Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities

Federal Advisory Committee 

(FRRCC)

September 8–10, 2008

Held at the 

InterContinental Hotel

Kansas City, Missouri

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Audio Associates

301/577-5882
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 2

September 8–10, 2008

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2008

Call to Order and Meeting Commencement

James Moseley, Committee Chair

The work of this Committee is important because the decisions that need to be made by EPA require 

sound and informed advice. He encouraged members to engage EPA members in dialogue about what the 

Agency is considering, what is important to them, so Administrator Johnson and the EPA can determine 

the best ways to deal with agricultural concerns. Mr. Moseley introduced Don Steen, Missouri Director of 

Agriculture, and Adrian Polansky, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture, who were in the audience.

Introductory Remarks

John Askew, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 7

Mr. Askew introduced Administrator Stephen Johnson and mentioned the importance of this 

Committee’s looking at life cycle analysis, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) 2, and biofuels, which are 

just a part of the energy solution. 

Welcoming Remarks and Discussion

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA

Region 7 is an excellent choice of location for this meeting because Region 7 has been communicating 

with the agriculture community. They also developed the first ever ethanol manual to help people 

understand and comply with regulations, and will develop another manual for the biodiesel industry.

To address serious environmental issues, Administrator Johnson sees a critical need for continued 

collaboration and cooperation among participants who represent states, individuals, and advocacy groups. 

The EPA Administrator has to make difficult decisions and needs the best and most representative advice. 

Priority areas include climate change, environmental strategy for livestock, emerging issues (e.g., 

sustainability), and renewable energy. The Energy Independence and Security Act (2007) will increase 

the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring 

fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, and reducing U.S. demand for oil by 

setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase fuel 

economy standards by 40% and save billions of gallons of fuel. The EPA Administrator has the authority 

to waive the standard if complying with it would causes severe harm to the economy or the environment; 

Administrator Johnson denied the first applicant for a waiver and in that denial the Agency provided a 

process for evaluation of future waiver requests. 

Admin. Johnson believes greenhouse gases are a problem for the nation and the globe, but that the Clean 

Air Act is not the appropriate tool with which to address it, although the Agency is doing the best job it 

can using a law that was not devised to accomplish this. We need Congress to pass a law on greenhouse 

gas emissions considering leakage, China, and the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, new issues and opportunities are arising—e.g., anaerobic bacteria producing electricity. Also, 

clarifying regulations, e.g., Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) are needed. These and other issues all represent opportunities to mold and craft issues in a 

way that is good for the environment, good for agriculture, good for the people. Lastly, the issue of 
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 3

September 8–10, 2008

sustainability is a unique opportunity for those “on the ground” to help the Agency to think through what 

those issues are today and may be tomorrow, to be proactive in thinking through emerging issues early 

rather than responding to them after they have become a crisis. 

EPA needs community input to make such decisions.

Edward T. Schafer, Secretary, USDA

Agriculture produces food and economic resource solutions. Farmers know soil and water must be used 

wisely and have made improvements and now use less fertilizer and less water to produce more food—

e.g., the creation of buffer crops prevents soil erosion; genetically modified seeds help use less and fewer 

pesticides. It is vitally important to strive for the best balance between healthy lands and best production, 

and in so doing, it is important to help EPA understand the practical impact between environment and 

farms. Agriculture accounts for about 7% of the total annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; and it 

increased at less than half the rate of other sectors. 

Continued biofuels development is also vital. The benefits of a diversified national fuel portfolio are 

many, and the decision to produce biofuels is a watershed decision in fuel policy. The new farm bill 

pushes in that direction by providing support for people starting production, and maintenance funds for 

producers to run on the fuels they produce. Working together and comprehensively on air quality issues, 

such as methane emissions, they are now defining a baseline emissions-monitoring study of ammonia, 

particulates, methane, etc. The FRRCC offers opportunities to take stock of the intersection of agriculture 

and environment. 

Discussion: The following comments were made by members of the committee to the Secretary 

and to the Administrator.

EPA must develop a life cycle analysis; legislation provides boundaries, but many have to be 

worked through to define how far to go back for accurate analysis. Cellulosic or second 

generation is one way. However, we cannot as a nation revert to the waiver provision. What 

becomes of CRP land, as it becomes un-enrolled, is a concern. Currently, about 20% is reenrolled. 

