EAP Newsletter Sept3_ 2008.pub
Shared by: laurarichert
Colorado Department of Public CAFO / AFO Regulatory Health and Environment Environmental Ag Program 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Colorado Depart- Round-up Denver, CO 80246-1530 ment of Public A Newsletter from the CDPHE Phone (303) 692-3523 Health Environmental Agriculture Program www.cdphe.state.co.us/el/eap/ and Environment index.html CAFO / AFO Regulatory Round-up September 2008 A Note from the Environmental Ag Program Inside this issue: G reetings! Managing a regula- Program is hopeful that by outreach efforts such as this newsletter and our 2007 and 2008 compliance assistance Meet the Ag Program Staff 2 tory program is a site assessments, we can work together Impoundment Liners 2 balancing act be- in a proactive way to preserve, protect In Compliance ? tween what can and improve public health, the environ- seem like too much regulation and what ment and Colorado’s livestock industry. When is a wastewater 3 is perceived by some as too little. Throw We hope you find this newsletter discharge allowed..? into this mix an alternative approach helpful and look forward to continued based on self-regulation, performance- communication with you. Your ideas based standards or new federal require- The Compost Heap 4 are always welcome, and I hope you ments and the ability to maintain a will share them with us as we strive to steady state of regulation is challenging maintain a balanced and meaningful at best. Rocky Mountain 4 regulatory program. National Park Nitro- Since the inception of the depart- gen Deposition ment’s Ag Program in 2005, we have made considerable headway in address- Manure Removal SOP 5 ing producer concerns while still meet- filed ? ing expectations to protect public health and the environment. Phyllis I. Woodford, Manager New Regulation 81 5 While there are no easy answers Environmental Agriculture Program Highlights and sometimes hindsight is 20:20, the Ag Difference Between an 6 AFO and a CAFO If you would like a Hay Storage a Hot 7 copy of this newsletter Topic in Adobe portable document format (pdf), it can be Facility Management 7 downloaded from our website at Plan Components http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/el/ eap/index.html, or by sending us an Record-keeping forms Back email at email@example.com now available from Cover and requesting a copy. the Ag Program Page 2 CAFO / AFO Regulatory Round-up Meet the Environmental Ag Program Staff ! September 2008 The Environmental Ag Pro- Liz Sapio has been with the Ag Pro- gram has three full time and two gram for almost 3 years, providing part time staff persons, as well as compliance assurance and assistance swine feeding operations on regula- a program manager. to housed commercial swine feeding tory compliance assurance and as- operations on odor-related issues. sistance matters pertaining to wa- Ron Jepson has worked for 9 Liz also serves as the department’s ter quality protection. You can years in the Ag Program, assisting Small Business Ombudsman. You can contact him by phone at 303-692- AFOs, CAFOs, and housed com- contact Liz by phone at 303-692-2135 3614 or by email: christo- mercial swine feeding operations or by email: eliza- firstname.lastname@example.org. on regulatory compliance assur- email@example.com. ance and assistance matters per- taining to water quality protec- Julie Huss has been with the Ag Phyllis Woodford has been with tion. You can contact Ron by Program for 1 year. She works part- the CDPHE for 13 years and is the phone at 303-692-3520 or by time on compliance assurance and Ag Program Manager. She also email: firstname.lastname@example.org. assistance activities relating to housed manages the Office of Environ- commercial swine feeding operation mental Integration and Sustainabil- Erin Kress has been with the Ag odor regulations by conducting in- ity, and serves as chair of the Ag Program for 7 years, primarily spections and responding to odor workgroup focusing on nitrogen working with water quality pro- complaints. You can contact Julie by deposition in Rocky Mountain Na- tection matters pertaining to email at: email@example.com. tional Park. You can contact Phyllis AFOs and CAFOs. You can con- at: (303) 692-2978 or tact Erin by phone at 303-692- Chris Hill was recently hired by the 3523 or by email: Ag Program, and he assists AFOs, firstname.lastname@example.org. email@example.com. CAFOs, and housed commercial Are Your Wastewater Impoundment Liners in Compliance? Colorado animal feeding The Ag Program is aware that a fairly common prac- operations utilize a vari- tice is for wastewater to be pumped to a small pond next ety of different im- to a land application site, where it is mixed with fresh poundment structures water shortly before being applied to crops. In an effort to store wastewater. to avoid requiring such ponds to have seepage rate certi- Examples include ponds, fications, the Ag Program’s policy is to not define a pond lagoons, solids settling as a storage structure where wastewater exists in the basins, and push pits. Regulation 81 requires that pond for less than 48 hours. these structures have a maximum seepage rate of 1 x In some cases, CAFOs have submitted impound- 10-6 cm/sec (approximately1/32" per day). A profes- ment liner certifications indicating that one or more of sional engineer registered in Colorado must certify the their wastewater impoundments must be operated at or seepage rate of each storage structure and indicate below the optimum storage depth in order to maintain what constitutes the liner of each structure (e.g., clay, synthetic). (Continued