March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 1

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) 

INAUGURAL MEETING

March 13–14, 2008 

The Madison Hotel 

Washington, DC 

DETAILED MEETING NOTES

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008 

Call to Order and Introductions 

Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Committee 

Alicia Kaiser, DFO for the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC), 

called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. and welcomed Committee members and other participants to the 

FRRCC’s inaugural meeting. Ms. Kaiser explained this meeting was open to the public and that all 

remarks will become part of the public record. Several members of the press were likely to be present, 

and Dave Ryan, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) press officer assigned to agricultural 

issues, would be in attendance for part of the meeting and could answer questions from Committee 

members about the media or interviews. Several members of the public also are in attendance. The agenda 

allowed time for public comment on each day of the meeting, with up to 5 minutes for each comment. 

Ms. Kaiser asked any members of the public interested in commenting to sign in on the public comment 

sheet. 

 

Committee members briefly introduced themselves and provided their titles and affiliations, as did the 

EPA staff members who were scheduled to provide presentations. 

Welcome and Overview of Charge to the Committee 

James Moseley, Committee Chair 

Jim Moseley (Jim Moseley Farms, Inc.), Chair of the FRRCC, welcomed Committee members and noted 

that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has provided the Committee with an interesting and challenging 

assignment. The value of the FRRCC lies in the experiences that Committee members bring to the table 

as individuals; the purpose of such an advisory committee is to ensure that citizens have a voice in 

government. This country’s founders sought to guarantee the ability of the citizens to actively participate 

in government. The United States has a representative government in which citizens elect individuals to 

represent them in the White House, in Congress, in state legislatures, and so on. American society, 

however, is diverse, complex, and sometimes confusing. No one individual, group, or interest can 

possibly bring to the table all that is necessary to make decisions. A number of committees have been 

established to represent the agricultural community for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

allowing that agency to learn the views of citizens. As an Undersecretary of USDA, and later as Deputy 

Secretary, Mr. Moseley found that one of the most important things he could do was to talk to the people 

whose daily lives were in some way impacted by the Federal Government. Although Committee members 

represent the agriculture industry, or segments of that industry, the greatest value of their participation in 

this Committee is their ability to bring their own personal experiences and observations to the table. 

Mr. Moseley encouraged FRRCC members to respect one another and to accept that each Committee 

member is important to achieving the FRRCC’s goals; however, a lack of respect is never an issue with 

individuals from rural America and the agricultural community. Mr. Moseley described the manner in 

which Committee members should indicate that they wish to be recognized during Committee 

deliberations. He then described his role as Chair—to remain unbiased and to ensure that the Committee 
2 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

functions in an orderly, efficient manner. From time to time, Mr. Moseley noted that he may step out of 

his role as Chair and express his own personal view; he will notify Committee members in such cases. 

His role also is to ensure that the concepts, ideas, attitudes, and opinions brought forward by Committee 

members are presented to decision-makers, such as Administrator Johnson and his political staff, and that 

they become part of the public record. To accomplish this, Mr. Moseley will work with Ms. Kaiser and 

Jon Scholl (EPA/Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation). The FRRCC need not achieve 100 

percent agreement on everything; instead, the Committee will work toward consensus. If substantial 

dissension exists within the Committee, members will continue to work toward resolving disagreements 

using the “yes if” principle rather than the “no but” principle. In other words, a Committee member 

should, whenever possible, express disagreement in this form: “yes, I could accept your position if these 

conditions are met,” rather than “no.” This will help keep discussions positive and move the Committee 

toward consensus. Members of the media likely will be present during FRRCC meetings; therefore, 

nothing is ever off the record. 

Mr. Moseley recalled Administrator Johnson’s assurance that the establishment of the FRRCC is 

important to him and will be a long-term activity for EPA that will continue past the current 

administration. A number of years ago, when Mr. Moseley was a farmer in Indiana, Clayton Yeutter, then 

Secretary of Agriculture, asked him to work for USDA. Mr. Moseley said that he considered this offer, 

but decided to accept what was then a part-time position at EPA, working on the intersection between 

agriculture and the environment. He had believed that this position would allow him to have a greater 

impact on agriculture than anything he might do at USDA. Mr. Moseley transformed that position, which 

is now a full-time position held by Mr. Scholl, and began to realize the importance of connecting 

agriculture and the environment. He expressed his delight over EPA’s effort to formalize this relationship 

through the establishment of this Committee and said that he is pleased to serve as Chair. 

Opening Remarks 

Rafael DeLeon, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM), EPA 

Rafael DeLeon, Director of OCEM, welcomed Committee members and remarked on the importance of 

the community that they represent. He commented that the Committee members were chosen by OCEM 

from more than 200 applicants who expressed interest in serving on the FRRCC. He emphasized that this 

committee will continue beyond the current administration. He also thanked Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Scholl 

for their work to bring this meeting together. 

Introductory Remarks 

Marcus Peacock, Deputy Administrator, EPA 

Marcus Peacock, EPA Deputy Administrator, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to greet the 

members of the FRRCC at their inaugural meeting. EPA relies on federal advisory committees such as 

this one to provide practical, timely, and relevant advice to inform the Agency’s decisions. The 

establishment of the FRRCC has been a priority within the Agency for more than a year. The 

Committee’s input will help the Agency make decisions on a wide range of issues. The FRRCC is well 

suited to advise the Agency because its members know first-hand that, if we do not take good care of 

Mother Earth, Mother Earth will not take good care of us. Committee members have a great breadth and 

diversity of expertise. EPA received a far greater number of applicants for this Committee than for any 

past EPA advisory committee; this shows the agricultural community’s keen desire to participate. 

Mr. Peacock thanked Mr. Moseley for agreeing to chair the Committee and added that he had worked 

with Mr. Moseley for a number of years. Novelist Calvin Trillin wrote that, “when someone reaches 

middle age, people he knows begin to get put in charge of things, and knowing what he knows about the 

people who are being put in charge of things scares the hell out of him.” Mr. Peacock thanked EPA staff, 

especially Mr. Scholl, who has spearheaded this effort. He said that Ms. Kaiser has devoted nearly all of 

her time to organizing this Committee. Mr. DeLeon and Mark Joyce (EPA/OCEM) have provided 

counsel and organizational expertise; in addition, several OCEM staff members have been heavily 

engaged in the membership selection process. He thanked Marietta Haggins, Lois Williams, Jannell 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 3

Young-Ancrum, Shan Pasha, and Cynthia Jones-Jackson, all of whom have been instrumental in making 

this meeting possible. 

Mr. Peacock noted that the current EPA headquarters building originally was the headquarters for the 

U.S. Postal Service (then called the Post Office Department); an inscription in stone on this building 

reads, “The Post Office Department, in its ceaseless labors, pervades every channel of commerce and 

every theatre of human enterprise, and, while visiting, as it does kindly, every fireside, mingles with the 

throbbings of almost every heart in the land.” When that was written in 1933, it was not a laughable idea. 

The Post Office Department was the main manner in which people communicated and obtained goods, it 

was the nation’s largest employer, and it was the primary source of federal revenue other than income tax. 

Times have changed, and the U.S. Postal Service is none of those things now. He expressed hope that 

what happened to the Post Office Department will never happen to EPA. Times and conditions do change, 

however, and without outside counsel, EPA could quickly become antiquated and out of touch with 

reality. 

Mr. Peacock said that the idea for this Committee arose from conversation among EPA staff members 

regarding agricultural producers who were considering selling their farms and ranches and the potential 

environmental impacts of such decisions. Producers do not look at what they do strictly from an 

environmental perspective, nor do they view their work only as a business or a hobby. Instead it is about 

one’s relationship with the land, the work, and the community; it is a way of life. In many cases, what 

producers do defines who they are. It was during this conversation that someone suggested creating an 

advisory committee. Mr. Peacock agreed and took this idea to the Administrator, who immediately 

understood the need for such a committee. In 2006, EPA adopted a National Strategy for Agriculture, 

which envisions the agriculture industry as a producer of environmental solutions. The strategy seeks to 

engage farmers, ranchers, and the communities in which they live in a cooperative and collaborative way 

to complement the Agency’s existing regulatory programs. The FRRCC is one of the important ways in 

which EPA intends to connect with the agriculture industry and rural communities and to build a strong, 

lasting partnership that will help EPA resolve many of the most difficult issues the Agency will face in 

the near future. 

The Agency has determined that it would benefit from the FRRCC’s advice on three major topics, which 

will frame the FRRCC’s productive efforts. First, the Committee has been asked to consider the role of 

agriculture in addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and renewable fuel issues. Agriculture 

increasingly produces fuel as well as food and fiber. EPA needs the Committee’s advice to implement 

provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). Second, the Agency seeks the FRRCC’s 

recommendations on how to more effectively address environmental issues related to animal agriculture 

in ways that meet EPA’s environmental objectives and are workable for agricultural producers. Future 

actions of the Agency must recognize the cross-media nature of environmental issues related to animal 

agriculture and the trade-offs of each potential course of action. Third, EPA is looking for the FRRCC’s 

thoughts on how the Agency can better communicate and interact with the agriculture industry to 

minimize conflict and achieve goals that benefit the environment, the agriculture industry, rural 

communities, and the country. 

Mr. Peacock said that he and Administrator Johnson are committed to providing feedback to the FRRCC, 

indicating which of its recommendations the Agency is acting on and which it is not acting on, and 

whether certain factors keep EPA from implementing some recommendations. Committee members are 

participating out of a sincere desire to make a positive contribution, and the Agency will do its best to 

ensure that this effort is meaningful. Mr. Peacock thanked the Committee members for being part of the 

FRRCC and said he looks forward to accomplishing great things with the Committee’s assistance. 
4 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Discussion

James Andrew (Andrew Farms, Inc.) asked for suggested reading materials that might help expand his 

horizons on environmental issues. He wondered if Ms. Kaiser could send a suggested reading list to 

Committee members. Mr. Moseley responded that this would be a long list; however, this is an excellent 

point. He offered to work with Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Scholl to provide this information to Committee 

members. Mr. Peacock added that this is a great example of the heart of what he hoped this group would 

do: provide a connection between EPA and the agriculture industry, allowing each to learn from the other 

and to speak the same language. 

Otto Doering (Purdue University) observed that EPA will be faced with some very important decisions 

regarding the EISA that will be critically important for agriculture in terms of GHG standards, feedstock 

for biofuels, and so forth. The FRRCC should attempt to mobilize quickly enough to provide input on 

such far-reaching decisions. Mr. Peacock replied that, although he is very open to this suggestion, many 

hurdles exist. For example, it might have been helpful to have had input from this Committee during the 

development of the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Rule. In any case, he expressed his 

desire to obtain the FRRCC’s input whenever possible on rules that will impact the agriculture industry. 

Mr. Moseley inquired about the timetable on some of the upcoming rules regarding renewable fuels and 

whether the Committee would have an opportunity to provide input on the development of these rules. 

Mr. Peacock replied, in terms of the timetable, that the Agency has a system that tracks rules. Some 

constraints may be imposed by the Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA); nevertheless, he urged the Committee to become engaged as quickly as possible. 

Gary Cooper (Cooper Farms) asked whether Mr. Peacock expected the Committee to form three groups to 

address the three issues with which it is charged (GHG emissions, animal agriculture and environmental 

issues, and better communications), or whether the Committee as a whole would address each issue in 

priority order. Mr. Peacock said that FACA committees typically divide into groups to discuss separate 

issues; however, the third topic, communication, could be considered one that facilitates the other two 

topics, so he did not advise the Committee to form a group to discuss only that topic. 

Mike Brubaker (Pennsylvania State Senate) referred to upcoming mandates under the Chesapeake Bay 

Commission’s 2010 goal, which will be difficult to meet. He wondered whether the Chesapeake Bay 

decision-makers might benefit from this Committee’s efforts. Mr. Peacock expressed his hope that this 

would be the case. With other advisory committees, EPA has found information to be helpful not only to 

EPA, but also to entities outside of the Agency that address similar issues. This is one of the great benefits 

of advisory committees. 

Ralph Grossi (American Farmland Trust) asked how EPA interacts with USDA on the rulemaking 

associated with the Farm Bill and how this Committee might provide input. Mr. Peacock responded that 

EPA provides both written and oral comments to USDA on the Farm Bill; the discourse between EPA 

and USDA has been very fruitful. Mr. Scholl added that EPA and USDA have developed a strong 

partnership; for example, EPA included a USDA representative on this Committee, and USDA has 

included an EPA representative on the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF). Regarding the 

rulemaking associated with the Farm Bill, Mr. Scholl explained that the two agencies interact in a couple 

of ways. First, EPA and USDA attempt to maintain contact during the Farm Bill development process: 

the EPA team meets with the USDA team to determine how the Farm Bill could be used to address 

environmental issues. The interagency discussions have been productive; for example, EPA was pleased 

with USDA’s recent proposal, as it reflects many of EPA’s concerns. Second, interagency review and 

participation is part of the formal rulemaking process; this provides an opportunity for agencies to 

comment on important rulemaking that cuts across agricultural, environmental, and other issues. 

Mr. Grossi asked if the Agency anticipates that this Committee will play an advisory role in the 

rulemaking process. Mr. Scholl replied that the advice of the FRRCC will be very important in terms of 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 5

the priorities EPA sets and the approaches it takes. This will be reflected as EPA continues to develop its 

partnership with USDA. Mr. Moseley noted that the Committee’s work will be conducted in a manner 

that is open to the public. To have an impact, the Committee will have to formalize this process and meet 

all FACA rules. He added that he had been through two Farm Bill rule- and regulation-writing processes 

during 1990 and 2002. USDA invites a number of agencies to the table as it develops rules and 

regulations, just as EPA invites USDA to participate in rulemaking that is germane to agriculture. In his 

experience, USDA would not move forward with final decision-making until it had reached concurrence 

with EPA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and a number of other agencies. Therefore, the 

Committee’s recommendations will be an important part of this process because it will advise EPA on 

how it should advise USDA; any role of the Committee beyond this will have to be considered in light of 

FACA rules. 

Martha Noble (Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) noted that she is pleased with the diversity in the 

Committee’s membership. In light of EPA’s charge to protect human health as well as the environment, 

however, one group is missing—the human health community. Concerns have been growing within the 

human health community about agricultural issues. Therefore, the Committee may require some 

understanding and assessment of those concerns. She asked whether the FRRCC would have the 

opportunity to seek input from the human health community. Mr. Scholl responded that EPA had aimed 

for perfection in the Committee member selection process and is pleased with the resulting diversity and 

breadth of experience of members. It may be possible, however, to add other facets and aspects to the 

Committee over time to achieve perfection. The Committee can form workgroups that will include 

individuals other than Committee members. He asked for the Committee’s help in identifying others from 

whom the Committee might solicit input. Mr. Moseley agreed that this is a good point. The FRRCC will 

ask for a host of resources and the Committee probably will bring in a number of experts to share 

information and knowledge with the FRRCC. The Committee’s job is to take that information and 

knowledge to the level of wisdom as it advises the Administrator and Deputy Administrator. 