The environmental impacts of increased production are a huge issue. USDA would like to see 43 

billion gallons of fuel generated from biomass, which displaces 1 billion gallons of imported 

fossil fuel and would double economic activity in this country. We might harvest 300 bushels of 

corn per acre as we generate renewable fuel from corn. If we averaged that, it would follow the 

trend of increases in exports, increases in food use.

The agriculture sector is experiencing frustrations that point to how public policy affects the 

individual, e.g., we have virtually no potash production in this country today, so we must import 

it, which is expensive. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a tool that is being used to prevent a particular event or 

activity. Recently it was used to challenge biotech alfalfa grown with pesticides, which 

demonstrates that the system is “broken” and that EPA is not getting timely information. We are 
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 4

September 8–10, 2008

using laws not designed for the issues they address, and thereby letting the courts drive the 

process; we need to make sure Congress is putting laws in place to deal with current issues so 

lawyers do not creatively use laws for which they were not intended.

Inputs to renewable fuels create macro- and micro-issues for world communities. Issues of 

alternatives to petro-based fuels include fumigants, insecticides, and other carcinogens. EPA is 

not the developer of the product; EPA just assesses to ensure that they meet the established 

standards. EPA has assessed a number of fumigants; new labels will appear in a year or 2 to 

provide additional protections for users. But, EPA should review the entire class. As an Agency 

they encourage manufacturers and researchers to develop better and safer products; fungicides 

traditionally are a problematic class. In California, they replaced fungicides with sprayed 

pheromones and provision of sterilized insects to the community. It was the public exchange of 

ideas and the economics that provided a truly successful solution. 

Presentations

There were two presentations given to the Committee. One was by Joe Jobe, Chief Executive 

Officer, National Biodiesel Board, entitled US Biodiesel Industry, Present and Future. (See web 

link)

Discussion after his presentation included the following:

New England consumes about 90% of the nation’s heating oil; Massachusetts just passed a 

“bioheat mandate.” Conventional feedstock sources are about half soy oil and half everything else 

(fat, corn, etc); 3 million to 500 million gallons of new corn oil are now currently harvested, but 

domestic livestock are available and are cheaper. Supply is a challenge because the rendering 

industry does not usually give contracts for longer than a month or so because domestic livestock 

do not respond to economic signals. In sum, long-term, animal fat is limited and does not respond 

to shocks on demand. The cost per pound to raise meat is 50% higher, while the profit is lower. 

Some public companies can increase prices, but producers are caught it the middle. The livestock 

industry buys bean meal, but the biofuels industry uses no protein meal. Domestic producers of 

soybeans can serve both markets. 

The second presentation was entitled “Environmental and Economic Issues Facing Today’s Ethanol 

Industry” and was given by Geoff Cooper, Director of Research, Renewable Fuels Association. (see 

Weblink)

Discussion following this presentation included the following:

Production is expected to be at 9 billion gallons by 2008 and most of that will be at E10; less than 

5% will be E85. In the next 10 years we will reach 15 billion gallons. Meanwhile, we also have to 

increase production of flexible-fuel vehicles and blender pumps that offer the driver a blend of 

E10, E30, E40, etc. Fewer than 200 such pumps are available today. 

Competing for a bushel of corn should also be on a level playing field—the ethanol industry has a 

competitive advantage over the livestock industry. The world corn market contains about 100 

million tons, of which the ethanol industry will use about 43 million tons—this equals the effects 
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 5

September 8–10, 2008

of a worldwide drought in perpetuity. On the contrary, the surge in demand will cause a surge in 

production as it responds to the demand, and, in fact, production has increased. The difficulty is 

the 3- to 5-year transition period.

We are devoting 60 million to 80 million acres of cultivated land to ethanol production, where 

only 340 million acres are under cultivation. This will have consequences. New land brought into 

cultivation will likely be less productive because usually the land in production is the better land.

Meanwhile, world land markets are tight, and it is important to deal with this issue from the 

environmental aspect. More discussion is called for. 

When the Tennessee study was done for the National 25x’25 Campaign, they anticipated using

100 million acres, but consider the alternative of buying and using more and more fossil fuels. 

Discussion of land-use changes has been misaligned from the beginning because most studies 

have been published by the oil industry. 

