Environment
Know Your River Basin
Information on Pesticide Container Recycling Locations/SchedulesM
NCDA&CS Pesticide Collection/Disposal Schedule
NCDA&CSs multiple opportunities for pesticide certification credits list.
US EPA New Safety Measures for Soil Fumigant
NCFB Comments on Draft Catawba River Basin Plan - NC Farm Bureau filed comments last week with the NC DENR Division of Water Quality on the draft Catawba River Basin Water Quality Plan. These water quality plans are prepared every five years for each river basin in the state, on a rotating schedule. Farm Bureau expressed concern that the chapter on Agriculture in the Catawba Basin in the draft Plan painted agriculture very negatively, without recognizing any of the water quality benefits of having farmland in urbanizing areas. Farm Bureau pointed out that farms have very little impervious surface, allowing water to be captured on the land and filtered through the soil, rather than running off pavement into storm sewers. The Plan also discussed the exemption that agriculture has from the NC Sedimentation and Erosion Control requirements without explaining that farmers have to control erosion and its associated sedimentation through federal requirements that other land disturbing activities in NC do not have to meet. These federal mandates are the Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster provisions of the federal Farm Bill, and farmers have had to have these site-specific erosion control practices fully implemented since 1995 in order to participate in any federal farm program benefits. Farmers stand to lose the ability to participate in a long list of federal farm programs, such as disaster or drought relief, crop insurance, agricultural loan programs and commodity programs. Because the enforcement mechanism is via the pocketbook farmers have a strong incentive to comply with the Farm Bill mandates. DWQ has already sent a response to NCFB, indicating that they plan to make several changes in the Agriculture chapter based on NCFB’s comments and soliciting further information for inclusion in the Plan. For further information contact Anne Coan.
Many Questions Still about NPDES Permits for Pesticides - As previously reported, the EPA issued its draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for pesticide applications near, on or over water. The publication of the draft permit was required by a court decision which stated that pesticide residues or biological pesticides are pollutants when they reach waters of the US and the spray nozzles that applied the material are point sources. These two conditions trigger the need for the NPDES permit. This week Farm Bureau staff joined about 900 other participants in an EPA Webinar where two EPA officials presented information and answered questions about the proposed permit. The questions brought attention to the fact that there are still many areas of the process and permit specifics that need clarification. One is the uncertainty in the pesticide user community as to who will actually have to apply for the permit. EPA has stated that there will be many situations where more than one person or entity will have to have a permit for the same pesticide application event. A question about how this would be interpreted for an application on a greenway by a city park’s groundskeeper prompted EPA to say that they are seeking comments on the question of who (and how many people) would need a permit in various scenarios. Nationwide, EPA is anticipating 365,000 potential persons and entities will have to obtain an NPDES general permit for pesticides applications. The NPDES permit for pesticides application will increase the size of the NPDES permitting program by 60 percent, leaving most states wondering how they will afford this huge increase in the size of their permitting programs, particularly when most states are already severely cutting budgets. EPA is seeking comment and ideas on many parts of the permit, including how to determine a threshold amount of annual application that will trigger the Notice of Intent document submission, how public access to information will be accomplished without holding up needed applications, recordkeeping requirements and users’ annual report contents, what should be included in an applicator’s Pesticide Discharge Management Plan, just to name a few. Farm Bureau is reviewing the permit and associated materials. Written comments are due to EPA by July 19. An archived version of the webinar will be available after June 28 on the EPA webpage on the permit at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=410 Contact Mitch Peele or Anne Coan
SPCC Rule - Previously, we have reported on a recent EPA rule that will affect farms that store oil products in above ground containers greater than 1,320 gallons. The rule will require spill prevention plans and measures to ensure that any spills are contained. Dairies storing milk in outside containers in excess of the threshold would also be subject to the requirements of this rule. Efforts were underway to exempt milk from the requirements of the rule; however, EPA has been focused on the Gulf oil spill and these efforts have been put on hold. At least one member of Congress has introduced a bill to address the milk issue.
Water Issues - Agriculture water bills on developing a strategic plan and establishing a cost share program were combined in the Senate Agriculture Committee this week. A similar move is expected in the House next week. Attached is more information on water legislation. Also, the Agriculture Water Plan Steering Committee is scheduled to meet on June 8 at NCFB to receive a progress report on the development of the strategic plan for protecting agriculture water resources.