Jay Vroom (Crop Life America) observed that he has heard the term “sustainable” many times, and 

wondered whether this term is gaining traction. This concept, applied to agriculture, probably will be the 

centerpiece of many policy decisions for this administration and the next. This Committee is in a good 

position, not only to help provide context to this administration on the concept of sustainability as it 

applies to agriculture, but also to provide some continuity on this subject from this administration to the 

next. He asked Mr. Peacock to comment on how the Agency views the concept of sustainability and some 

of the extra-government activities in which EPA has been invited to participate. In particular, he asked 

how such activities and the Committee’s advice will affect policy now and in the future. Mr. Peacock said 

that sustainability is not a word he uses often. It is a good word but poorly defined. He suggested that 

Mr. Moseley ensure that the FRRCC does not try to put too much on its plate all at once. The topics 

provided to the Committee should keep it busy for some time; however, once the Committee gets started, 

it may consider additional issues that Committee members are well qualified and well positioned to 

address. Therefore, the Committee might consider the aspects of sustainability with which this group is 

qualified to grapple. Mr. Vroom agreed that the term sustainability is not defined precisely, but one of the 

efforts now underway outside of government aims to establish a standard for agricultural sustainability. 

This forces all Committee members to think differently about this topic. 

Robert Flocchini (University of California–Davis) said he appreciated the Agency’s commitment to 

provide feedback to the Committee regarding the fate of its recommendations—this is very important. He 

added that an indication of the time required to implement those recommendations accepted by EPA also 

would be helpful. Mr. Peacock said that he and Mr. DeLeon recently had assessed the relationship 

between EPA and its advisory committees. They found that the Agency uses all of its advisory 

committees but should provide more feedback to them regarding the actions taken by the Agency. EPA is 

very interested in providing such feedback; doing so increases the quality of advice provided by advisory 

committees because they know that the Agency is listening. If this Committee does not receive such 

feedback, it should request it. Mr. Moseley said that he had raised this concern with Administrator 

Johnson, who had agreed that the FRRCC would receive such feedback. Mr. Moseley expressed 
6 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

confidence that the Committee will receive feedback but suggested that EPA remember to feed 

Committee members intellectually and to reassure them that their efforts are of real value to the Agency. 

Dave Nelson (Global Ethanol) commented that production agriculture now is under tremendous pressure 

to produce by the commodities markets. Many factors are rapidly changing in the agricultural field for 

growers, producers, and processors; these changes will accelerate as demands on the economy become 

greater through the diversity of the industry’s consumers. He expressed his appreciation for this 

opportunity to provide guidance to EPA. Mr. Peacock agreed that he had seen a great deal of change with 

respect to ethanol plants; therefore, the timing of this Committee’s establishment is good. Mr. Moseley 

said that this Committee clearly is at the intersection of agriculture and the environment. Mr. Peacock 

expressed his belief that the two are bound together. 

Teferi Tsegaye (Alabama A&M University) observed that the Committee had so far focused on USDA 

and EPA. It also may be valuable to focus on the activities of other agencies—including funding agencies 

such as the National Science Foundation (NSF)—that can impact decision-making. He asked how the 

efforts of other agencies might be relevant to EPA’s decision-making. Mr. Peacock replied that the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) is conducting 24 scientific syntheses; EPA is the lead agency 

for three of these. EPA has completed one synthesis on sea level rise and will perform two more—one on 

human health and welfare and one on ecosystems. In addition, the Agency is involved in all 24 syntheses, 

and NSF is contributing to a majority of them as well. The CCSP provides a mechanism for formal and 

informal communication among participating agencies regarding everything from budgets to policies. 

Therefore, such efforts can indirectly affect EPA’s actions. Mr. Peacock agreed, therefore, that it would 

be a mistake for the Committee to look only at EPA’s efforts on these issues. He added that EPA staff 

members have a tendency to limit their thinking to their own program areas (“stovepipes”, and the issues 

with which the FRRCC will grapple do not fit inside these stovepipes. 

Jeff Tee (Panhandle Environmental Resource Coalition) echoed Mr. Nelson’s sentiments regarding 

ongoing changes in agriculture and agreed that this Committee has been established at an important time. 

He added that, in the communities in which he worked in small-town America, one does not brag about 

being an environmentalist in the local coffee shop. Nevertheless, it is true that the better we treat Mother 

Earth, the better she treats us. Nobody has more of a charge to protect the earth than production 

agriculture because we reap what we sow; farmers make their living from the earth and must, therefore, 

treat the earth better every year. Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense 

Fund, and Rainforest Action Network probably share the goals of agricultural producers with respect to 

protecting the earth but may use different means to achieve such goals. Many times, the actions of the 

agriculture industry are misconstrued as damaging rather than fortifying to the earth. This Committee has 

the opportunity to help ensure that the truth is brought to light; the FRRCC should represent real-world 

efforts versus accusations and find out where the truth lies between those two extremes. If the Agency 

listens and takes the FRRCC’s recommendations, this effort will be nothing but positive. Mr. Peacock 

responded that this was a great comment and referred Committee members to his blog, Flow of the River, 

on the EPA Web Site. Particularly in an election year, one sees caricatures, and it is easy to believe that 

they are real. Everyone would like to produce results in addressing environmental issues; if the Agency 

demonstrates how to produce better results, then everyone will line up behind that idea and the 

improvement can be implemented. Mr. Peacock concurred that everyone can agree on the need for 

improvement in the environment; this Committee can find the areas of overlap in environmental 

protection goals and the other interests and concerns of the agriculture industry. Mr. Moseley responded 

that this was an excellent point and an excellent way to cap this discussion. 

Mr. Moseley recognized a leadership development class that had joined the meeting as observers and 

welcomed them. He noted that the class had come to Washington, DC, to observe government in action. 

Plenary Remarks by EPA Program Offices

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 7

Jim Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), 

EPA 

OPPTS regulates pesticides and industrial chemicals in the United States. Within OPPTS, the Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) has a long and productive history with the federal advisory committee process. 

In 1995, OPP established the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC). OPP also benefited from 

two earlier pesticide advisory committees, established jointly with USDA, to address policy, science, and 

implementation issues related to the Food Quality Protection Act, which requires EPA to re-register all 

pesticides in use in the United States. 

The PPDC provides a robust public forum to discuss a wide variety of pesticide regulatory issues, 

program implementation topics, and science policy questions regarding both agricultural and 

nonagricultural pesticides. Some current topics under discussion by the PPDC include pesticide spray 

drift, pesticide transition, volatilization, worker safety issues, the pesticide registration and renewal 

process, and endangered species. OPPTS also has benefited from PPDC workgroups established to meet 

outside of the PPDC meetings. These workgroups are more focused and informal; they flush out issues 

and then return to the larger committee, which then has more focused, informed discussions. One PPDC 

workgroup is addressing agricultural transition issues associated with a particular organophosphate 

insecticide. This workgroup, supported by USDA and EPA, is monitoring the implementation of an EPA 

decision to phase out this insecticide over the next several years. The PPDC will focus on what might be 

needed to help growers transition to newer, safer pest control tools. The PPDC has helped facilitate a 

better understanding of stakeholder views and has defined common ground on various issues. Through 

the transparency of the FACA process, OPPTS has moved toward better decisions and has improved 

public trust. 

The FRRCC will address many cross-media environmental issues faced by farmers and rural 

communities, some of which will affect pesticide regulation. The FRRCC’s efforts will complement those 

of the PPDC, which will continue to address pesticide-specific issues. It is important that these two 

committees work together in a coordinated fashion and provide the Agency with advice on the full 

spectrum of agriculture-related issues affecting EPA pesticide programs. Jim Gulliford also noted his 

desire to provide more information to the public regarding some of the stewardship programs that are of 

service to agriculture. 

Mr. Gulliford mentioned that Pat Cimino (EPA/OPPTS) will regularly attend the FRRCC’s meetings and 

FRRCC members should feel free to ask her any questions related to OPPTS. 

Question and Answer Session

Martha Guzman Aceves (California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation) remarked that farm worker 

protection standards have been delayed; she asked for a timeframe on those regulations and the potential 

role of the FRRCC in advising EPA on those regulations. Mr. Gulliford responded that OPPTS continues 

to work with PPDC on farm worker safety issues. PPDC will continue to consider these issues for the 

next year, and the Agency then will release an advanced farm worker safety rule. 

Office of Water

Mike Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water (OW), EPA 

Periodically, EPA’s Office of Water (OW) reviews the status of U.S. water quality. Despite considerable 

progress since 1970 to achieve clean water goals, a majority of water bodies remain in an impaired state. 

According to the 2002 National Water Quality Inventory Section 305(b) Report, agriculture is the leading 

known source of pollution to lakes and rivers nationwide, including 37 percent of impaired rivers and 

streams and 30 percent of impaired lakes and reservoirs. Although not necessarily representative of every 

water body in the country, this report, based on data collected by states, indicates that agriculture is 

associated with many water quality impairments, particularly those related to sediments and nutrients, as 
8 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

well as those attributable to low dissolved oxygen, habitat alterations, pathogens, and metals. Many 

potential sources may contribute to pharmaceuticals in drinking water supplies and one source of concern 

is the pharmaceuticals used in animal agriculture. The 2006 Wadeable Streams Assessment (WSA), 

which characterizes a sample of small streams across the country according to biological health 

indicators, found that only 28 percent of streams were in good condition compared to reference 

conditions; around 42 percent were considered to be in poor health from the perspective of biological 

diversity. High nutrient levels and sedimentation were among the two major stressors correlated with this 

kind of impairment; 25 to 30 percent of streams had high levels of nutrients or excess sedimentation. He 

noted that this is not exclusively an agricultural problem. 

The role of OW under the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” A point source is a discrete conveyance with large, direct 

discharges to the nation’s surface waters; point sources include wastewater treatment plants, major 

industries, and CAFOs. EPA addresses major point sources, in part, by using a technology-based 

approach via effluent limitation guidelines. Technology-based standards are promulgated nationally and 

must be met by all affected facilities. Because the technology-based approach often is not sufficient to 

restore the nation’s waters, the water quality-based approach is becoming increasingly important. In this 

approach, EPA develops water quality criteria information, and states and tribes develop water quality 

standards and criteria specific to each watershed. These standards and criteria are used as a framework for 

requiring reductions in the loadings and pollutants causing the impairments. All point sources, including 

CAFOs, need a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from EPA or 

authorized states to discharge into waters of the United States. Water quality standards for each water 

body include three parts: designated uses (e.g., recreation, drinking water, cold water fishery, or 

irrigation); numeric or narrative water quality criteria for each pollutant; and an antidegradation policy. 

For each impaired body of water (i.e., one that does not meet the standards), EPA, the state, or the tribe 

must develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL)—a plan that calculates the amount of reduction in the 

pollutant needed to restore the water body to its intended use. A TMDL sets the maximum amount of any 

pollutant from all sources (point and nonpoint) that a water body can receive and still meet the water 

quality standards. TMDLs serve as the basis for strategies to improve and protect water quality. 

In contrast to point sources, no direct regulatory authority exists at the federal level for nonpoint sources, 

and the same is true for most states. Nonpoint sources are becoming an increasingly large source of water 

quality problems. Under the Nonpoint Source Management Program, authorized by Section 319 of the 

CWA, EPA provides grants to states and tribes to: (1) identify waters impaired or threatened by nonpoint 

sources, key categories of nonpoint sources, and loadings; (2) implement programs to promote best 

management practices (BMPs); and (3) monitor and evaluate progress, updating the program every 5 

years. Much of the pollution from the agricultural sector is considered nonpoint source pollution. 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA ensures that public drinking water supplies meet all 

appropriate standards to protect human health. OW defines national, enforceable standards for public 

drinking water supplies, intended to prevent contamination of drinking water, and ensures that each 

community water supply system can achieve the standards. Under the Source Water Protection Program, 

states assess threats to drinking water supplies, delineate areas that could contribute water and pollutants, 

conduct an inventory of potential sources of contamination, and determine the susceptibility of the water 

supply to contamination. Source water protection is the intersection of OW’s surface water and drinking 

water protection programs; the overarching purpose is to protect watersheds that are used to recharge 

groundwater or to provide drinking water to communities across the country. 

OW now is considering the water quality impacts associated with the projected significant increase in 

biofuel production. OW is working across the Agency and with USDA to predict impacts under different 

scenarios and to provide technical guidance and support to states and EPA regional offices. Water quality 

concerns related to biofuels include increased use of nutrients and pesticides, increased erosion, loss of 

habitat and soil carbon, loss of corn-soybean rotations, the use of high-phosphorus distillers’ grain for 

animal feed, and increased runoff from marginal lands converted to corn production. In addition, USDA’s 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 9

voluntary conservation programs may cost more per acre or enroll fewer participants; these programs play 

an important role in helping agricultural producers address water quality. 

The CAFO Final Rule of 2003 was partially overturned in court. EPA issued a modified CAFO Proposed 

Rule in June 2006 to address the Court’s decision and, on March 7, 2008, EPA issued a supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) that includes a voluntary option for CAFOs to certify that they do 

not discharge. The supplemental proposed rule also outlines a framework for identifying the terms of the 

nutrient management plan to be included in the permit. The framework offers alternative approaches for 

addressing application rates of manure, litter, and process wastewater. The new CAFO Rule reflects what 

the Agency has learned from the agriculture community in terms of the most effective approaches. The 

implementation date will be February 27, 2009. The CAFO Rule will cover the majority of livestock 

manure but a minority of the country’s livestock operations. OW will continue to face challenges in 

working with the numerous smaller confined livestock and grazing operations that contribute to water 

quality problems. 

EPA and USDA work in partnership in a number of ways. Most importantly, OW and other EPA staff 

meet on a bimonthly basis with USDA staff to ensure awareness of activities in each agency and areas of 

potential cooperation. For example, USDA worked with EPA on the development of the CAFO Rule, 

EPA works with USDA on the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) to assess the benefits 

and effectiveness of USDA conservation programs with respect to water quality goals, and EPA provides 

input to the USDA State Technical Committees. In addition, the two agencies recently signed an 

agreement to collaborate on reducing Chesapeake Bay pollution sources. EPA also is encouraging 

collaboration at the watershed level to address significant agricultural issues. 

The FRRCC can help OW become more effective by addressing the following questions: (1) What are 

the best ways to communicate with the diverse parts of the agriculture community? (2) How successful 

has EPA been in getting its message and information out to those disparate groups? (3) How can EPA 

encourage agricultural producers to become engaged in local watershed activities—watershed plans, 

TMDL implementation, and source water protection? (4) How can EPA work with producers to curtail 

the water quality impacts of corn production for biofuels in this era of high corn prices? (5) How can EPA 

provide farmers with science and information on the impacts of agricultural production on water quality? 

(6) What will encourage producers to implement practices on the most vulnerable areas of their 

operations? (7) How can the agricultural community demonstrate progress in meeting water quality 

goals? Some of the best success stories occur when the agriculture community takes a leadership role in 

managing water quality issues, such as the remarkable progress achieved when the agricultural 

community works with local watershed groups to: determine effective strategies for solving problems, 

obtain funding, and develop TMDLs. The engagement of agricultural producers in efforts to improve 

water quality can result in a better outcome for agriculture and for rural communities. OW also values the 

input of the agriculture community on regulatory issues. 