on Page 3...) Page 3 CAFO / AFO Regulatory Round-up (Continued from Page 2) Are Your Wastewater Impoundment Liners in Compliance? compliance with the allowed seepage rate (example: the level of a 10 feet deep pond must be September 2008 kept below four feet of depth). Please be aware that CAFOs that choose to operate impoundments at restricted depths in order to comply with the seepage rate must still maintain adequate storage capacity to hold the design storm runoff event (e.g., 25-yr, 24-hr storm), at a minimum. If part of the required runoff storage capacity is intended to be provided by restricted depth impound- ments above the depth level for which they are seepage certified, then those impoundments must be dewatered back to their restricted depths in less than 48 hours. Wastewater con- tained above the restricted depth level for 48 hours or more would be a violation of Regula- In general, tion 81.8 (2) and would be subject to enforcement action. anywhere from 15 to 55 percent of If you are a CAFO with restricted depth ponds, be sure to review your total stor- the organic age capacity, as corrected for the maximum depth you can have in the restricted ponds, and Nitrogen in make improvements as needed (for example, constructing a new pond or re-lining the re- manure becomes stricted depth pond so that it meets the seepage rate standard at the optimum depth level). available to the crop in the first year after Q: When is a wastewater discharge allowed from a land application application field? depending upon climate and A: When it is an Agricultural Storm Water Discharge management factors. servation practices may include buffers or equivalent practices as appropriate to con- trol runoff of pollutants to waters of the United States. Generally, a discharge of manure and / or 3) Laboratory testing has been per- wastewater from a land application field formed on the soils of land application Source: CSU into waters of the U.S. is only allowed un- fields, and on the manure and/or wastewa- Cooperative der a CAFO discharge permit. However, non-permitted CAFOs are allowed to dis- ter that was applied on the field(s). Extension, Bulletin charge to U.S. waters when the discharge 4) Established protocols were in place 568A is an Agricultural Storm Water Discharge. As (at the time of the discharge) for land described in Regulation 81.6(2)(b)(i - iv), applying manure, litter or wastewa- to be considered an Agricultural Storm ter in accordance with site specific nutri- Water Discharge, the following conditions ent management practices. The protocols must be met: ensure that the applied nutrients are ap- propriately utilized by the crop (i.e. agro- 1) The discharge was caused by pre- nomic rates have been calculated and fol- cipitation (as opposed to over- lowed when land applying nutrients). irrigation, for example). 5) Records are maintained that document 2) Site specific conservation prac- the implementation and management of tices are in place on the field(s) where the discharge occurs. The con- the items described above. Page 4 CAFO / AFO Regulatory Round-up The COMPOST HEAP September 2008 may voice them to Roger Doak at 303- 692-3437 (firstname.lastname@example.org). This fall, the department’s Solid Factoid... Interested parties are also encour- Waste and Material Management Unit aged to attend stakeholder meetings. If you need a salt will propose revisions to the state’s The next stakeholder meeting will be tolerant forage, tall composting regulation related to com- held on September 17, 2008, from 2 wheatgrass or barley posting activities at solid waste sites p.m. to 4 p.m. in Building C; Room C1A, hay may be what and facilities, including agricultural com- at the Colorado Department of Public you’re looking for. posting at livestock operations. Discus- Health and Environment. Be sure to Once they are past sions to date have included proposed have your email address added to the the germination stage, revisions to the current agricultural stakeholders email list, as the time and both crops will compost exemption and a proposal to tolerate soil salinity date of meetings can change. create a new agricultural compost clas- levels up to 10 sification based on newly defined crite- You can participate in the stake- holder process either by attending meet- mmhos/cm before ria. experiencing any yield ings in-person, or via teleconference. If Prior to rulemaking in the fall, the you plan on teleconferencing, please decline. Solid Waste Unit has initiated a series contact Roger Doak in advance of the of stakeholder meetings to obtain input meeting(s) to receive further instruc- and feedback. The first stakeholder tions. The revised composting regula- meeting was held on July 10th. tions, Section 14, can be accessed at: If you have questions about changes http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/sw/stak to the state compost regulations, you eholder/index.htm. Source: CSU Cooperative Extension Bulletin Crop Tolerance to Soil Rocky Mountain National Park Nitrogen Deposition Salinity; No. 0.505. The Environmental Agriculture Program has been working with livestock and crop producers to address air quality concerns in Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). To date, a voluntary Best Management Practice (BMP)-based agricultural strategy has been developed by an agricultural industry-led group and submitted to the U.S. National Park Service as a component of an overall comprehensive plan to reduce nitrogen (ammonia) emissions in the park. The agricultural strategy stresses the need for proven science-based BMPs and sound emission inventory data of all potential