Falls Lake Rules - The previously mentioned Falls Lake rules are scheduled to be published on June 15. Public hearings will be at 7 pm on June 30 and July 1 in Durham and Raleigh respectively. Written comments will be due on August 15. Contact Anne Coan.
NC River Considered 4th Most Threatened in US - No it is not the Neuse… The environmental group American Rivers has named the Little River in Wake County as fourth on its list of the ten most endangered rivers in the US. The group cited the proposed construction of a dam on the river to impound a water supply lake for Raleigh and Wake County as the action that endangers the Little River. The Neuse did not make the list this year, where it has appeared in the past for water quality concerns.
More Stringent Water Quality Standard for Chlorophyll-a Proposed - The proposed standard would greatly increase requirements on landowners and others that are in watersheds with nutrient problems. This week the NC Division of Water Quality requested comments be submitted on the economic and societal impacts of the proposal, to meet a state mandate for an economic impact analysis. Those comments are due Sept 7. The Water Quality Committee of the Environmental Management Commission is still considering a separate set of rules on the consequences to landowners that own property in the watersheds of waters that exceed these more stringent standards. These include mandatory buffers, tougher discharge limits, rules on new development and other proposals. When we know more, we will let you know. Contact Anne Coan.
EPA to Cancel Endosulfan Uses - On June 9, EPA abruptly announced that it is working with MANA to remove the registration for endosulfan over the next 6 years. Some uses will be canceled by the end of 2010, some by the end of 2013, and the remaining uses by 2016. This product is used on a wide variety of fruit, vegetable, fiber, and ornamental crops. MANA will be working with grower groups to identify which crop uses are critical to keep for the maximum allowable time frame and others that may be offered up as the initial uses to be removed. Contact Mitch Peele.
Water Issues - You will remember that last week the Senate combined the ag water plan bill and the water cost share bill into one bill S1294. Since then, the bill has passed through the Senate and has been read in the House and was referred to the House Water Resources and Infrastructure Committee. It is expected that this bill will be calendared and heard in the Water Resources and Infrastructure Committee next Tuesday, June 15 at 2:00 pm in room 1228 of the Leg. Bldg. This should become the primary vehicle for getting our ag water plan and cost share legislation passed. Water Resources and Infrastructure, House Standing Committee meets Tuesdays at 2:00 pm in 1228 LB. Committee members are: Rep. Tarleton, Rep. K. Alexander, Rep. Gibson, Rep. Owens, Rep. Blackwell, Rep. Boles, Rep. Gillespie, Rep. Goforth, Rep. Justice, Rep. May, Rep. Mills, Rep. Samuelson, Rep. Underhill, Rep. E. Warren, Rep. R. Warren.
Update EPA Releases Draft Pesticides NPDES Permit (source, EPA) - On June 4, EPA published in the Federal Register its proposed draft NPDES permit to cover all applications of pesticides that are on, over or near water. The proposed permit covers pesticide uses as diverse as herbicide applications to remove nuisance plants or organisms from ponds and lakes, to public health mosquito control, to over-the-top forestry spraying, to spraying utility and road rights-of-way. EPA has proposed threshold application amounts in either acres treated per year or linear feet treated per year. Below the proposed thresholds, pesticide applications would be considered to be covered by the permit without having to file a lengthy formal document called a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain a Certificate of Coverage (COC) under the permit. Considerable documentation would have to be provided with the NOI that would be evaluated by the permitting authority before the COC would be issued. The proposed permit and accompanying documents still leave many unanswered questions about the permit conditions and applicability. The comment deadline to EPA is on the proposed permit is July 19. In addition to requesting comments on the proposed language, EPA has asked for comments on several options that could be added or revised in the proposed permit. Please note that these are lengthy and complex documents. For example, the Fact Sheet about the permit is 116 pages, to explain the 58 page permit. NCFB and AFBF staff continue to carefully review the proposal to evaluate its effect on farmers and other pesticide users. To view the proposal and supporting documents, go to: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=410 If you have questions (after we’ve had a chance to read it all!) contact Mitch Peele or Anne Coan.