Question and Answer Session

Dennis Treacy (Smithfield Foods) noted that OW has taken a lead role in voluntary programs and 

management systems in the past decade. He asked Dr. Shapiro for his opinion of such programs and how 

they fit into OW’s strategy. Dr. Shapiro replied that many issues now have to do with decisions in the 

agricultural sector or by individuals regarding their use and management of water in their homes; for this 

reason, traditional regulatory approaches do not work. Therefore, OW has focused on various partnership 

and voluntary programs, some of which are beyond EPA’s formal statute. For example, OW now is 

encouraging a stronger focus on residential and commercial water conservation, such as by encouraging 

homeowners and the building and development community to move toward green infrastructure and to 

maximize on-site water retention. On the agricultural side, the Nonpoint Source Management Program is 

voluntary. This program provides grants for projects addressing nonpoint sources of pollution and 

encourages watershed-level partnerships to determine the best kinds of integrated activities to address 

nonpoint sources. OW strongly supports voluntary, collaborative efforts. Certain challenges related to 
10 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

traditional point sources work well with regulatory programs, but OW encourages individuals and 

industries to go beyond the minimum requirements. Regulation plays an important role but is not well 

tailored to some of the current nonpoint source issues. 

Senator Brubaker asked what proportion of the nitrogen that is impairing lakes and rivers comes from 

atmospheric deposition. Dr. Shapiro said he did not know the overall contribution from atmospheric 

deposition, but it can be a significant contribution. In the Chesapeake Bay, atmospheric deposition is a 

significant source of nitrogen, and this is probably true for other water bodies as well. There is no 

question that multiple sources of nitrogen exist. Senator Brubaker referred to reports indicating that 

atmospheric deposition accounts for as much as 40 percent of nitrogen in water bodies, as well as reports 

indicating that power plants and agricultural fields are the top two sources. He acknowledged that 

agricultural producers need to make improvements regarding sediment, but asked whether the results 

from a recent report from Franklin and Marshall College on legacy sediment have been factored into 

OW’s analyses regarding the current sources of sediment. Dr. Shapiro replied that there are cases, 

especially those addressed under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs, in which legacy 

contaminants and legacy sediments drive the contamination. This certainly is the case in parts of the Great 

Lakes. The sediment issues from agriculture and other current nonpoint sources still are very real in some 

watersheds, so one must consider each watershed individually to determine the sources of pathogens, 

nitrogen, sedimentation, or other contaminants. Dr. Shapiro clarified that he was not suggesting that 

addressing any one source will solve the problem; he agreed that multiple sources contribute to each of 

these contaminants. The contamination of some watersheds has a significant agricultural component that 

will have to be addressed; in other cases, other sources predominate. Senator Brubaker offered to provide 

the Franklin and Marshall College report to Mr. Moseley for distribution to all Committee members. 

Ms. Guzman Aceves said that, in California, poor rural communities have a greater-than $1 billion need 

to address problems with septic and wastewater systems. Although the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

(CWSRF) offers a great opportunity to address such problems, these communities cannot benefit from a 

loan. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is much more flexible in that, at least in California, the 

state can use revenue from interest repayment to make grants. California state officials do not believe, 

however, that the state has the authority to do this with the CWSRF. Ms. Guzman Aceves wondered if 

this might be an interpretation issue. If not, she wondered whether statutory or regulatory opportunities to 

address this issue might arise this year. She further suggested that the Committee form a workgroup to 

address problems of overflowing wastewater in poor, rural communities. Dr. Shapiro said that OW 

appreciates the fact that, in many areas of the country, failing septic systems and wastewater treatment 

plants are significant sources of pollutants affecting water quality. There are differences between the 

SDWA and the CWA in terms of their statutory authority; for example, the SDWA offers much more 

flexibility to forgive loans. There is no such flexibility under the CWA. He noted, however, that OW 

would be happy to work with such communities to ensure that any available flexibility is fully understood 

and can be used. He agreed to follow up with Ms. Guzman Aceves on this issue. 

Mr. Andrew asked whether the news stories on recycled human pharmaceuticals in the drinking water 

supply represent an example of sensational journalism or real cause for concern. Dr. Shapiro said that the 

view now within EPA is that the presence of very low concentrations of pharmaceuticals in drinking 

water is of concern in the sense that it must be studied. EPA has not yet concluded that there is an 

associated public health issue, but more research and attention needs to be devoted to that area. 

Tom McDonald (Five Rivers Ranch) asked whether this Committee would have the opportunity to weigh 

in and provide comments on the supplemental CAFO Proposed Rule. Dr. Shapiro said that the 

supplemental proposed rule currently is available for public comment. If the Agency were at an earlier 

stage in the rulemaking process, it would have incorporated consultation with this Committee into the 

process. Considering the current stage of the process, however, the best way to have an impact at this 

point is to provide comments on the supplemental proposed rule, whether as a Committee or individually. 

Once the comment period closes, the Agency will move as quickly as possible to the issuance of the final 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 11

rule. Dr. Shapiro offered to respond to any questions and requests for clarification on the supplemental 

proposed rule. Mr. Moseley noted that it is unlikely that the Committee as a whole will be able to 

comment during the public comment period; nevertheless, Committee members have a very unique 

opportunity to ask questions from EPA staff members in attendance at this meeting. Committee members 

then may provide their own comments on the rule. Roberta Parry (EPA/OW) said that the public 

comment period would close on April 7, 2008. 

With respect to water quality concerns related to biofuels, Mr. Vroom expressed concern over “Chicken 

Little’s the sky is falling” interpretations of some of the issues raised by Dr. Shapiro. It is entirely 

appropriate for OW and EPA to take note of major shifts in agriculture driven by increasing demand for 

biofuels. For example, cropping patterns are changing and some USDA conservation program acreage is 

being brought back into production. In light of recent media attention on this issue, however, the kind of 

general summary provided in Dr. Shapiro’s presentation may be misinterpreted. He also asked how 

USDA is interfacing with OW on some of this analysis. He added that, on his own farm, for example, he 

has observed that acreage planted in corn shows less soil erosion than acreage planted in soybeans. 

Dr. Shapiro agreed that this is a good caution; it is difficult to reflect the nuances and uncertainties of 

these issues in bullet points. Moreover, it is not always black and white in the sense that corn is bad and 

soybeans are good. He said that OW is working closely with USDA, uses many USDA-derived models, 

and relies very heavily on technical expertise provided by USDA. When it comes to assessing or 

projecting the impacts of cropping patterns, USDA staff members are the experts. Michele Laur (USDA/ 

Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) seconded Dr. Shapiro’s comment regarding the close 

working relationship between USDA and EPA, noting that these and other agencies also are involved in a 

number of interagency work groups considering how to respond to issues related to biofuels. 

Thomas Franklin (Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership) asked whether OW’s assessments 

account for the loss of wetlands and recognize the role wetlands can play in addressing water quality 

problems. He specifically asked whether EPA is identifying opportunities for restoring or constructing 

wetlands. Dr. Shapiro said that OW certainly considers wetland retention and enhancement to be a 

priority because wetlands can play a critical role in terms of both water quantity and water quality. Some 

USDA programs in this area are helpful as well. OW is very committed to working to protect the 

wetlands that exist and to help enhance or restore them where possible. Some of the real gains that have 

been made in protecting sensitive areas through USDA conservation programs may be at risk as a result 

of increased incentives to convert land to agricultural uses that had been set aside for conservation. This is 

an important issue. Wetland issues are addressed partly through the regulatory program operated by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; they also are addressed from the voluntary side using both technical tools 

and grants that encourage the use of wetlands as part of integrated solutions to water quality problems. 

Ms. Noble asked to what extent OW uses the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) Program to assess both long-term changes and emerging issues, such as 

pathogens and pharmaceuticals. Dr. Shapiro said that EPA uses NAWQA to assess long-term changes and 

emerging issues. This program provides an important data source for examining long-term trends in the 

nation’s water quality. OW is working with USGS and other agencies to create common frameworks that 

will allow EPA and the public to go to one place to access relevant EPA data, USGS data, and data from 

other agencies on a particular water body. The reports from the USGS on emerging contaminants, such as 

pharmaceuticals, also are very valuable and an important source of information to gauge which new 

issues need to be addressed under the priority-setting processes for the SDWA or CWA for identifying 

contaminants to be considered in future regulations. 

Marion Bowlan (Long-Bowlan Farms) stated that she has a small farm in Lancaster County, 

Pennsylvania. When she converted her farm to grass and began to rotation-graze dairy heifers, her farm 

footed the bill and did not apply to any government programs. Recently, her farm applied for funding to 

install a stream crossing; she was told that her project is not a priority because many other projects from 

bigger polluters are ahead of hers. Although she understands this rationale, she wondered if any 

consideration had been given to a size-neutral or pollution-neutral evaluation because it seems that, 
12 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

currently, one is penalized for doing a good job. She emphasized that she did not mean that EPA should 

not work with larger operations with significant problems; rather, she suggested, perhaps funds could go 

further if EPA considered some of the smaller issues that need to be addressed. Dr. Shapiro agreed that 

many small problems can add up to a big problem. He asked whether Ms. Bowlan had applied for an EPA 

grant or a USDA grant. Ms. Bowlan clarified that it was a USDA grant. Dr. Shapiro observed that this 

may be an example of the benefits of planning on a watershed basis. Often, under OW’s Section 319 

programs, the applications that receive funding are those that come from watershed organizations; 

typically, the organization commits to a certain number of projects that include a number of small farm 

projects. If Ms. Bowlan’s stream crossing were part of a proposal from a watershed group with a 

collection of nonpoint projects, this might increase the chances of funding. It can be difficult in grant 

programs for very small projects to get attention because it takes as much time to review a proposal and 

approve a grant for a very small project as for a big one. Ms. Bowlan suggested that EPA consider this as 

part of a systemic issue that should be addressed rather than referring people to other programs. She 

agreed that other programs exist but asked if this is the most cost-effective system. Dr. Shapiro agreed 

that this is a good point. 

Mr. Moseley thanked Dr. Shapiro and posited that Ms. Bowlan was right on target with her comment. A 

great deal of angst occurs over the manner in which such funding decisions are made. Sometimes those 

who are administering the grant programs have a logical reason for their decision but the decision 

nevertheless does not set very well. This shows the value of this Committee sharing ideas and promoting 

cross-pollination. 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Sally Shaver, Associate Counselor for Agricultural Policy, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), EPA 

Four offices are included within EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). The Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards is responsible for setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

in conjunction with state partners. This office also sets standards for stationary sources, both for toxics 

and for criteria air pollutants (e.g., ozone, particulate matter [PM], sulfur oxides [SOx], nitrogen oxides 

[NOx], and carbon monoxide [CO]). The Office of Transportation and Air Quality sets the standards for 

motor vehicles and engines. The Office of Atmospheric Programs addresses acid rain via a program that 

was put in place in 1990, and addresses climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion. OAR’s Office 

of Indoor Air and Radiation is not likely to interface significantly with the FRRCC. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to review the NAAQS every 5 years. EPA has not always met 

this requirement but, in recent years, OAR has developed new PM standards and has set a new ozone 

standard. OAR is engaged in ongoing reviews for NOx, SO2, CO, lead, and PM; the FRRCC might be 

interested in these reviews. In each state, the governor is responsible for designating whether areas within 

the state are in attainment of the standards. State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which indicate how 

nonattainment areas will reach attainment, are due 3 years after an area is designated as a nonattainment 

area. Each nonattainment area then has 7 years to come into attainment before incurring certain sanctions. 

For example, the attainment deadlines for ozone from the previous ozone standard extend to 2024, and the 

attainment deadlines for PM extend to 2015 for standards put in place in 1997. These delays are partially 

attributable to litigation. For the revised PM standards of 2006, the designations will be finalized this year 

or next year and the SIPs will be due 3 years later; attainment generally occurs 5 to 10 years after that. 

Ms. Shaver noted that, although ammonia is a precursor for fine PM, the Agency does not regulate it as 

such. If EPA is provided with scientific evidence that ammonia is a significant contributor to 

nonattainment in a particular area, ammonia then may become a regulated pollutant in that area. EPA has 

an Exceptional Events Rule that indicates how to address nonattainment attributable to documented 

natural events, such as a wildfire or dust storm. In some areas, pesticide use is regulated to reduce volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions because this is necessary to meet the ozone standard. OAR also will 

revise its fire policy by July 2008; the 1998 interim policy did not address agricultural burning. OAR will 

seek input from the agricultural community on this policy. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 13

Other stationary source issues include the applicability of CAA requirements to farms. Specifically, OAR 

currently is grappling with the following questions: (1) Which, if any, CAA requirements apply to farms? 

(2) How should the source be defined? (3) Are agricultural emissions fugitive or nonfugitive? The Boiler 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology Rule recently was vacated. That rule included cutoffs based 

on size and use and provisions based on whether energy recovery systems were used. EPA’s 

Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators Rule also was vacated. The Other Solid Waste 

Incinerators (OSWI) Rule dealt with animal incineration at animal feeding operations (AFOs); this rule 

also has been vacated, so the disposal of mortalities at AFOs will have to be revisited. 

OAR has a number of voluntary partnership programs to reduce emissions from engines currently in use, 

such as the SmartWay Transport Partnership, and heavy duty truck emissions. OAR is very pleased with 

the National Clean Diesel Campaign, in which it works with a number of state partners. OAR has 

$49.2 million for this program for fiscal year (FY) 2008, including $34 million for direct grants and 

$14.8 million for state activities to achieve reductions in diesel emissions, such as retrofit programs. 

Atmospheric programs include the following: (1) voluntary GHG inventory; (2) appropriations language 

regarding mandatory GHG reporting; (3) the Methane to Markets Program, in which EPA works with 

other countries to convert methane into energy; (4) the AgSTAR Program, promoting anaerobic digestion; 

(5) the ENERGY STAR Program; (6) the Stratospheric Ozone Program, through which EPA addresses 

the Montreal Protocol; and (7) the methyl bromide phase-out. 

Ms. Shaver noted that more information on OAR, such as regulations, can be found on the EPA Web Site 

at http://www.epa.gov/oar. Technical information, such as maps, monitoring and modeling information, 

and inventories, can be found on the Technology Transfer Network Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn. 

OAR works with several advisory committees exclusively on air issues, including the Clean Air Act 

Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee. OAR also participates on 

USDA’s AAQTF. Ms. Shaver said that OAR looks forward to working with the FRRCC. 

Question and Answer Session

Ms. Guzman Aceves asked when EPA will phase out methyl bromide. Ms. Shaver responded that she 

does not know when methyl bromide use will reach zero because critical use exemptions still are being 

granted. 

