draft unified animal feeding operation strategy. If we can be of further assistance in the process of developing a unified national strategy for animal feeding operations, please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

Rick Welsh
Policy Analyst

All information contained on this Web page may be used without permission, provided credit is given.