The food prices that have increased are grain-centered, and the sector that competes with grain 

production—the meat and protein sector—has a surplus. A change in the supply will drive the 

pricing. If meat prices increase 50%, this discussion will be different. Today technology in 

agriculture is considered negative. We have to help the public realize that technology can be 

positive, e.g., that genetically engineered corn is not dangerous. 

With the expansion of biofuels production, we must consider the hypoxia issue in Gulf of 

Mexico, into which discharges the Mississippi River Basin—the largest watershed in North 

America, draining 41% of the continental United States. Data show that we can improve 

agricultural output without increasing the agricultural footprint.

Energy conservation and efficiency are not discussed much. We in the United States compete 

with a world that has paid much more than we have for energy, and they are moving faster than 

we are in conservation and efficiency. We should consider a more carbon-free future.

Workgroup Next Steps

Jim Moseley, Committee Chair

Mr. Moseley asked Workgroup chairs for an update on where they are, what they’re planning, what their 

needs are, and what limitations they have to work with. 

Climate Change & Renewable Resources Workgroup

Jim Andrew, Workgroup Chair

The Climate Change & Renewable Resources Workgroup needs to identify the 2 or 3 most pressing 

issues. Workgroup members have e-mailed presentations. The workgroup will need administrative 

support from EPA .The workgroup will establish priorities and set deadlines for its work. 

Livestock & Poultry Workgroup

Gary Cooper, Workgroup Chair
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 6

September 8–10, 2008

The Livestock & Poultry Workgroup met in Chicago and has had 2 conference calls. Communications 

will be key. The Workgroup is considering an awards program for model producers. EPA has had a few 

programs to recognize good performance, e.g., Performance Partners, and an agriculture equivalent could 

be created. Workgroup members will talk to EPA representatives about regulatory expectations and 

gather information at regional and state levels about successful approaches, then bring those together and 

create a model. 

Emerging Issues

Ralph Grossi, Workgroup Chair

Emerging Issues is such a catchall that they need more clarity and direction as to expectations. There was 

also a request for administrative support for the workgroup. Clarification of how the workgroup is to 

interact with the full Committee on its issues was raised.

Discussion

Workgroups are supposed to meet a couple of times a year; they have activities that need to be 

carried out if they are to be effective. EPA will do what is needed to enable the Committee and 

the workgroups to do what they have been tasked to do. An operating plan of anticipated needs 

over the next year would be helpful. There should be a bona fide need for face-to-face meetings, 

but there are ways to minimize costs. Communicating by e-mail and teleconferences should be 

encouraged; EPA has set up intra-net sites for workgroups in the past. At the same time FACA 

requires openness and transparency. EPA is working on various options to provide the needed 

staff support, and hopes to have a clearer picture in the next several weeks. A workgroup is a 

subset of the basic Committee members, not an independent group, and any product that the 

workgroup produces has to be approved by the Committee as a whole.

The format for the workgroup products could be advice letters or lengthier reports that may take a 

year to produce. Which to use depends on the issue and what the Agency is looking for. The 

group might want to develop a white paper on some issues or ask for technical expertise. On other 

issues, the workgroup’s gut reaction may be what is desired. The variation is one reason a specific 

template has not been issued; the format should be tailored to the issue. EPA will provide 

examples of letter reports, detailed responses, and larger reports—a range that other committees 

have developed. From the Agency perspective, the more specific, detailed, and direct the 

recommendations, the more useful. At the same time, reports should be short and to the point. It 

is the responsibility of Committee members to bring to the Agency new issues they see 

percolating at the ground level, issues they may have to confront. This is about sharing 

information, and it makes the two-way communication between EPA and Committee members 

extremely important.

EPA is considering convening a meeting at the end of February. An important guideline is to not 

do something that has already being done. The Livestock & Poultry Workgroup would like to 

meet before the Committee meets, perhaps early December. The Climate Change Workgroup has 

a sense of scope, and the scope for Emerging Issues will develop. Approvals could be signified by 

teleconference, rather than waiting for the next face-to-face meeting. Timelines must be set 

within the workgroups that allow forwarding findings to the new Administrator at the February 

meeting. Efficient ways to share information while meeting FACA requirements will be 
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 7

September 8–10, 2008

investigated. It is also important to remember that anything sent forward to EPA must be a 

product of the entire Committee. 

EPA Updates

Sally Shaver, Acting Counselor to the Administrator for Agricultural Policy, EPA

Sally Shaver gave an update of upcoming Agency actions that might be of interest to members of the 

Committee. The list is not a comprehensive list but does include those items that might be of most 

interest to the agricultural community. 