Garth Boyd (Camco) asked for clarification on the rule addressing animal disposal AFOs. Ms. Shaver 

replied that, as a result of litigation, the OSWI Rule was vacated and EPA has been ordered to reconsider 

the issues. EPA may remand parts of this rule, but she thought that the Agency most likely would 

reevaluate the entire rule based on the court ruling. She offered to provide more information on this to the 

Committee. 

Senator Brubaker asked if OAR is specifically addressing emissions from manure storage facilities. 

Ms. Shaver said that OAR has an air monitoring study underway now and added that Committee 

members would hear a short presentation on that during this meeting. OAR’s air monitoring study is the 

Office’s biggest focus in that area. Regarding AgSTAR, OAR is working with individuals and groups on 

the use of anaerobic digesters. No regulatory activity occurs in that area; the focus now is to estimate the 

air emissions from these sources. At the conclusion of that study, EPA will develop methodologies for 

estimating emissions from all of these sources. The Agency will determine which CAA requirements 

apply and move toward a regulatory approach. 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Debbie Dietrich, Director, Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER), EPA 
14 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) comprises five main offices. The 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation houses the Superfund remedial program 

related to the National Priority List sites—the large, long-term hazardous waste sites that EPA intends to 

clean up. Through the Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, OSWER works with state and local 

governments, communities, and developers to clean up and revitalize sites and restore them to use. The 

Office of Solid Waste (OSW) addresses the management and regulation of solid and hazardous waste. 

The Office of Underground Storage Tanks oversees efforts and programs that are largely state-managed. 

The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) also may be of interest to the FRRCC. Information about 

OSWER can be found online at http://www.epa.gov/oswer. The full organizational chart for OSWER is 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/swerrims/docs/organization/orgchart_0830_2007.pdf. 

The overall purpose of OSW, which operates largely by working with states, is to ensure that solid and 

hazardous wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner that is protective of human health 

and the environment. OSW serves as the OSWER lead on issues related to homeland security by 

addressing the identification, characterization, and disposal of wastes from natural disasters or other 

homeland security events. Hazardous waste identification and municipal and industrial solid waste may 

be the OSW areas of greatest interest to the FRRCC. OSW provides technical assistance to states and 

local governments on carcass disposal; for example, OSW has developed guidance on the disposal of 

carcasses and wastes of animals infected with chronic wasting disease or avian influenza. In addition, 

OSW provides information, guidance, policy, and publications to help states and the regulated community 

address solid waste issues. For example, OSW developed federal criteria for the proper design and 

operation of municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities. 

The overall goal of OEM is to ensure that the nation is better prepared for environmental emergencies. 

OEM’s key functional areas include the prevention of oil and chemical spills, planning and preparedness, 

response to environmental emergencies, and homeland security. OEM aims first to prevent an oil or 

chemical spill; if it cannot be prevented, OEM plans and prepares to address the incident and develops a 

response. The response program is part of Superfund and depends on a strong relationship with the 

U.S. Coast Guard and other federal agencies on the National Response Team. Ongoing activities within 

OEM of potential interest to the Committee include: (1) OEM’s participation in exercises and planning 

for significant events (e.g., technical assistance and/or response assistance for an avian influenza 

epidemic, in cooperation with USDA); (2) OEM’s participation, in conjunction with OSW and USDA, in 

carcass disposal issues that may arise in a catastrophic event; and (3) OEM’s participation in drafting the 

National Response Framework of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and OEM’s role as the 

lead for Emergency Support Function Number 10, related to oil and hazardous materials. In cooperation 

with DHS, OEM is determining how agencies can work more effectively regarding food and animal 

issues and how emergency support functions can provide more seamless assistance to local communities. 

OEM is responsible for several regulations that influence the agricultural community. For example, OEM 

is responsible for implementing the Risk Management Program (RMP) under CAA Section 112(r), which 

is intended to prevent chemical accidents. As part of the RMP, OEM regulates about 15,000 facilities that 

store large quantities of extremely hazardous substances (EHS). Anhydrous ammonia held by farmers for 

fertilizer use and flammable substances used as fuel (e.g., propane) are exempt. Agricultural cooperatives 

are covered by the RMP if more than a threshold quantity of anhydrous ammonia (10,000 pounds) is 

present in a process. OEM works with state and local agencies to implement the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Under Section 302 (Emergency Planning) of EPCRA, farms 

are covered if any EHS is present at or above a threshold planning quantity. Under Section 304 

(Emergency Release Notification) of EPCRA, farms must report emergency releases of an EHS or 

CERCLA hazardous substance but not routine agricultural applications. Under Sections 311 and 312 

(Inventory Reporting) of EPCRA, farms are exempt for hazardous chemicals used in routine agricultural 

operations. Under Section 103 of CERCLA on notification requirements, farms must report to the 

National Response Center any release to the environment of a hazardous substance at or above its 

reportable quantity. EPA will determine if an emergency response is required. Section 311 of the CWA, 

the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Program, is intended to prevent oil discharge 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 15

to navigable waters or adjacent shorelines. Under this program, farms and other facilities that store more 

than 1,320 gallons of oil must develop an SPCC Plan addressing secondary containment, routine 

inspections, tank integrity testing, training, and so forth. 

OEM has developed a proposed rule under CERCLA and EPCRA to provide an administrative reporting 

exemption for releases of hazardous substances to the air from animal waste. The intent of such reports is 

to determine whether an emergency response from the state, local, or federal government is needed; such 

actions are not practical in the context of animal waste. The public comment period closes March 27, 

2008. OEM received a petition in August 2005 requesting a CERCLA/EPCRA reporting exemption for 

releases of ammonia to the air from poultry production. OEM has issued a proposed rule but has not 

issued a final decision yet. In October 2007, EPA proposed amendments to the SPCC program under the 

CWA; the amendments would provide further clarification as well as burden relief for agricultural 

producers by: (1) revising the definition of a facility; (2) exempting pesticide application equipment and 

residential heating oil tanks; (3) streamlining the template for facilities with no tanks greater than 

5,000 gallons (and no more than 10,000 gallons total oil storage); and (4) streamlining security and tank 

testing requirements. By making it easy to comply with the rule, OEM hopes to achieve maximum 

compliance. The compliance date for farms has been extended until EPA finalizes this rule. 

Question and Answer Session

With respect to carcass disposal and the potential for an avian influenza epidemic, Mr. Cooper asked at 

what point OSWER is brought in to a carcass disposal situation for poultry and whether, in such cases, 

EPA has regulatory authority. Ms. Dietrich responded that, in such cases, EPA has broad authority but 

aims primarily to provide assistance to state and local agencies. OEM does have response resources and 

can aid in the response. It would have to be an extreme and dire situation, however, for OEM to take over. 

Mr. Cooper asked for clarification on OEM’s resources. Ms. Dietrich replied that OEM primarily has 

people resources and generally focuses on providing technical assistance and expertise regarding the 

proper means of disposal; however, OEM also has cleanup contractors with special equipment. 

In response to a question from William Willard (Willard Agri-Service), Ms. Dietrich clarified that all 

agricultural retailers—not only agricultural cooperatives—are covered by the RMP if they store more 

than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. 

Ms. Guzman Aceves said that a major issue in California is the potential use of sludge from big cities as a 

fertilizer by agricultural producers. She asked whether OSWER is considering regulating such 

applications. Ms. Dietrich responded that OEM would not be responsible for regulating such use, but 

OSW may do so. She agreed to follow up with information on any potential involvement of OSW in such 

regulation. 

Ms. Guzman Aceves commented that California had passed a law to include pesticides as hazardous 

materials for emergency response purposes by Certified Unified Planning Agencies; this is particularly 

meant to address fumigant drift problems. Recently, emergency response teams have not been 

communicating with agricultural commissions that have the pesticide use information for this state. She 

wondered if EPA’s proposed amendments to Section 311 of the CWA would exempt pesticide application 

equipment from that regulation. Ms. Dietrich explained that this proposed rule addresses oil spill 

prevention. Ms. Guzman Aceves then wondered whether, aside from that particular rule, pesticides would 

be regulated as hazardous wastes by EPA or would be exempted from hazardous waste regulations. 

Ms. Dietrich referred her to the Office of Pesticide Programs, adding that, for identification of a 

hazardous waste, OSWER is guided by the lists in existing statutes. If a substance is listed, OSWER will 

address it from an emergency response standpoint. Ms. Guzman Aceves said that, in California, where 

this responsibility falls to the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the Office of Emergency Services, 

the response was not being made. It also may be an issue outside of California. 
16 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Mr. Moseley recalled that the day he spoke with then-Administrator William Reilly about taking the 

position with EPA, which now is held by Mr. Scholl, was the day of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Mr. Reilly 

was trying to catch a plane to go to the site of the spill, and it was necessary to conduct the interview via 

telephone. When Mr. Moseley later moved to USDA, he ended up being one of the trustees for the 

recovery fund for that oil spill. It is interesting how history is woven together and that incident reinforces 

the value of emergency management and the need to respond as quickly as possible to avoid serious 

repercussions. 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Granta Nakayama, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), 

EPA 

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is responsible for enforcing all of the 

regulations and statutes for which EPA has authority and also is heavily involved in compliance 

assistance by educating people regarding the requirements and how to comply. OECA follows the 

principle that an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure; it is always more expensive to clean up a 

problem after the fact than to prevent a violation in the first place. OECA provides compliance assistance 

directly and through its Web compliance assistance centers, such as the National Agriculture Compliance 

Assistance Center (http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/agctr.html). Annually, OECA provides about 3 million 

instances of compliance assurance. OECA’s primary agriculture contact is Rick Colbert. OECA is 

responsible for enforcing all environmental laws and regulations, including CWA, CAA, RCRA, 

CERCLA, SDWA, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). OECA’s work 

cuts across media and across all states, involving more than 3,400 staff members in more than 40 

locations. OECA is the largest office within EPA, employing more than 20 percent of EPA’s employees. 

OECA engages in administrative enforcement, civil enforcement, and criminal enforcement. 

Mr. Nakayama clarified that OECA does not write the regulations; it enforces regulations as written. 

OECA sometimes encounters situations in which it becomes clear that some of the older regulations 

probably were not written with agricultural operations in mind. Some regulations, for example, have 

limits on how many tons of air emissions are allowed before a permit is required, and many of those 

limits are based on the potential to emit. OECA is very experienced in dealing with industrial facilities, 

such as refineries, where one can determine how many tons of VOCs the facility is emitting, for example. 

Enforcing regulations can be much more complicated with agricultural operations. For example, 

particulate emissions measured from a broiler or egg-laying operation on a hot summer day will not be 

representative of daily emissions throughout the year because temperature affects whether fans will be 

running in the facility, which affects emissions. OECA has only limited experience with such facilities. 

Therefore, this Committee is uniquely qualified to provide helpful guidance to the Agency on such topics. 

With respect to the CWA, OECA established national enforcement priorities based on input from states 

and citizens, and CAFOs are among OECA’s national priorities. He noted that some CAFOs are so large 

that they generate more waste than some municipalities. Many people in rural communities have concerns 

about drinking water safety. With respect to FIFRA, OECA engages in some activities related to farm 

worker protection. Mr. Nakayama mentioned that the definition of a temporary grain storage facility 

recently became somewhat controversial. USDA has regulations specific to temporary grain storage 

facilities. For EPA, however, existing regulatory language makes the distinction between temporary 

versus permanent facilities, rather than temporary versus permanent grain storage. 

OECA has a fairly broad portfolio and there is great potential for the FRRCC to provide useful input. 

Mr. Nakayama invited Committee members to provide input, noting that opportunities for discussion and 

interaction in OECA currently are too rare. Too often, OECA’s first interaction with a facility is when 

OECA shows up with an administrative or civil complaint or a search warrant. This is not an effective 

way to build a relationship. Mr. Nakayama said that he considers advisory committees to be incredibly 

important and appreciates their desire to improve EPA’s work. He invited any Committee member to 

make an appointment to speak with him about concerns over any Agency policy issues. Mr. Nakayama 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 17

explained that he can talk about enforcement-related issues, but could not talk about a particular 

enforcement case. 

Mr. Nakayama described his experience in the U.S. Navy, working under Admiral Hyman Rickover, an 

amazing man who served in the U.S. Navy for 63 years. Admiral Rickover would give an employee or 

ensign 6 months to determine how well a system or piece of equipment was operating, and then would 

ask for the ensign’s conclusions. If the ensign said that everything is going well and that no technical 

problems were found, Admiral Rickover would shake his head and remark, “You’re either a fool, you’re 

ignorant, or you’re wasting my time. If you believe that every piece of metal was made perfectly, that 

every computer program used to design the system had no bugs, and that every assembly procedure was 

written so clearly that every shipyard worker assembled the system absolutely correctly, you’re a fool. If 

you don’t believe that, then you’re ignorant because you don’t know what the problems are. Tell me what 

the problems are. If you don’t tell me what the problems are, we can’t fix them. I don’t want to the hear 

day after a nuclear accident what we should have done better; I want to hear the day before. There is a 

possibility that, for the first time in human history, everything did go correctly, in which case, you’re 

wasting my time. I don’t want to hear good news; I don’t need to hear good news. I want to hear the bad 

news so we can fix the problems.” Mr. Nakayama acknowledged that if a Committee member called for 

an appointment to speak with him, it probably would not be to tell him what a good job OECA is doing; 

nevertheless, he welcomes those calls and would appreciate the input of Committee members. 

Question and Answer Session

Mr. Moseley thanked Mr. Nakayama for relaying such a wonderful anecdote that contained so much 

wisdom. He remarked that Mr. Nakayama clearly is a natural teacher. 

Mr. Treacy asked about OECA’s enforcement priorities, other than AFOs. Mr. Nakayama clarified that 

OECA has 10 enforcement priorities. OECA uses a public comment-based process and develops priorities 

based on three criteria: a big environmental footprint, widespread noncompliance, and an appropriate 

federal rule. Using these criteria, OECA selected CAFOs as one of its water priorities, along with 

stormwater control, combined sewer overflows, and sanitary sewer overflows. With respect to CAFOs, 

OECA primarily has engaged in compliance assistance to date and has not undertaken many enforcement 

actions at all. Last year, OECA settlements resulted in investments by facilities of $10.6 billion (or 

$40 million every work day) to pay penalties and to come into compliance. In the first one-third of this 

year, OECA already has collected more than $80 million every work day in its enforcement activities, 

primarily from coal-fired utilities and similar facilities. Less than 0.1 percent of OECA’s enforcement 

activities are directed toward CAFOs; nevertheless, CAFOs are important because EPA believes that they 

can contribute to degradation of waters, as Dr. Shapiro discussed. OECA takes a nuanced approach, 

through which the Office works with states and promotes compliance through information or compliance 

assistance. Enforcement includes a spectrum from compliance assistance to criminal enforcement. 

Ms. Laur agreed with Mr. Nakayama’s point that many environmental statutes were written at a time 

when it never was envisioned that they would be applied to agricultural operations. Unfortunately, some 

of EPA’s standards are based on the requirements in statutes written by Congress. The “potential to emit” 

is a clear example of enforcement activities and permitting that misses the point. For example, in 

California in 2002–2003 the state’s permitting of agricultural diesel irrigation pump engines followed the 

“potential to emit” definition, which resulted in the unrealistic assumption that the diesel engines were 

running 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. To the extent that OECA and EPA can work with the FRRCC 

as new statutes are written and old ones are revised to develop good definitions and a better understanding 

of how agricultural operations actually perform, the Committee will serve its intended purpose. 