sources of nitrogen to the park, including possible contributions from neighboring states and domestic application of fertilizers to lawns, parks and golf courses. A RMNP agricultural subcommittee continues to meet to keep the agricultural strategy on track and to educate stakeholders on the needs and activities of agriculture. The next meeting of the sub- committee is November 6, 2008, with location yet to be determined. Please contact Phyllis Woodford for more information at email@example.com or (303) 692-2978. Page 5 CAFO / AFO Regulatory Round-up Manure Removal SOP Filed? September 2008 Regulation 81 requires that all CAFOs submit to the Ag Program for approval a Standard Operat- If you have not yet submitted an SOP for your op- ing Procedure (SOP) that describes how manure is, eration, now is definitely the time to do so! The Ag or will be, removed such that the liner integrity of Program is planning to pursue enforcement action the impoundment is not damaged. The SOP also against CAFOs that have not submitted manure re- needs to indicate the expected frequency with moval SOPs later this year. To obtain a blank SOP which manure will be removed from impound- template, contact the Ag Program at (303) 692-3523 ments. or download it from our website at For existing CAFOs, a manure removal SOP http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/el/eap/index.html. was required to be submitted for approval to the Ag Program by December 31, 2004. NEW REGULATION 81 HIGHLIGHTS Colorado livestock feeding operations are sub- • Wastewater Impoundments at CAFOs (Large and Me- ject to two state regulations: Regulations 61 and 81. dium) must comply with a 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. seepage rate; Regulation 61.17 describes surface water protection • Non-permitted CAFOs must compile and comply with requirements for permitted CAFOs. a facility management plan (FMP), which includes sur- Regulation 81 (Animal face and groundwater protection elements for the pro- Feeding Operations Control duction area and surface water protection elements for Regulation) identifies groundwa- land application fields; ter protection requirements for • Discharges from non-permitted CAFOs to U.S. waters all CAFOs, as well as surface are prohibited, except where it is an agricultural storm water protection requirements water discharge; for non-permitted CAFOs, and best management practices (BMPs) for AFOs (small • Vegetated Wastewater Treatment Strips may by util- feeding operations). ized as part of a waste management system; In the Spring of 2007, the Water Quality Con- • Non-permitted CAFOs must keep land application re- trol Commission opened Regulation 81 for pro- cords, as well as weekly pond depth levels; posed revisions. • Stockwatering points may be utilized by AFOs; Following a series of stakeholders meetings, • AFOs shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to regulatory revisions were formally approved by the minimize impacts to water quality; Commission on May 12, 2008. Highlights of the new • Discharges from non-permitted CAFOs must be re- Regulation 81, which went into effect on June 30, ported; and 2008, include: • An impoundment must be closed in accordance with • A non-permitted CAFOs must register with the certain standards. Ag Program by no later than February 27, 2009; Page 6 CAFO / AFO Regulatory Round-up How is an AFO different from a CAFO? September 2008 Ever wondered what the difference is between an AFO and a CAFO? Both AFOs and CAFOs are A MEDIUM CAFO confines: regulated under the Animal Feeding Operations Con- • 200 to 699 dairy cows, whether dry or milked trol Regulation (Regulation 81), however, there is a • 300 to 999 veal calves significant difference in the water quality protection • 399 to 999 cattle other than veal calves requirements that each must follow. • 750 to 2,499 swine weighing > 55 pounds • 3,000 to 9,999 swine weighing less than 55 pounds An Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) is a lot or • 150 to 499 horses facility (other than an aquatic animal production facil- • 3,000 to 9,999 sheep or lambs ity) where the following conditions are met: • 16,500 to 54,999 turkeys a) Animals (other than aquatic animals) are stabled or • 9,000 to 29,999 laying hens or confined, and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days broilers if the AFO uses a liquid or more in any 12-month period; and, manure handling system • 37,500 to 124,999 chickens (other b) Crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest than laying hens), if the AFO uses other than a liquid ma- residues are not sustained in the normal growing nure handling system; season over any portion of the lot or facility. • 25,000 to 81,999 laying hens; if the AFO uses other than a A Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation liquid manure handling system; (CAFO) is an AFO that is defined as a Large or Me- • 10,000 to 29,999 ducks (if the AFO uses other than a dium CAFO because of the number of animals it liquid manure handling system); or confines. Two or more AFOs under common own- • 1,500 to 4,999 ducks (if the AFO uses a liquid manure handling system); ership are deemed to be a single AFO for the pur- poses of determining whether they qualify as a Large and either one of the following conditions exist at the or Medium CAFO, if they are site: adjacent to each other or if they use a common area or system for land application of manure I) Pollutants are discharged into surface waters of the or wastewater. state through a man-made drainage system; or A LARGE CAFO confines at least: II) Pollutants are discharged directly into