By the end of the year, there are several rules which should be finalized: the Clean Water Act 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Rule, the Exemptions of certain Air Emissions from 

Animal Feeding Operations from the Reporting Requirements of CERCLA and EPCRA Rule, and the 

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Rule. EPA needs to better communicate to the affected 

farmers the requirements of these rules. The Committee could be very helpful in making 

recommendations about how to accomplish this.

Discussion

Numerous other proposed rules and Agency actions that the Committee might have interest in were 

mentioned as well. Members were encouraged to participate in the public comment period as they 

desired. Among those mentioned were:

the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule which would replace the existing voluntary 

reporting system. Its purpose is to determine emissions for policymakers to inform their 

discussions about policy options regarding GHG reductions.

the pilot ammonia monitoring program in the Great Lakes states.

the ongoing fine particle NAAQS review which occurs every five years.

the NO2 standards review which is considering other indicator pollutants.

Public Comment Session

No one signed up to deliver public comments at this meeting.

Written comments were submitted on August 29, 2008 on behalf of the Delaware Farm Bureau, and were 

distributed to the entire Committee on September 8 at the public meeting. It was decided by the 

Committee that the issue should be taken up by the Livestock and Poultry Workgroup on behalf of the 

Committee, and the Workgroup agreed that it would do so. 
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 8

September 8–10, 2008

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Fact-Gathering Activities

FRRCC members departed by bus to tour several sites and gather information about these agricultural 

operations.

John Askew, Regional Administrator EPA Region 7; Jim Krueger, Kansas NRCS; and Audra Gile, 

Kansas Department of Agriculture gave background information on Kansas agriculture. Brenda 

Groskinsky, Science Advisor to the Administrator, EPA Region 7; Donna Perla, EPA, Office of Research 

and Development; and Paul Agyropoulos, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, gave the EPA 

perspective. Kerry Wedel, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, gave an overview of the 

Kansas Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS). Jerry Blain and Dan Devlin reported 

on Wichita watershed planning, assessment, management, and BMPs. Josh Roe explained BMP auctions. 

Joe Britt, Sand County Foundation, described this 40-year-old community-based conservation 

organization based in Illinois.

The group visited:

Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Research center for a discussion of agricultural burning and 

air quality. Dr. John Briggs, Dr. John Blair, and Doug Goodin spoke.

Kansas State University (KSU) Animal Science Research Facility for a discussion of manure 

management & composting, land application, impact of feeding DDGs. Joel DeRouchey, Jim 

Drouillard, and Ronaldo Maghirang spoke. 

KSU International Grains Center; Provost Duane Nellis and Daryl Buchholz spoke. Discussion of 

Watershed Planning, Assessment, Management, and BMPs.

Handke Farms & Feedyard. Terry Handke and Paul Handke described their custom cattle feeding 

and containment facility.

Lifeline Foods & Ethanol Plant. The plant has been producing ethanol since 2001 using a dry 

fractionization process. Corn yields 18% germ, 9% bran, and 73% starch. 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

Plenary Workgroup Presentation Session

Jim Moseley, Committee Chair

The group agreed that, in the event that Mr. Moseley would be temporarily unable to chair the FRRCC, 

Gary Cooper would serve as Vice Chair. Then the chair of each workgroup presented a brief summary of 

their discussions.

Climate Change & Renewable Energy Workgroup

Jim Andrew, Workgroup Chair

The Workgroup has been working on the following issues:
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 9

September 8–10, 2008

1. The Workgroup received reports from EPA on biofuels and greenhouse gases, and is in the 

process of reviewing EPA’s draft Biofuels Strategy. Mr. Askew challenged the group to 

address 6 questions as they reviewed the draft document:

a. Is the draft EPA Biofuels Strategy document on target? Does it have merit?

b. Does the main role of EPA stand out? Are there any roles that EPA missed? 

Should EPA do more?

c. Is EPA’s role/relationship with federal, state, local, and tribal entities clearly 

described?

d. Does EPA’s approach represent the best way to approach a biofuels strategy?

e. Are the federal and state implementation needs clearly identified and accurate?

f. What did EPA miss?

Mr. Doering will collect the comments and prioritize them; replies should be sent to him by 

September 22. Then a subgroup of the Workgroup will be formed to draft a letter to EPA 

after being circulated to entire Committee and approved.