Mr. Nakayama indicated that OECA enforces the regulations as they are written. If, by its plain text, the 

statute applies, OECA must fulfill its responsibilities to ensure compliance with the law. He agreed, 

however, that OECA must take into account the unique nature of agricultural operations. 
18 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Suzy Friedman (Environmental Defense Fund) asked what is entailed in compliance assistance and at 

what point enforcement is used. Mr. Nakayama clarified that OECA attempts to be proactive to the extent 

possible with compliance assistance because that is always a more effective route. When a new regulation 

goes into effect, OECA works with program offices to disseminate information about the regulation to the 

regulated community; strategies may include going through states or cooperative extension agents. He 

suggested that Rick Colbert would be a good resource for more detail on this. OECA becomes involved 

from an enforcement perspective when repeated, clear noncompliance is documented, such as emissions 

or discharges without a permit. Enforcement activities generally focus on larger operations rather than 

small family farms; for example, some very large agricultural facilities have engaged in ethanol 

production without a permit. 

Mr. Vroom asked how OECA approaches the issue of consistency and fairness with respect to fines and 

settlements, especially when a facility self-discovers and self-reports violations. Mr. Nakayama replied 

that OECA has considered the issue of consistency because of the diversity in how the states, which take 

on a majority of the enforcement actions, enforce regulations. OECA reviews the states’ penalties and 

enforcement policies to see if they are consistent with EPA’s policies. In addition, OECA is engaged in a 

major effort to encourage self-disclosures; a facility that self-discloses can receive a mitigation of the 

penalty of up to 100 percent depending on the violation. OECA is trying to develop an e-disclosure site 

for EPCRA violations to encourage people to come in and resolve the matter quickly. Finally, OECA 

recently announced in the Federal Register the establishment of a pilot program by the end of this year 

for those who purchase a new facility. Under this program, new owners will be given a period of time to 

discover any environmental violations and allow OECA to address the problems with consideration for 

the fact that the facility is a new purchase. This will provide the new owners to start with a clean slate and 

get the facility on the right track. 

Ms. Noble said that her understanding of EPA’s supplemental CAFO Proposed Rule regarding selfcertification is that this process lacks a paper trail, other than essentially an affidavit that a facility is not 

discharging. She understood that such facilities still would be subject to enforcement actions under the 

CWA if they are, in fact, discharging. She asked Mr. Nakayama whether OECA anticipates conducting 

inspections of self-certifying CAFOs. She also asked about OECA’s hypothetical response to a situation 

in which a self-certifying operation is found to be discharging repeatedly. Mr. Nakayama replied that the 

supplemental proposed rule currently is available for public comment, so it is not appropriate to indicate 

what OECA would or would not do in a particular situation. He advised Ms. Noble to comment on the 

supplemental proposed rule. OECA ensures that rules are clear and that EPA will be able to determine 

compliance or noncompliance. Mr. Nakayama expressed his interest in Committee members’ thoughts 

about OW’s rulemaking. As evidenced by some of OECA’s enforcement actions, EPA clearly is 

concerned about facilities that repeatedly discharge. Ms. Noble then asked whether any situation 

involving a self-certification process would increase OECA’s attention to that sector to ensure that the 

self-certifiers are correct. Mr. Nakayama explained that OECA always is focused on CAFOs. Regarding 

self-certification, some CAFOs have no permits and no self-certification; OECA looks for the most 

extreme cases first. Mr. Nakayama declined to provide an opinion on the hypothetical situation Ms. Noble 

proposed. 

Mr. Moseley commented that agriculture is disserved when those known to be repeat violators are 

allowed to continue to do so and are not brought to justice. He had received many complaints from 

farmers asking EPA or the state to take action against a local violator. This is important to the farming 

community because law-abiding farmers know that their reputation will be tarnished if the “bad actors” 

are allowed to get away with a serious violation of law. Mr. Nakayama referred Committee members to 

the FY2006 OECA Accomplishments Report as well as a Web site for reporting environmental violations 

(http://www.epa.gov/tips). The Web site has been incredibly fruitful for OECA, generating tens of 

thousands of useful reports. Individuals may report anonymously or provide their contact information if 

they would like a response. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 19

Mr. Moseley then invited EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to share his views with the Committee. He 

commented that Administrator Johnson takes the time to listen, analyzes and synthesizes information, and 

then turns this information into knowledge and, ultimately, wisdom. This is an important characteristic in 

an individual who makes decisions daily that affect the lives of everyone in the country and many 

throughout the world. 

Welcoming Remarks and Discussion 

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA 

Administrator Johnson said that he appreciated Mr. Moseley’s kind introduction and his friendship. 

Mr. Johnson noted that it did not take long to select Mr. Moseley as Chair of the Committee. He worked 

in the Agency as an agriculture advisor to a former administrator, so he understands EPA, the issues, and 

the responsibilities. In addition, he served as an Undersecretary of the USDA. This experience makes 

Mr. Moseley very well suited to help our nation address agricultural and rural environmental issues. 

Mr. Moseley has been a great public servant to the nation, and Mr. Johnson again thanked him for his 

personal sacrifice and for his willingness to serve as the FRRCC Chair. Mr. Johnson thanked Mr. Scholl 

and Mr. DeLeon and his team for their efforts on behalf of this Committee. He also thanked John Askew 

(EPA/Region 7), noting that the appointment of a farmer, such as Mr. Askew, as an EPA Regional 

Administrator is an excellent way to improve communications and strengthen EPA’s relationship with 

agriculture and rural communities. Mr. Askew regularly reminds his colleagues of the concerns of the 

agricultural community and is a key member of the EPA team. 

In his 27 years at EPA, Mr. Johnson said that he recognized the need and the opportunity to address the 

intersection between agriculture and the environment and to improve and strengthen the relationship 

between EPA and farmers and rural communities. As EPA Administrator, Mr. Johnson indicated that he 

must make very difficult decisions that affect not only everyone in this nation—300 million people—but 

sometimes the world. He is a staunch believer in advisory committees. This does not mean that he and 

advisory committees always must agree; rather, he appreciates advisory committees because they help 

him and the Agency to make better decisions. 

In 2006, Mr. Johnson developed a National Strategy for Agriculture to improve bidirectional 

communication between the agricultural community and EPA and to address major issues facing the 

nation. For example, how should this nation address energy security, growing energy demand, and 

ensuring that our energy is clean and affordable? Although EPA’s role lies in ensuring that energy is 

clean, the Agency also must recognize the bigger picture and choose a path that will be benefit 

agriculture, rural communities, and the environment. Therefore, as EPA drafts regulations to implement 

the EISA, the Agency must grapple with fundamental issues, such as how to conduct life cycle analysis of 

GHG emissions and the advantages and disadvantages of corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol. 

Mr. Johnson viewed this as a wonderful opportunity for the Agency to benefit from a diverse group of 

advisors as it faces difficult issues today and in the future. EPA received 200 applications for the FRRCC 

and was forced to make tough decisions to ensure that the Committee was not too large to engage in 

productive dialogue. He also expressed his appreciation for the willingness of all Committee members to 

serve in this way. This advisory committee will advise the EPA Administrator and the Agency regarding 

the steps EPA can take both to improve agriculture and rural communities and to improve our 

environment. He emphasized that the Agency takes advisory committees very seriously and spent a great 

deal of time and effort to establish the FRRCC. Mr. Johnson added that he looks forward to a 

collaborative, cooperative relationship. 

Discussion

Mr. Moseley asked Mr. Johnson to provide his perspective on how information from the FRRCC will 

enter into decision-making and to assure Committee members that their views really are valued. 

Mr. Johnson responded that it is important to him that the advice of the FRRCC not only reach himself, 
20 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Scholl, but also the senior leadership of the Agency. To facilitate this, Mr. Johnson 

will ask senior leaders participating in the meetings to brief him and/or Mr. Peacock to ensure the 

reception of the Committee’s advice and discussions at the level of the senior leadership and throughout 

the Agency. EPA has a responsibility to tell the Committee how its advice has been used. The Agency has 

not always provided sufficient feedback to its advisory committees but is working toward this goal. EPA 

has a responsibility to inform the Committee about what actions the Agency is taking in response to the 

Committee’s advice. This will help reinforce the connection between the Committee and the Agency’s 

decision-making. 

Mr. Moseley noted that he is a student of human nature, particularly of those in public service, and 

Mr. Johnson is an ideal example of the kind of individual we must have in such a position—someone who 

will take the responsibilities of the public sector seriously, listen, and be responsive. He shares 

camaraderie with Mr. Johnson in this important concept of public participation and citizen government. 

He again thanked Mr. Johnson for spending some time with the Committee members and to share his 

view of how this Committee can help the Agency. Mr. Moseley said that the Committee would provide its 

thoughts, ideas, recommendations, and opinions to Administrator Johnson, Deputy Administrator 

Peacock, and all relevant EPA staff members. 

Climate Change and Renewable Energy, EPA Staff Presentations

Introduction to Climate Change and Renewable Energy Panel

Sally Shaver, Associate Counselor for Agricultural Policy, OAR, EPA 

Ms. Shaver commented that something is in the news regarding climate change almost daily, such as the 

melting ice caps and the loss of polar bear habitat. Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) issued its fourth assessment report, along with a synthesis report. The scientific 

community now exhibits greater agreement about the state of the knowledge regarding climate change. In 

addition, a shift has taken place in this country regarding what can be done about it. For example, carbon 

markets now are proliferating across the county and internationally, the development of renewable energy 

sources is increasing, production of ethanol from corn and biodiesel are increasing, wind farms are 

spreading around the country, methane is captured from hog lagoons, anaerobic digesters are installed to 

handle manure from dairy farms and to produce energy, research is underway on cellulosic ethanol, and 

this country is even considering nuclear energy again. Adding energy independence and national security 

issues makes this a very exciting time. The FRRCC will be able to engage well with EPA on this topic 

and provide useful advice. Certainly this is an area where agriculture can help produce solutions. 

Legislation was passed in 2005 that mandated increased use of renewable fuels, and EPA is responded to 

that. In December 2007, further legislation was passed providing some direction on renewable fuel issues, 

such as provisions regarding renewable fuels and fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. EPA will seek the 

Committee’s advice on some of these issues. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 21

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Reid Harvey, Director, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, OAR, EPA 

The Climate Change Division of OAR prepares the annual U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory as part of 

EPA’s obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This division 

also implements a wide range of voluntary programs, such as the AgSTAR Program and the Landfill 

Methane Outreach Program. The Office of Atmospheric Programs also implements the ENERGY STAR 

program to promote energy efficiency. 

A new provision for EPA included in the Omnibus Appropriations Bill for FY2008 requires the Agency 

to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule; this will create an opportunity for the Committee to provide 

advice and input. Last week, EPA began seeking stakeholder input on this provision by meeting with the 

American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and other commodity groups. At the 

request of Congress, EPA also is conducting economic analyses of national climate legislation. The 

Agency has analyzed legislation introduced by Senators Lieberman and McCain and legislation 

introduced by Senators Bingaman and Specter. EPA now is analyzing legislation introduced by Senators 

Lieberman and Warner. These analyses should be released soon, and Mr. Harvey offered to speak with 

Committee members about the analyses individually or as a group. The FY 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Amendment reads as follows: “... not less than $3,500,000 shall be provided for 

activities to develop and publish a draft rule not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, and a final rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory 

reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy.” The 

accompanying explanatory statement is as follows: “The Agency shall ‘use its existing authority under 

the Clean Air Act’ to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule. ‘The Agency is further directed to include 

in its rule reporting of emissions resulting from upstream production and downstream sources, to the 

extent that the administrator deems it appropriate. The administrator shall determine appropriate 

thresholds of emissions above which reporting is required and how frequently reports shall be submitted 

to EPA. The administrator shall have discretion to use existing reporting requirements for electric 

generating units under Section 821 of the Clean Air Act ...’.” The Agency is moving forward with this 

rulemaking. This language gives wide discretion to the EPA Administrator; therefore, this is a good time 

for the Committee to provide input. 

The objective of the GHG reporting program is to provide data that could inform and support the 

development of a national climate policy. This is only a reporting obligation; it is not a requirement for 

any entity to reduce emissions and it does not trigger any other regulatory obligations. Congress has 

directed EPA to obtain information from both upstream and downstream GHG emissions. Upstream 

sources include fuel and chemical producers or importers, including oil refineries, natural gas processors, 

and hydrofluorocarbon producers. Downstream sources include GHG emitters, such as power plants, iron 

and steel plants, and cement manufacturers. Among the major sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, 

the largest source is the electrical power generation sector, followed by transportation and industry. The 

agriculture sector is not a major source of CO2 emissions from a nationwide perspective. 

EPA will build on methods from existing mandatory and voluntary reporting programs. For example, 

federal reporting programs exist for other pollutants, including the National Emission Inventory (NEI), 

the Acid Rain Program, Climate Leaders, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Voluntary Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases 1605(b) Program, and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Since the 1990s, EPA 

has collected CO2 emissions data from electric power plants, the single largest source of GHG emissions 

in the United States. Further, EPA already collects data on gasoline and diesel production. Many states 

already mandate reporting of GHG emissions, and two multi-state programs have been established—The 

Climate Registry and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. A number of corporations have been 

collecting or reporting GHG emissions data and providing these data to EPA as part of its Climate 

Leaders Program or to the Department of Energy (DOE). Some programs have been developed by 

corporations, such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative of the World Resources Institute and the 
22 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Industry protocols also may be useful, such as 

those developed by the petroleum, cement, and aluminum industries. 

EPA has established a workgroup to determine whether the Agency might build on existing reporting 

programs in the development of its own program. The Agency will develop the proposed rule and 

supporting analyses, conduct stakeholder outreach, and conduct inter- and intra-Agency reviews prior to 

releasing the proposed rule by September 2008. From October 2008 to June 2009, the Agency will hold 

public comment hearings, review stakeholder comments, develop the final rule and supporting analyses, 

and conduct inter- and intra-Agency reviews of the final rule, which the Agency expects to release in June 

2009. The appropriations language was not very specific. One of the critical decisions is a determination 

of thresholds, and the Agency is considering thresholds used in existing programs, such as a distinction 

between large and small facilities in terms of CO2 emissions. The thresholds will focus on large, fixed 

industrial sources—such as power plants or cement plants—so this should not result in a significant 

impact to rural communities. Nevertheless, this is a key time for the Committee to provide input. 

Question and Answer Session

Ms. Guzman Aceves asked if this reporting program would collect emission data from CAFOs. 

Mr. Harvey responded that EPA would consider the major emission sources and use some criteria such as 

the accuracy of measurements, a reasonable number of sources, and anthropogenic sources. He added that 

the Agency is at an early stage in the process, and no decisions had been made. EPA is looking for input 

on logical criteria. 