Update CAFO Settlement Agreement to Have Major Impact (source, EPA) - Recently EPA published a settlement agreement that they reached with several environmental groups on animal operation regulation and permitting. This agreement was to settle the environmental groups’ side of a lawsuit that the environmental groups had brought against EPA over its 2008 rewrite of the CAFO rule. The CAFO rule sets a zero-discharge standard for manure from CAFOs getting into waterways and imposes penalties— up to $37,500 a day—on operations that do have discharges. The US Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to do two things in the settlement agreement with environmental groups:
- Issue a guidance document that would describe the types of operations and circumstances that the EPA anticipates may trigger the duty to apply for a CAFO permit.
- Propose a rule that would require all, as-yet unspecified size, animal operations (livestock, and wet and dry litter poultry operations) to provide information to EPA, even if they do not have a discharge and do not have an NPDES permit. The information would be public information. Some of the items that animal operations will have to provide include:
- Name and address of owner/operator
- Type of facility
- Size of facility
- Type/Capacity of manure storage
- Whether the CAFO land applies
- If CAFO land applies, nutrient management plan/practices
- If CAFO transfers manure off-site, quantity transferred, recipient
- Whether CAFO has applied for an NPDES permit.
This settlement only addresses the side of the case brought by the environmental groups. The AFBF and animal/poultry group side of this case is still proceeding in the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals. NC Farm Bureau is currently evaluating the settlement agreement to determine its impact on farmers. If you have questions, contact Anne Coan.
Water Ruling Comes Down on Side of Farmers (source, AFBF Executive Newswatch) - U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger recently ruled that federal agencies failed to protect the economic interests of farmers and others in California as well as delta smelt, an endangered fish. The decision, welcomed by farmers in the San Joaquin Valley because it makes more water available, was announced not long after a similar ruling lifted pumping limits that had been established based on the salmon population. Two years ago, Wanger invalidated permits on California dams and pumps. In that ruling, he said the permits were too lenient and posed a threat to endangered salmon and the Delta environment. Next, the federal government pushed for tighter water limits with the support of environmental groups, while concerned urban residents and agricultural groups sued to overturn the more stringent permits. In this latest decision, the judge stated that officials with two agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act when they developed a recovery plan for the smelt, which led to severe restrictions on water for farmers as well as residents of non-farming communities in California.
Water Study Commission - During the week, the two previously mentioned legislative proposals dealing with agriculture water resources were assigned bill numbers and introduced by House and Senate legislators serving on the Commission. See attached. Also, the House versions of these bills will be discussed in the House Water Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday at 2:00 pm in room 1228 of the Legislative Bldg.
EPA Settles Chesapeake Bay Lawsuit - The US Environmental Protection Agency has announced a settlement with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and several environmental groups that commits the Agency to strong regulatory action to force states to adopt programs to clean up the Bay. Of particular interest to farmers is a commitment by EPA and USDA to have four million of the eight million acres of agricultural land in the Bay watershed under best management practices to protect water quality by 2025. Also, the plan calls for placement of two million additional acres of private land under conservation and farmland preservation easements, and calls for thousands of miles of buffer restoration. The settlement commits EPA to writing new, more stringent regulations on animal operations and urban runoff, and to two-year milestones and aggressive enforcement of the nutrient requirements. NCFB is watching this effort closely because EPA has said these efforts are a template for nationwide action. Also the new the animal operation rules are likely to be nationwide. The time schedule for those rules is proposal in 2012 and finalization in 2014. If you have questions, contact Anne Coan.
REPEAT - Aboveground Fuel Storage Rules and EPA Farm Outreach - NCFB has received several requests for information from farmers about the regulations on aboveground fuel storage. In June 2009 the EPA announced the deadline for compliance on farms of November 10, 2010, with the US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) rule. The rule mandates a spill plan for all farm facilities that store more than 1320 gallons of any type of fuels or other oils or oil products in containers over 55 gallons above ground. Pesticides are not included in the rule. Many farms will have to have secondary containment structures around their tanks and will either have to self-certify their structures or have a Professional Engineer design and sign off on the construction of the containment structures. The requirements for PE sign-off are based on the size of the tanks and total amount of storage. NCFB contacted EPA headquarters in Washington to request that they prepare fact sheets and other materials to educate farmers on these complex requirements. EPA said a farm outreach program on the rules is planned, but could give no indication of when it would be ready. NCFB will continue to stress to EPA the need for these materials due to the short time between now and the deadline for full compliance. If you have questions, contact Anne Coan.