surface wa- • 700 dairy cows ters of the state which originate outside of and pass • 1,000 veal calves over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come • 1,000 cattle other than veal calves into contact with the animals confined in the opera- • 2,500 swine weighing > 55 pounds • 10,000 swine weighing less than 55 pounds tion. • 500 horses • 10,000 sheep or lambs NOTE: The Environmental Agriculture Program can • 55,000 turkeys designate an AFO as a CAFO upon performing an on- • 30,000 laying hens or broilers, if the AFO uses a liquid site inspection and determining that it could be a sig- manure handling system; nificant contributor of pollutants to waters of the U.S. • 125,000 chickens (other than laying hens), if the AFO Before designating a facility as a CAFO, the Ag Pro- uses other than a liquid manure handling system, gram must consider certain facility-specific characteris- • 82,000 laying hens, (if non-liquid manure handling sys- tem); tics which are described in Regulation 81.4. • 30,000 ducks (if non-liquid manure handling system; or • 5,000 ducks (if a liquid manure handling system is used) Page 7 CAFO / AFO Regulatory Round-up Hay Storage a Hot Topic ! Stored hay turned out to be a favorite topic of discussion among stakeholders during the Regulation 81 revision process. The issue of concern among stakeholders centered on identifying September 2008 when hay is defined as "raw material," at which point the hay would be considered a part of the production area (in addition to the livestock confinement site), and runoff from it would either have to be retained in a lined structure or directly applied on cropland at an agronomic rate. Stakeholders were concerned that stacked and baled hay stored in distant fields could be considered part of the CAFO production area. In the final regulation, the Water Quality Control Commission clarified that in some circumstances dry forage, or hay, does meet the definition of a raw material, including when it is stored in, or immediately adja- cent to the CAFO's animal confinement area and it will be fed later to the animals. Hay stored in areas away from the CAFO is not considered to be "raw material" unless it is determined by the Ag Program to have the potential for adverse water quality impact. Facility Management Plan (FMP) The new Regulation 81 requires non-permitted e. Manure and wastewater are applied in accordance Large CAFOs to compile a Facility Management Plan with setback distance(s) from downgradient surface (FMP). A FMP contains surface water protection ele- waters, open tile line intake structures, sinkholes, ments for the production area and land application agriculture well heads, and other conduits to sur- sites, as well as groundwater protection elements. A face water. Facility Management Plan must include written evi- f. Land application equipment is periodically in- dence that appropriate protections are in place, and spected for leaks. being maintained. For example, for land application areas, a FMP should contain evidence indicating that: Groundwater protection evidence must include: a. Conservation practices are maintained on land Certification that the seepage rate of each impound- application fields. ment liner does not exceed 1 x 10-6 cm/second, and a b. Manure, wastewater and soils are sampled annually current, approved Standard Operating Procedure and manure and wastewater are applied on fields (SOP) for manure removal from impoundments, as well at agronomic rates using equipment that is prop- as information demonstrating the facility’s compliance erly calibrated. with depth marker, conveyance structure, and im- c. Appropriate land application records are kept. poundment setback requirements. d. Nitrogen and phosphorus transport risk assess- ments are performed for each land application site DEADLINES: Groundwater and land application and waste applications are based on their respec- area elements of the FMP must be in place by no later than February 27, 2009. Production tive ratings as described in the regulation. Area elements must be established by May 30, 2011. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Environmental Agriculture Program 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, CO 80246-1530 Compliance Recordkeeping Forms Now Available from CDPHE’s Environmental Ag Program The Environmental Ag Program • Discharge Monitoring has developed recordkeeping docu- • Non-Permitted CAFO Registra- Once downloaded, the forms can ments for CAFO operators. The be saved to a hard drive and filled tion form forms may be used by permitted out on the computer, or printed and non-permitted facilities alike to • Annual Report Form and manually completed. If internet help meet the inspection and re- access is unavailable, hard copies cord-keeping requirements con- Forms are available in three formats: (paper) may be requested by con- tained in Regulations 61 and 81. tacting the Ag Program at 1. Paper The following record-keeping (303) 692-3523. 2. Microsoft Excel / Word documents are now available: 3. Adobe Portable Document For- • Precipitation & Water Line NOTE: mat (PDF) Inspection Record-keeping documents • Impoundment Depth, Liner & may be updated occasionally Electronic versions of the forms can Diversion Structure Inspection be downloaded from the CDPHE and new forms may be added. • Third-Party Manure Transfers Environmental Ag Program website Check the Ag Program website from time to time for the most • Manure Applications at: current version of all record- http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/el/eap/ • Wastewater Applications keeping documents. index.html.