Dr. Doering asked about the groups with which EPA is working to develop the standards and, in 

particular, whether the Agency is working with the international community. Mr. Harvey responded that, 

fundamentally, this is a U.S.-focused regulatory effort. The Agency is considering methods used in the 

United States, including those that the Agency has used in its U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The United 

States has been a leader in the development of international methods for estimating GHG emissions, so 

many of the international methods have been informed by U.S. experts. Dr. Doering argued that, because 

the United States is dealing with a global climate and is making agreements and arrangements with other 

countries, it behooves us to have similar standards. Mr. Harvey agreed and said that, under the United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United States provides one of the best annual 

emission inventories. Emission inventories across countries are remarkably consistent, and the United 

States has been a leader in working with both developed and developing countries to improve their 

inventories. 

Richard Bonanno (Pleasant Valley Gardens) asked Mr. Harvey to explain the difference between global 

warming and climate change and provide clarification of the Agency’s objective—to stop climate change, 

slow it, or try to address it when it happens. Mr. Harvey replied that, essentially, global warming can be 

considered a sub-element of the larger climate change problem, which involves effects other than 

temperature change (e.g., sea level rise). EPA and most scientists use the term “climate change” because 

it is a more all-encompassing term. Mr. Harvey then said that the Agency’s goals with respect to climate 

change are multifaceted and the U.S. response to climate change as a whole has been quite broad. EPA 

has a wide range of programs to address climate change, as do DOE, other federal agencies, and many 

states. Such programs include both mitigation and adaptation elements. The United States is working with 

other countries to put forward a concerted approach to consider what each country would be willing to 

commit to over the long term. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is actively 

engaged in such discussions in preparation for the Group of Eight meeting. 

Mr. Leonard Blackham (Utah Department of Agriculture and Food) recalled the graph of U.S. 2005 GHG 

emissions that Mr. Harvey showed in his presentation and asked why emission reporting is needed if EPA 

already knows the emissions of the sectors shown on the graph. Mr. Harvey explained that EPA has a 

detailed reporting system in place for electric power generating facilities such that the Agency can 

estimate the emissions for each generating unit. For the transportation sector, the values shown in the 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 23

graph are based on fuels, rather than individual driving. For industry, EPA does not have bottom-up data 

on GHG emissions; this is probably the key gap because a variety of different processes generate these 

emissions. The Agency has estimated industry emissions at the national level based on well-accepted data 

on national energy consumption; however, no system is in place to determine the GHG emissions from a 

particular facility. The intent of Congress in asking EPA to do this appears to be largely to address this 

gap by determining how many sources exist. 

Dr. Flocchini asked Mr. Harvey to share his working definition of climate and what he considers to be 

“long term.” Mr. Harvey replied that climate can be defined as long-term changes in precipitation, 

temperature, and other climatic indicators and that he considers long term to refer to millennia. When one 

looks at climate science reports, they tend to look at long-term averages over decades, comparing this to 

historical data, such as data from ice cores. He referred to the EPA Web Site, which has great climate data 

from the distant past, data from more recent times, and projections for the future. Dr. Flocchini pointed 

out the vast difference between decades and thousands of years. 

Ms. Guzman Aceves asked whether EPA includes fertilizers in the industry sector or the agriculture 

sector. Mr. Harvey responded that the NEI from which this graph was derived was based on direct 

emissions (e.g., from a smoke stack). For fertilizers, energy consumption is associated with producing 

fertilizer, and this falls under the industry category; the application of fertilizer to soil also causes GHG 

emissions, and this aspect of fertilizers is included in the agriculture sector. 

Mr. Willard noted that U.S. agriculture is quickly becoming dependent on imports of nitrogen for use in 

crop production; currently agriculture imports 60 percent of its nitrogen fertilizer. He asked whether the 

remaining nitrogen plants in the United States are under scrutiny for this kind of reporting or whether they 

are considered major emitters of GHGs. Mr. Harvey responded that he was not familiar with the details of 

fertilizer plants or their emissions. EPA’s rulemaking process with respect to mandatory GHG reporting is 

at an early stage. The Agency must determine an appropriate reporting threshold, and fertilizer plants may 

be below the reporting threshold. He said he would get back to the Committee with more information on 

fertilizer plant emissions. 

 

Ms. Noble asked if EPA’s characterization of the agriculture sector captures land conversion, including 

conversion from uses that might have sequestered GHGs to agricultural uses or conversion of agricultural 

land to land enrolled in CRP or similar programs. Mr. Harvey clarified that EPA considers land use and 

forestry to be a separate category that is difficult to depict graphically. He suggested that Committee 

members visit http://www.epa.gov/climatechange and click on “greenhouse gas emissions” for much 

more data on carbon sequestration broken down by land-use classifications. 

Cliff Snyder (International Plant Nutrition Institute) commented that some fertilizer producers in the 

United States and Canada are aware of public concerns about GHG emissions. Most of these plants are 

doing everything possible to minimize their environmental footprint by reducing emissions, capturing 

CO2, and selling carbon credits on the open market. Often, the industry does this voluntarily, but the 

industry is functioning in a global economy and it is difficult for the North American industry to compete, 

especially with such high energy prices. In addition, grave concerns have been raised regarding the effects 

of climate change and regulation on natural gas costs and the effects of that, not only on fertilizer 

production, but also on the farmer and the consumer. 

U.S. EPA’s Regulatory Action Under the Energy Independence and Security Act

Robert Larson, Associate Director, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, OAR, EPA 

The Transportation and Climate Division is a new division, created because of the recognition that the 

transportation sector is responsible for about 30 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. In August 2005, a 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) was mandated as part of the Energy Policy Act. This standard required 

7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be used by 2012. EPA began developing regulations to adopt 
24 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

those standards; however, in his 2007 State of the Union Address, President Bush announced his 20-in-10 

goal—a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline use in 10 years. The Administration then proposed 

Alternative Fuel Standard legislation to implement this aggressive reduction, but Congress did not adopt 

this legislation. In April 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA is authorized to regulate GHGs as 

pollutants under the CAA and that EPA should assess whether there is a reasonable need and opportunity 

to control GHGs. In May 2007, EPA adopted the regulations to implement the RFS mandated by the 2005 

Energy Policy Act, and that regulation went into effect on September 1, 2007. Shortly after the 

publication of the final rule, however, in May 2007, President Bush announced his Executive Order to 

pursue the 20-in-10 goal, which would mandate 35 billion gallons of renewable and other alternative 

fuels. EPA began working on regulations to adopt the President’s mandate under existing CAA authority. 

The Agency had discretion to determine how to achieve the 35-billion-gallon goal and had almost 

proposed this rule in December 2007, when Congress passed the EISA and President Bush signed it. The 

passage of the EISA required EPA to start over in its rulemaking process. 

The EISA includes two major components related to GHG emissions from transportation. First, the EISA 

mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022 and it specifies a different set of fuels 

than those that EPA had planned to include based on the President’s Executive Order. Second, the EISA 

directs EPA to set Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, improving vehicle fuel efficiency 

to an average of approximately 35 miles per gallon by 2022. The parts of the RFS set by the EISA are 

nested. Specifically, the standard for total renewable fuels (36 billion gallons by 2022), which primarily 

includes corn-based ethanol and other fuels that meet the GHG reduction threshold of 20 percent, is the 

overarching category. Within this category, 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels must be used, 

including mostly imported ethanol and some renewable diesel meeting a GHG reduction threshold of 

50 percent. The category of advanced biofuels includes set-asides specifically for biodiesel (1 billion 

gallons by 2022) and for cellulosic biofuel (16 billion gallons by 2022 of primarily cellulosic ethanol). 

The EISA requires EPA to conduct a life cycle assessment to determine which fuels meet the mandated 

GHG performance thresholds compared with the petroleum fuel replaced. The renewable fuel must have 

at least a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions compared with gasoline, the biomass-based diesel must 

have at least a 50 percent reduction in GHG emissions over petroleum-based diesel fuel, and the 

cellulosic biofuel must have at least a 60 percent reduction over gasoline. The life cycle assessment must 

include impacts on land use. 

A fuel life cycle GHG assessment, also called a fuel cycle or well-to-wheel analysis in the case of 

petroleum, compiles the GHG impacts of a fuel throughout its life cycle. A fuel life cycle assessment of a 

biofuel begins with the production or extraction of the feedstock; encompasses feedstock transportation, 

fuel production, and fuel distribution; and ends with tailpipe emissions. Such an analysis can be used to 

compare one or more fuels performing the same function. For example, in a life cycle comparison of 

gasoline versus corn ethanol that was included in the RFS of May 2007, EPA found that the production of 

corn ethanol resulted in a 26 percent reduction in GHG emissions compared with gasoline, in part because 

growing corn removes CO2 from the air. Some of the public comments received on this standard 

suggested that the analysis may have been incomplete. A new analysis underway now will provide a more 

complete assessment of both domestic and international impacts of the use of domestically produced 

feedstocks in the United States as an alternative fuel, and will include effects of land-use changes. 

Considering only domestic impacts, increased corn-based ethanol production results in a net decrease in 

total GHG emissions: a shift in crop production results in little net crop acreage increase in the United 

States, and a decrease in rice acres and livestock production (as a result of increased feed prices) results in 

GHG emission reductions. This analysis also shows that 40 percent of corn used for ethanol comes from 

reductions in exports, highlighting the need to include international impacts because another country will 

produce additional corn to replace the lost exports from the United States. This will result in land impacts 

in other countries. The impact will vary depending on the type of land converted to crop production. For 

example, in Argentina, Brazil, and Indonesia, some increases in GHG emissions will result from the 

conversion of pasture or savanna, but very large emission increases will occur if tropical rainforest is 

converted to crop production. Many assumptions go into such modeling and additional work is needed to 

improve the data on which the models are based. Specifically, EPA plans to: (1) build a consistent 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 25

modeling framework that captures both domestic and international agriculture sector changes and GHG 

impacts; (2) work with experts to improve understanding of nitrous oxide emissions; (3) develop countryspecific GHG emission factors associated with land-use change and agricultural practices; and (4) update 

the petroleum baseline data. EPA also is updating other biofuel life cycle GHG factors (biodiesel, 

imported ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol) with this approach. 

Question and Answer Session

Ms. Bowlan asked whether EPA is considering energy conservation, specifically in terms of the great 

distances across which agricultural products are transported or whether the Agency plans to encourage the 

concept of local food. Mr. Larson responded that EPA certainly is interested in reducing GHG emissions 

at any step, but this will not be addressed in the rulemaking for the EISA. The Agency has a 1-year 

timeframe and will have to determine what is possible to consider in this rulemaking. The purpose of the 

life cycle assessments is to consider what will happen when 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels are 

introduced into the transportation fuel infrastructure, rather than what would happen if demand were 

reduced. Nevertheless, this problem has three components: reducing GHG emissions from the fuel itself, 

improving fuel efficiency of vehicles to reduce their GHG emissions, and reducing demand for fuel. 

Mr. Grossi asked whether EPA is making assumptions regarding broad changes in dietary habits as a 

result of changing food prices. Mr. Larson explained that EPA’s modeling efforts assume such changes as 

a reduction in domestic beef cattle and dairy herds resulting from an increased cost of corn both 

domestically and internationally. EPA is concerned about the potential for fuel to compete with food. 

Karri Hammerstrom (Hammer Time Farms) asked whether EPA is accounting for conversion of 

agricultural land to urban uses in its assessment of land-use impacts. She also asked whether EPA is 

factoring in the impacts of ethanol production by other countries, noting that the United States imports 

ethanol. Mr. Larson said that EPA is not considering urbanization because the Agency is assessing what 

would result from this change in policy. He agreed that the United States imports ethanol made by Brazil 

from sugarcane. Therefore, EPA is doing a full life cycle assessment for each source of renewable fuel 

that might be part of the scenario by 2022, whether it is produced domestically or produced 

internationally and imported to the United States. 

Mr. McDonald observed that few sites in the United States provide a useful suite of measurements of 

GHGs associated with different cropping systems, tillage practices, and fertilization strategies. Work 

underway within the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) apparently will expand this effort 

through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction through Agricultural Carbon Enhancement Network (commonly 

known as GRACEnet) research project. He expressed concern over the lack of sites where GHG 

emissions have been quantified. The data currently used in modeling efforts could be grossly inaccurate; 

more data are desperately needed. It is important to get the data first before developing policy and further 

regulation; otherwise, a costly remedy may be required. Mr. Harvey noted that, as part of EPA’s U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the Agency has been working with agricultural scientists to improve 

understanding of nitrous oxide in soil; he agreed with the importance of collecting data and improving 

this understanding. Mr. Larson added that the Agency will have to do the best it can with available 

information; this will not be the final assessment. Determining where people will be planting crops in 

2022 throughout the world as a result of a U.S. policy decision is difficult, but this is the task that must be 

undertaken by the Agency. Transparency in EPA’s assumptions and tools also is important as this will 

allow for future revision if needed. 

Mr. Nelson asked whether the Transportation and Climate Division will be responsible for increasing 

ethanol blends in transportation fuels. How will we use this fuel in the future? Mr. Larson replied that, 

currently, one blend of ethanol and gasoline, E10 (10% ethanol), is used. Another fuel, E85 (85% 

ethanol), is not yet readily available. As automakers ramp up production of “flexible fuel” vehicles that 

can use E85, the Division is modeling the effects of this change in vehicle technology, such as the cost of 

expanding the E85 fueling stations and the likely distance of those stations from Iowa and other states 
26 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

producing ethanol. Mr. Nelson referred to several studies examining E20 and E30 blends. Mr. Larson 

agreed and said that EPA and DOE also are considering E20 blends and the capability of at least some 

modern vehicles (including lawnmowers) to run on E20. Mr. Nelson suggested that this question should 

be answered sooner rather than later. Mr. Larson agreed. 

Mr. Franklin expressed his interest in data on the conversion of CRP lands to corn production for ethanol. 

The conservation community also is concerned about the conversion of native habitat to corn production. 

For example, native prairie already is affected by emerging technology allowing for increased production 

of dry land crops. Mr. Larson stated that habitat and biodiversity impacts are beyond the scope of the 

Division’s analysis, but the Agency is evaluating expected impacts on CRP lands. The EISA places 

constraints on sources for cellulosic ethanol feedstocks; virgin forest cannot be cut down, for example. 

The Division is, however, assessing the impact on water, such as the Mississippi River Watershed. 

Mr. Franklin pointed out that native grasslands have the ability to convert CO2, and it would be 

interesting to know the tradeoff between native ability versus the artificial process using crops. 

Mr. Larson clarified that the Agency is considering such land-use GHG factors as the amount of stored 

carbon in native grasslands and the effects of converting them to agricultural uses. 