2. The 15 factors that are necessary for a cap-and-trade program to effectively engage 

agriculture.

3. Issues linking the draft EPA Renewable Fuel Standard with the 2008 Farm Bill.

4. Resource conservation issues linked with biofuels and how EPA is addressing them.

5. Prioritization of issues.

The Climate Change & Renewable Energy Workgroup needs from EPA some method of communicating 

with EPA and among themselves, e.g., password-protected access to a web site or intranet. Conference 

calls will be conducted as needed. 

Livestock & Poultry Workgroup

Christine Chinn for Gary Cooper, Workgroup Chair

This Workgroup met in July in Chicago and established goals. The following recommendations address 

those goals:

1. EPA should work with this Committee to develop an awards program for exemplary 

producers.

2. Develop a strategy to remove CAFOs from EPA’s national enforcement priority list. Support 

EPA’s effort to assist states with low rates of permitting compliance to achieve higher rates 

by sharing strategies of successful state and regional programs. 

3. In response to the Delaware Farm Bureau letter complaining about unreasonable and 

unannounced EPA inspections, the Workgroup is getting more information from Region 3 to 

clarify what actually happened. 

4. To improve agriculture community/EPA communication, we need to clarify terms, including 

the following: “discharge,” how the producer knows what is harmful and requires mitigation, 

“waters of the United States,” and the value of the permit and its relationship to good 

environmental stewardship.

5. The Workgroup is sending a questionnaire to the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), 

Agriculture Commissioners, commodities groups, et al. to determine best model for 

collaborative decision-making and communication.
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 10

September 8–10, 2008

The Workgroup has agreed to have a conference call October 20 at 1:00 EST, and a meeting in early 

December. 

Emerging Issues Workgroup

Ralph Grossi, Workgroup Chair

By October 24, members of the Workgroup will prepare 2- to 3-page background and discussion papers, 

including possible solutions or recommendations, regarding the following topics: 

1. A letter received by the Workgroup from Partners for Sustainable Pollination, which may 

involve issues currently being discussed by the EPA’s Pesticide Program Dialogue 

Committee (PPDC), as well as other issues that this Workgroup may need to discuss. The 

Workgroup will attempt to coordinate with the PPDC before taking action on this issue.

2. Communications with farmers to counter inconsistency and lack of understanding regarding 

how information flows. EPA clarification is needed on this topic.

3. Long-term land-use change issues.

4. Endangered Species Act and its many EPA-related effects.

5. Ammonia and air quality, including the possibility of a future air quality regulation issue.

6. Protocol consistency in monitoring (e.g., fence-line monitoring), what is usable and not 

usable data.

7. Nanotechnology and its implications for agriculture.

8. Nutrient trade, which is being developed rapidly.

The Workgroup will hold a conference call on November 13 to conduct the first round of discussion and 

set a timeline for addressing these issues. 

Summary

Jim Moseley, Committee Chair

The emerging theme in each group is communication. The Livestock and Poultry Workgroup identified a 

few specific definitions; the Emerging Issues Workgroup has volunteered to work with EPA on this. Mr. 

Moseley could appoint a small workgroup to define the current landscape. Communication is not just 

transfer of information; it is a culture. Furthermore, state regulation may go further than federal 

regulation, which adds to the confusion. Some trade associations have different responsibilities and 

sometimes they are opposing the regulations, and at the same time called upon to tell farmers how to 

comply. There are also inherent challenges when delivering information the recipient does not want to 

hear. There is a need for more information on the process of how regulations are made and when people 

can comment. Attorneys for citizens’ groups are another player, as these groups litigate when they 

believe needs are not being met. It represents another culture and language that comes into play. 

Good examples could be compiled to use as models. For example, in California, EPA has worked closely 

with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and held town hall meetings. Regulations 

should be discussed extensively before a proposal is made. In that way, people will understand it even if 

they don’t agree—this is a successful model. Communication in the pesticide world has been much better, 

and could be used as a model.
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 11

September 8–10, 2008

FRRCC Next Steps

Jim Moseley, Committee Chair

1. The next Committee meeting will be held in Washington, DC, sometime between midFebruary and mid-April. Workgroup meetings will be scheduled prior to that meeting.