Mr. Askew said that EPA and Region 7—which encompasses much of the area where corn is produced 

for ethanol—take the concerns raised by Mr. Franklin very seriously. Region 7 has been working with 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to address some of the ecological impacts, including 

the impacts of moving away from corn-soybean rotations to other systems. Other groups also are 

assessing these issues. Region 7 recently convened a meeting at Iowa State University with EPA 

headquarters staff to consider biofuel production and associated issues. For example, corn no longer is 

exported but instead is used domestically for ethanol production. In the context of a sustainable system, it 

is difficult to quantify how this might affect the economy and the environment. EPA is working with 

many federal partners to ensure that the Agency makes the right decisions. 

In response to a question from Dr. Bonanno, Mr. Larson agreed that it was his intention to imply that the 

production of these biofuels may mitigate climate change in addition to addressing energy independence. 

Mr. Bonanno then noted that most or all fuel used in Brazil is E85 or greater, and all of it comes from 

sugarcane. He asked, therefore, if the United States should be growing feedstocks other than corn and 

whether, if sugarcane is cellulosic, that might be better from the standpoint of climate change. Mr. Larson 

explained that the United States makes most of its ethanol from corn because that is what this country 

knows and can grow. He added that EISA does not mandate the use of corn ethanol; in fact, it does 

include a cellulosic mandate. Currently, however, it is expensive to produce cellulosic ethanol—only 

research facilities are producing cellulosic ethanol. This mandate may result in a huge expansion of 

reliance on cellulosic ethanol. Brazil’s ethanol from sugarcane is not yet cellulosic. Brazil currently burns 

the stalks left over from food production as an energy source. It should be possible to use the stalks to 

make cellulose, and this process is being studied. Once the technology is developed and the cost of 

cellulosic ethanol comes down, there will be no reason the United States cannot apply this technology 

across a wide range of feedstocks. 

Mr. McDonald observed that the livestock-feeding business is experiencing, first-hand, the increases in 

corn prices. Although cellulosic ethanol may seem to have less impact, beef cattle graze on the open 

range on less productive land. EPA should consider the impact of cellulosic ethanol production on the 

beef cattle industry. He asked whether the Agency is considering waivers for the RFS and, if so, what 

factors would be considered in granting waivers. Mr. Larson explained that 36 billion gallons of 

renewable fuels are mandated. EPA has an opportunity to grant a waiver that reduces the mandate in the 

case of a national drought. A waiver also is tied to the 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels, 16 billion 

gallons of which is supposed to be cellulosic; this waiver would allow EPA to reset the standard for 

cellulosic ethanol and the overall standard if technology does not evolve as envisioned by Congress. 

Dr. Tsegaye noted that significant progress has been made in the use of canola oil as a fuel and asked 

whether the Agency is considering this oil as an alternative fuel. Mr. Larson replied that EPA is looking at 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 27

all feedstocks likely to come into play and will have to estimate the extent to which seed crops other than 

soybeans (or rapeseed in Europe) might provide oil. If the Agency can map out how these seed crops can 

contribute economically then it will include them. 

Mr. Nelson said that, by 2022, because of increased corn production, the United States should be 

producing around 200 bushels/acre on average compared with 156 last year—a huge increase in the 

amount of corn with no increase in acreage. By the end of the year, Mr. Nelson said, his company (Global 

Ethanol) will be converting feedstock corn oil to biodiesel at minimal cost. The oil will be combined with 

grease to make a diesel fuel that is good in cold climates. In the southern United States, researchers are 

studying sweet sorghum, which looks like a good alternative for marginal land. Mr. Nelson suggested that 

many feedstocks will be available; his biggest concern is getting these feedstocks used in the fuel supply. 

Ms. Noble remarked that a number of environmental indicators were proposed for inclusion in the Energy 

Policy Act and only GHG emissions were retained. She asked whether EPA will consider other potential 

environmental impacts of biofuel production more generally—such as impacts on air and water quality. 

Mr. Larson responded that the Transportation and Climate Division is working with OW to do at least a 

partial water assessment (water pollution) in the time available and with available data. The Agency also 

may conduct a water demand assessment to account for the effects of water needed for the production of 

the feedstock and for the production of ethanol from the feedstock. Therefore, the Division is considering 

more than just GHGs but certainly is not, at this time, considering things such as habitat effects. 

Mr. Moseley commented that it is interesting that many are concerned about the amount of water being 

used for ethanol production when a great deal of water is used for many other manufacturing processes; 

further, such use does not necessarily mean that the water is gone. Burning any fuel oxidizes organic 

material (e.g., oil or coal), releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere. In a renewable process, carbon is 

removed from the atmosphere and then is returned to the atmosphere, essentially recycling the carbon. 

Agricultural producers involved in biofuels think that public opinion has suddenly turned against them 

and that they are, supposedly, doing something horrible for the environment; in reality, it appears that 

biofuel production is a good thing, even if it is not as beneficial as originally thought. The United States 

could be using 50 or even 70 billion gallons of ethanol from multiple sources, replacing an equivalent 

amount of fossil fuel. That seems like a move in the right direction. Mr. Larson responded that EPA still 

is learning about many aspects of the renewable fuel process. The Agency wants to ensure that it makes 

effective and reasonable policy decisions by improving its state of knowledge and analysis. According to 

one researcher’s recent analysis published in Science, corn ethanol will worsen GHG emissions. EPA has 

considered this analysis and has some differences of opinion; the Agency is comfortable with its own 

analyses. The key is to be very transparent and carefully document the Agency’s analyses and 

assumptions—some individuals may disagree over EPA’s assumptions or the extent of its life cycle 

analysis, but at least it will be clear what the Agency has done. EPA will share with the Committee any 

information from the analysis. 

Climate Change and Renewable Energy, Committee Member Presentations 

Opportunities for American Agriculture in the Voluntary Carbon Credit Market

Garth Boyd, Camco 

Pre-industrial CO2 emissions were low compared with the current 6 billion metric tons of emissions per 

year resulting from human activity. Models predict that, if actions are not taken to reduce emissions of 

GHGs, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could be from around 500 to 1,260 ppm in 2100, and this 

could create catastrophic climate changes. The scientific community has said that CO2 concentrations 

must be kept to around 350 ppm to mitigate the risk of climate change. The risk of inaction is deemed too 

high to wait and see what happens. Many countries signed the Kyoto Protocol (KP) as an international 

solution to the risk of climate change. Although the United States signed the KP, it has not ratified it. 

Within the United States, however, a number of states have proposed or enacted legislation, formed 

regional climate change mitigation efforts, or initiated market-based programs to address climate change, 
28 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

such as the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Corporations are 

urging Congress to pass federal legislation because of the current patchwork of state regulations. Social 

change is almost usurping the laws and regulations. The Carbon Disclosure Project is asking companies 

around the world to reveal their carbon footprints, and about 60 percent of those companies have 

complied. WalMart has undertaken a push for sustainability and is requiring its suppliers to report their 

carbon footprint. Congress has proposed legislation to address climate change, including the Lieberman–

Warner bill. Dr. Boyd predicted that the United States will have a federal cap-and-trade system and offset 

program within 2–3 years, like much of the rest of the world. 

Carbon in the atmosphere can be reduced in three ways: (1) emission reduction by switching to lower 

emission technologies; (2) energy substitution by using renewable fuels to replace fossil fuels; and 

(3) offsetting via sequestration through biotic uptakes of carbon from the atmosphere (e.g., tree planting). 

In a cap-and-trade system, the emitting sectors of society (e.g., cement manufacturing utilities) are subject 

to an emission cap and are given allowances based on some benchmark level of emissions. Firms or 

sectors that have implemented technology allowing them to remain below the emission cap are able to 

trade their allowances to firms that need to buy allowances, or credits, to continue to operate. Under an 

offset system, if firms within the regulated sector still cannot stay under the emission cap, offsets from 

unregulated sectors can be used. For example, a dairy farm may implement a new, voluntary project, such 

as an anaerobic digester; if it is an action that the non-regulating sector would not otherwise have 

implemented, it creates a high-quality carbon credit that an emitting firm can purchase. A carbon credit is 

a certified reduction in GHG emissions equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide. 

The voluntary carbon market in the United States in 2006 was 23.7 million metric tons, representing a 

value of $91 million or an average of $4.10 per ton for a verified emission reduction/carbon credit. The 

compliance carbon market (in countries that have a reduction target under the KP) in 2006 was 2.7 billion 

metric tons, representing a value of $58 billion USD or an average of $10.90 per ton for a certified 

emission reduction (CER)/carbon credit. Corporations voluntarily purchase carbon credits for a number of 

reasons, including corporate social responsibility and environmental ethics, public relations, the economic 

benefit of selling carbon-neutral products, and in anticipation of regulation. Voluntary carbon credit 

buyers are primarily (80%) businesses, as well as government agencies (12%), individuals (5%), and 

nongovernmental organizations (2%). Offsets are available for a variety of purposes, such as for 

emissions generated onsite via manufacturing processes by a business or emissions generated by an 

individual commuting to work. Many organizations are making up their own rules for carbon credits and 

offsetting in the United States, whereas the rest of the world complies with a strict set of rules mandated 

by the Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board, which has approved 70–80 methodologies that 

must be followed to create a high-quality, internationally recognized carbon credit. Of projects on the 

Chicago Climate Exchange, 60 percent involve soil sequestration of carbon. Outside of the United States, 

however, soil sequestration has not been recognized as a valid way to create high-quality carbon credits 

because of concerns about permanence. 

A high-quality carbon credit must be: (1) real in the sense that the project that created it has actually 

happened; (2) “additional,” in the sense that the project is beyond “business-as-usual” activities; 

(3) measurable; (4) permanent such that emissions are not simply displaced temporarily; 

(5) independently verified; (6) unique (not used more than once to offset emissions); (7) transparent to the 

public; and (8) conservative in the assumptions, values, and procedures used. Additionality is a very 

serious test for determining the quality of a carbon credit. For example, a farmer engaging in ordinary, 

business-as-usual farming activities would not meet this standard. The farmer would have to engage in 

something additional—such as building an anaerobic digester—that is not already mandated and is not 

part of the normal operations of the farm. High-quality, agriculturally generated carbon credits will: 

(1) allow agricultural producers to command higher prices for their products; (2) improve rural 

economies; (3) avoid potentially damaging revelations that the agriculture industry is getting a “free ride” 

by getting paid for business-as-usual management; (4) promote the use of new technologies that otherwise 

are dependent on government subsidies; (5) involve an unregulated sector of society in solving climate 

change issues through financial incentives; and (6) provide numerous ancillary environmental benefits 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 29

from GHG reduction permits. An anaerobic digester to capture methane and create biogas is one example 

of an agricultural carbon credit-generating project. This is a simple, reliable, inexpensive, and effective 

technology that uses or improves existing facilities and builds on the farmer’s investments in manure 

collection and storage. Environmental benefits include air quality improvements, such as reductions in 

odor, ammonia, particulate matter, and GHG emissions, and water quality improvements. Economic 

benefits include the generation of carbon credits, provision of additional farm income, and an opportunity 

for on-farm electricity generation and heat energy use. Global climate change issues represent a 

tremendous opportunity for agriculture. 

Question and Answer Session 

Mr. Andrews asked why a no-till farmer should not be rewarded for long-term soil sequestration of 

carbon because he or she voluntarily chooses not to till. Dr. Boyd agreed that there should be incentives 

for good farm management, but the international community has determined that any such reward would 

have to occur outside of a carbon market. A firm that needs to purchase a carbon credit wants to ensure 

that its money is used to create a project that results in an additional reduction in GHG emissions. 

Mr. Moseley commented that further discussion of this topic will be fascinating, and the Committee 

should be able to provide some guidance to EPA on this topic. 

Mr. McDonald asked why the international market is not accepting soil sequestration as a high-quality 

carbon credit. Dr. Boyd explained that some are concerned that soil sequestration of carbon is not 

permanent because the carbon may be getting into the atmosphere through soil respiration. The same 

issue exists for planting a forest because, if one plants a forest and it burns, the stored carbon is released 

back into the atmosphere. Some schemes are being devised to address such concerns whereby money 

would be kept in a fund to cover emergencies (e.g., a forest fire) by funding new projects. 

Biofuel Implications for Agriculture and the Environment

Otto Doering, Purdue University 

The expansion of U.S. ethanol production capacity is well ahead of the requirements of the EISA RFS. 

The share of U.S. corn used for ethanol will have increased 31 percent from 1995–1996 to 2015–2016. A 

balance exists between the feedstock price and the ethanol price that determines much of the way in 

which the industry behaves. The explosion in the ethanol industry is partially explained by the 

tremendous financial incentive created by $2/bushel corn and increasing petroleum prices. 

In the United States, a rebalancing of land is occurring. According to the USDA Outlook Forum of 

February 2008, corn acres are expected to decrease from 2007–2008 to 2008–2009 after increasing the 

previous year. Soybean acres are expected to increase by about the amount to which they had declined the 

previous year. Wheat acres are expected to increase, cotton and rice are expected to decrease somewhat, 

and the five-crop total (for corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice) is expected to increase overall. CRP 

acres are expected to decline; this acreage includes no more than about 7 million acres that are suitable for 

crops. The CRP acreage is much more of a true conservation reserve—land that should not be plowed—

than it was in 1987 when lower production was sought for the purpose of raising prices. The market 

affects demand for land. In particular, the new-crop soybean:corn price ratio for the 2007 crop and the 

2008 crop to date shows that corn prices were high compared to soybeans prior to last year’s planting and 

a lot of land was moved from soybeans to corn. This caused soybeans to become scarce. As a result, this 

year, soybean prices are high relative to corn prices, which means that soybeans are continually bidding 

land from corn as farmers are making their current-season planting decisions. Therefore, producers now 

are determining land use through a bidding process between the crops, rather than through the traditional 

crop set-asides, because of limited land availability. Further, the land encroachment from urban areas is 

having a greater impact than in the past. 
30 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Regarding biodiesel, quality vegetable oils cannot compete in the fuel market because the fuel market 

cannot afford to buy them. If soybean oil is 50–55 cents per pound, biodiesel would cost $4.50 per gallon. 

Soybean oil recently was more than 60 cents per pound. 

Historically, certain correlations have existed between agriculture and energy. Crude oil and gasoline 

have been strongly correlated, as have crude oil and ethanol and gasoline and ethanol. Ethanol has not 

been strongly correlated with corn, nor has crude oil been correlated with either corn or soybeans; instead 

corn and soybeans have been strongly correlated. Over the next 5–8 years, if the United States is using 

corn-based ethanol, corn and ethanol prices should begin to track each other. Under an RFS, ethanol 

blenders will have to buy ethanol no matter how low the price of oil, and the cost of the standard is passed 

on to the consumer of the blended gasoline. In this way, the consumer, and not the taxpayer, subsidizes 

ethanol. With a subsidy, on the other hand, the price of oil matters. The price of oil may be low enough 

that it is not profitable to produce blended gasoline, but with a sufficiently high price of oil, the blenders 

make more blended gasoline and the taxpayer suffers. In terms of policy costs—how much a policy costs 

the government, the taxpayer, or the fuel buyer—the consumer pays for the policy under an RFS with low 

oil prices, whereas the taxpayer pays for the policy under a fixed subsidy with high oil prices. So whether 

a subsidy or an RFS, there is a great difference in who pays the costs of the policy and how much they 

pay. One policy is not necessarily better than the other. 