2. The Committee agreed that a response should be sent to the Delaware Farm Bureau regarding 

the comments it submitted prior to the Committee meeting, and authorized Mr. Moseley to 

respond on the Committee’s behalf. 

3. Mr. Vroom (saying, in response to Mr. Joyce, that he is representing himself and not the 

Committee) mentioned a letter he proposes to send to the two Presidential candidates. 

4. Members may wish to approach their own trade associations and local media markets, as 

media attention would amplify the members’ efforts. EPA Public Affairs Specialist Kris 

Lancaster is working on a press release regarding the meeting’s content that will be available 

for media release as well as on the Committee’s website.
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 12

September 8–10, 2008

FRRCC Members & Participants

FRRCC Members EPA Participants

James Moseley, Committee Chair, Jim 

Moseley Farms*

Martha Guzman Aceves, California Rural 

Legal Assistance Foundation

James Andrew, Andrew Farms*

Leonard Blackham, Utah Department of 

Agriculture and Food*

Richard Bonanno, Pleasant Valley Gardens*

Marion Long Bowlan, Long-Bowlan Farms*

Garth Boyd, Agriculture Camco

Michael Brubaker, Pennsylvania State Senate

Christine Chinn, Chinn Hog Farm*

Gary Cooper, Cooper Farms

Otto Doering, Purdue University*

Robert Flocchini, University of California–

Davis*

Thomas Franklin, Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership*

Suzy Friedman, Environmental Defense Fund

Earl Garber, Louisiana Association of 

Conservation Districts*

Ralph Grossi, American Farmland Trust*

Karri Hammerstrom, Hammertime Ranch*

Michele Laur, USDA NRCS*

Tom McDonald, Five Rivers Ranch Cattle 

Feeding*

David Nelson, Global Ethanol*

Martha Noble, Sustainable Agriculture 

Coalition*

Dawn Riley, Dawn Riley Consulting*

Clifford Snyder, International Plant Nutrition 

Institute

Jeff Tee, Panhandle Environmental Resource 

Coalition

Dennis Treacy, Smithfield Foods

Teferi Tsegaye, Alabama A&M University*

Jeffrey Vonk, South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks

Jay Vroom, CropLife America*

Bill Willard, Willard Agri-Service

Douglas Young, Spruce Haven Farm*

Paul Argyropoulos, USEPA*

Chris Ashcraft, USEPA, OCEM, Junior DFO

Alan Banwart, Region 7§

Nina Bonnelyche, USEPA OW*

Gilbert Castellanos, USEPA*

Pat Cimino, EPA OPPTS§

Mike Colbert, EPA/OECA*

Tom Davenport, Region 5*

Pete Davis, Region 7

Heather Duncan, Region 7

Robin Dunking, EPA OAR*

Karen Flournoy, Region 7

Carol Galloway, EPA Ag Center*

Brenda Groskinsky, Region 7*

Suzanne Hall, Region 7

Van Kozak, Region 6*

Kris Lancaster, Region 7*

Ginah Mortenses, EPA/OECA*

Jovita Pajarillo, Region 9*

Roberta Parry, USEPA*

Donna Perla, EPA ORD

Amy Phesania, Region 7

William Rice, Region 7

Steve Schaff, Region 7

Martha Segall, EPA OW*

Sally Shaver, USEPA*

Suzanne Stevenson, Region 8*

Margaret Stockdale, Region 7

Kathy Taylor, Region 9*

Denise Tennessee, Region 4*

Alison Weildman

Kate Winston, Inside EPA*

Hank Zygmunt, Region 3

Guests

Audra Gile, Kansa Department of 

Agriculture*

Jim Gray, 24-D Task Force

Joe Jobe, National Bodiesel Board

Annette Sharp, CenSARA

Anne Steckel, AFBF

Don Steen, Director of Agriculture–Missouri

Bob Tadsen, TFI

Steve Taylor, Missouri Agribusiness Assn

Chris Wendelbo, The Session Law Firm

Audio Associates, Contractor

* = signed in both September 8 & 10; §= signed in September 10 only
Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Executive Summary 13

September 8–10, 2008

These minutes are an accurate depiction of the matters discussed during this meeting.

James R. Moseley

Chair

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee

The Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee is a federal advisory committee chartered by 

Congress, operating under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C., App.2). The 

Committee provides advice to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on a broad 

range of environmental issues. The findings and recommendations of the Committee do not represent the 

views of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved or disseminated by 

EPA.