Regarding the cost competitiveness of cellulosic ethanol, Dr. Doering cautioned that the values still used 

by some at DOE are wrong. DOE’s estimated prices for cellulosic material are around $60 per ton, 

whereas Dr. Doering and his colleagues estimated that switchgrass, with reasonable transportation 

distances, would be closer to $70 per ton, not including land cost, which adds $15–20 per ton. The cost 

winner, according to calculations by Dr. Doering and colleagues, is corn stover at closer to $40 per ton. A 

cellulose plant should, therefore, preferentially use corn stover before any other feedstock because of 

these cost differentials. 

The recent National Research Council report on water quality and biofuels, Water Implications of 

Biofuels Production in the United States, considered the limited land base and expansions in corn 

production. The key environmental question is, where does that additional corn go? Is it good quality 

land? To determine water quality impacts of biofuel production, one must know what is actually 

occurring out on the landscape and whether farmers’ practices have adapted to that landscape in terms of 

fertilizer use, tillage systems, and so on. This is a tough question; almost any generalization made about 

water quality impacts is suspect. More intensive corn production will result in a greater pesticide or 

nitrogen load, but the water quality impact will depend on the location and other factors, such as soil 

characteristics. Effects on CO2 emissions will depend on what the standards are and what is included in 

the analysis (e.g., whether the Brazilian rainforest is included). Researchers are only beginning to 

examine this issue. EPA will make decisions regarding biofuels on the basis of CO2 emissions; therefore, 

it is critically important that we determine the CO2 impacts. 

Question and Answer Session 

Mr. Moseley noted that DOE’s use of out-of-date prices for cellulosic material suggests that decisions are 

being made using unrealistic data. If policies are being made with erroneous data and assumptions, what 

should the public do? Dr. Doering clarified that most DOE staff members working in this area recognize 

when the data are out of date and work to update them. Problems arise, however, when such data are used 

by officials who do not understand how quickly such estimates change. Mr. Moseley suggested that 

diligence is needed on behalf of the public as well as a willingness to sometimes question the math, logic, 

and assumptions used by the government in policy-making. 

Mr. Cooper noted that he understands the need for alternative and renewable fuels. As a livestock and 

poultry farmer, however, he questioned the value of using corn for fuel to such an extent that it creates the 

potential for the livestock and poultry industries to run out of corn for feed. He suggested that corn 

growers must increase yield by six to seven bushels per acre to avoid running out of corn and still meet 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 31

the feed industry needs and exports. It appears, however, that farmers have increased production by only 

two to three bushels per acre, and a drought may make matters worse. Dr. Doering responded that we are 

in a new situation in terms of major grain markets and grain uses. Everything we knew about grain prices, 

grain production, and so on is no longer relevant. This is partly because the ethanol industry has rapidly 

accelerated from nothing to consuming a third of the corn produced. The decline in the value of the U.S. 

dollar is another factor. Three years ago, Dr. Doering said, he would have predicted exports to drop, 

keeping corn prices down. Exports have not dropped as predicted, however, because Europeans are 

buying corn for 25 percent less and soybeans for 30–40 percent less than Americans are, and this is 

driving the market. The impact of weather also is significant and could spike markets in unprecedented 

ways. He recalled past changes in prices of crops and the farm financial crisis, noting that the agriculture 

industry recovered from these events. Mr. Moseley suggested that lessons can be learned from such past 

events. In fact, it was a period of high prices that precipitated ideas such as the conversion of corn into 

ethanol. This is the nature of our world. He does not think we will not run out of corn. 

Comprehensive Livestock Management Strategy, EPA Staff Presentations 

Introduction to Comprehensive Livestock Management Strategy Panel

Jon Scholl, Counselor to the Administrator for Agricultural Policy, EPA 

Mr. Scholl recalled Administrator Johnson’s goal to more effectively engage the agricultural community. 

This will occur, in part, through improved communication. In addition, many of the agriculture-related 

programs and regulations overseen by the Agency require new tools and approaches. Environmental 

issues related to the livestock industry pose some of the most significant challenges for EPA, but they 

also represent some of the greatest opportunities. Air quality issues related to livestock operations have 

become more pronounced in recent years, and this probably will be a major area of increased attention. 

Many other issues will challenge the industry, such as those related to energy and CERCLA. Producers 

often say that they feel overwhelmed by the many agencies, issues, and players involved in environmental 

issues. Thus, although EPA’s activities have produced many benefits, the Agency also appears to have 

driven many people away. Producers may decide that they do not have time to keep up with the 

regulations and paperwork and will simply do the best that they can and let the chips fall where they may. 

For EPA’s programs to succeed, the Agency must recognize the costs and challenges imposed by these 

programs. This session represents the next big step in this process. EPA must take a step back, assess the 

tools it is using with respect to the livestock industry, and find an approach through which the Agency can 

meet its environmental objectives in a way that is comprehensive and manageable to producers. How can 

EPA ensure that its programs are multimedia in scope? How can EPA blend regulatory programs with 

voluntary programs? How should the Agency identify and manage unintended consequences? How can 

the Agency provide certainty and clear targets for those who are investing a great deal of money in an 

attempt to comply with an environmental regulation? Most importantly, how should EPA construct 

programs that are effective in meeting its environmental objectives and also are workable for producers? 

If producers are saddled with substantial paperwork and expense that precludes economic sustainability, 

then the Agency will have had an impact on a vital industry. 
32 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Animal Feeding Operations: Air Program Update

William Schrock, Environmental Engineer, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, OAR, EPA 

 In 2001, questions and comments from the public suggested that EPA was missing the mark regarding 

AFOs and air quality. In response, EPA and USDA asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to 

conduct an AFO air emissions study. The NAS study conclusions and recommendations for EPA included 

the following: (1) no reliable emissions factors exist for AFOs; (2) additional data are needed to develop 

methodologies for estimating these emissions; (3) current methods for estimating emissions are not 

appropriate; and (4) a process-based model for gaseous emissions should be used. 

During the next 2–3 years, EPA plans to address issues related to CAA requirements. In particular, the 

Agency must first estimate emissions from AFOs. EPA also must define the source; for example, it must 

determine whether an operation with both animals and crops should be considered a single source. The 

Agency must consider an applicability cutoff (e.g., a size cutoff) for any potential regulation, fugitive 

versus nonfugitive emissions, and the effectiveness of emission control technology. Finally, EPA must 

consider what it can reasonably expect producers to be able to do in terms of emission monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping. As a first step, OAR and OECA developed a consent agreement with 

representatives of the agriculture industry in response to public concerns and the NAS report. This 

voluntary agreement—proposed by the agriculture industry and coordinated with state and local 

government offices, environmental organizations, and citizen groups—allowed farms to sign up and pay a 

fine; in exchange, EPA agreed not to sue these farms for any past violations of the CAA, CERCLA, or 

EPCRA. This effort resulted in 2,700 agreements representing more than 13,000 farms across the country, 

including 42 percent swine, 35 percent broilers, 19 percent layers, and 4 percent dairies. A monitoring 

study, funded by the participating AFOs, is the core of the consent agreement. The purpose of the study is 

to gather data for developing reliable emission estimating methodologies and to inform decision-making. 

Researchers are monitoring PM, hydrogen sulfide, VOCs, and ammonia. Farm management data and 

weather data also are being collected. Monitoring sites have been selected in a number of states, including 

the regions where particular kinds of animal operations are prevalent. The farms for monitoring were 

selected by the agriculture industry and approved by EPA. A number of add-on studies also are ongoing 

at some of the same monitoring sites with different funding sources. For example, some states and other 

sources are funding GHG emission monitoring. 

Some of the challenges with this study include the role of weather and climate in emissions. Researchers 

are addressing this by monitoring continuously (i.e., every minute) for 2 years to document changes over 

time in the emissions profile. Researchers also are challenged to determine how best to monitor and 

model partially enclosed, naturally ventilated buildings. Animal movements—particularly in dairies 

where cows go from free stalls to the milking parlor and out to an exercise pen—also pose a challenge. To 

address this, researchers are monitoring in each of these locations on the dairy farm sites. With respect to 

the challenge posed by large open sources, such as lagoons, researchers are measuring emissions using 

lasers. Feed data also are being collected to capture the effects of changes in feed rations over time. 

Monitoring began in spring, summer, and fall 2007 and will continue for 2 years. Researchers will 

complete their data analysis, and EPA then will have 18 months to develop emission-estimating 

methodologies. Participants who signed up under this agreement must comply with any applicable 

requirements 120 days after publication of the emission-estimating methodology. This may involve CAA 

requirements or reporting under CERCLA or EPCRA. EPA has committed to making all data from this 

study available to the public. 

NAS developed many recommendations (not limited to those listed above) to characterize all AFO 

processes. The consent agreement and monitoring study address only part of the NAS recommendations, 

and is just one piece of the overall strategy. Modifications to one area of an AFO can impact another area 

and another medium, so it is important to ensure that fixing one problem does not cause another. OAR 

still needs to consider the following: (1) regulations and/or guidance; (2) conservation practices, such as 

conservation systems and activities or technologies; (3) emission estimating methodologies (as a shortterm strategy); and (4) a process-based emission model (as a long-term strategy). 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 33

Question and Answer Session

Dr. Snyder noticed that no monitoring sites are located in Arkansas. Mr. Schrock explained that the 

selection of sites was an industry decision; a site in Kentucky probably is representative of Arkansas. 

Senator Brubaker asked whether only the participants in the consent agreement must comply within 

120 days of publication of the emission estimating methodologies. Mr. Schrock clarified that participants 

must comply to maintain their protections under the agreement, but compliance is expected from all 

facilities. 

Mr. Moseley asked how the penalty is assessed, whether it is according to the size of the unit, and 

whether the owner of the animals or owner of the facility must pay. Most importantly, he asked where this 

money goes. Mr. Schrock responded that the penalty depended on the size and number of operations. 

Participating farmers were required to fund the study in addition to paying the penalty; the penalty portion 

of the money went to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and a separate mechanism funded the study. 

Ultimately, “checkout” money was used from the respective industry groups to fund the study. 

Mr. Moseley commented that he approved this consent agreement while employed at USDA. He recalled 

the dissension within the animal industry over this agreement, which entailed admitting to having been in 

violation and buying protection. He noted that he owned a CAFO, the operations of which his daughter 

had taken over. Surprisingly, both he, as owner, and his daughter, as operator, were required to pay 

penalties for the same facility. He suggested that farmers lost control of the status of negotiations at some 

point. This shows, again, why citizens must pay close attention to what is going on in government. 

Dr. Flocchini indicated that he served on the NAS committee that Mr. Schrock mentioned. It was clear 

that the numbers were in total disarray, so the committee had to emphasize the lack of appropriate data. It 

is important that EPA is funding a multiyear study; he commended this effort, which should go a long 

way toward getting things on the right track. 

Update on the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation NPDES Permit Regulation Development Program

Allison Wiedeman, Rural Branch Chief, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management, 

OW, EPA 

OW has been regulating CAFOs for some time and issued its first regulations in 1974. In 1999, EPA and 

USDA signed a unified national strategy for AFOs. Because both agencies have equal interests in some 

areas related to CAFOs, they decided to coordinate and collaborate. This relationship has continued and 

has provided many benefits. OW developed revised regulations for the CAFO industry in 2003; in 2005, 

EPA was sued by environmentalists and the livestock industry. The Second Circuit Court issued its 

decision on the Waterkeepers case in 2005; since then, OW has been revising the regulations in 

accordance with this decision. OW has maintained its objective to address water quality impacts resulting 

from runoff from AFOs. Ms. Wiedeman stressed that the discussions of the FRRCC should not be limited 

to CAFOs but should extend to all AFOs. CAFOs collectively may produce the most manure, but they are 

smaller in number; the larger number of smaller AFOs could produce local impacts. In 2003, OW 

estimated the environmental benefits related to phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment as a result of the rule. 

OW issued the proposed rule in June 2006. Since then, OW further refined parts of the proposed rule and 

issued the supplemental proposed rule in March 2008. Ms. Wiedeman urged FRRCC members to submit 

comments on the rule, which are due by April 7, 2008. The supplemental proposed rule focuses on two 

things: which CAFOs must apply for an NPDES permit and the role of nutrient management in 

permitting processes. These were two key areas of the 2003 rule that were vacated in the Waterkeepers 

court decision. 

When OW develops regulations for the agriculture industry, it does so with extensive stakeholder input 

and in partnership with USDA. In particular, USDA has been instrumental in working with OW on the 

development of the CAFO Rule to ensure that the rule is viable and environmentally protective. EPA and 
34 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

USDA are engaged in a joint project on the development of a software package, the Manure Management 

Planner, which will produce a free nutrient management plan for farmers. The goal is to protect the 

environment and make it easier for farmers to produce nutrient management plans, meet EPA’s 

regulations for a nutrient management plan, and meet USDA’s directives for a comprehensive nutrient 

management plan. In addition, through a new $8 million grant, EPA will fund technical assistance to 

livestock operators. Technical assistance experts will come to a facility and help farmers determine where 

they can improve operations to protect the environment, particularly with respect to mitigating runoff 

emissions. In addition, the farmer could have a nutrient management plan developed through this grant. 

This is a confidential process. EPA will not know who is being assisted but, after 4 years, OW will have 

data regarding the major challenges faced by producers in meeting regulations. 

What barriers exist to a more comprehensive approach to environmental protection? Farms and other 

facilities are faced with myriad forms, regulations, and requirements that may overlap and could even be 

contradictory. Challenges arise because the CAA, CWA, and other laws have different permit terms and 

different review requirements, but changing laws is difficult. EPA must coordinate the efforts of OW, 

OAR, OSWER, and other offices to help farmers complete the plethora of required forms. The Agency 

also must find ways to make this process more efficient, effective, and feasible. Overcoming these 

challenges would benefit everyone because the easier it is to comply, the more facilities will comply. 

Comprehensive Livestock Management Strategy, Committee Member Presentations 

A Family Farm of Today With an Eye to the Future

Christine Chinn, Chinn Hog Farm 

Christine Chinn, her husband, and their family own and operate a 2,400-sow farrow-to-finish operation. 

Ms. Chinn emphasized that the viability of American farmers and ranchers is strategically important to 

our nation’s economy, energy, environment, and national security. Agriculture is different from other 

industries, and EPA must consider these differences in the development and enforcement of laws and 

regulations that apply to agricultural producers. For example, a hardware store buys products 

manufactured across the world and prices these products to earn a profit when they sell them to local 

consumers. Grocery stores, restaurants, and other businesses function similarly. In other words, these 

small, medium, and large businesses set prices for everything they sell. Farmers and ranchers, in contrast, 

are price takers: they produce a commodity for their market, and the price can move above or below the 

cost of production. The individual buyers and sellers, relative to the market as a whole, are too small to 

influence prices. In addition to market uncertainty, every producer faces certain barriers. First, virtually 

every agricultural product can be substituted. Second, production agriculture commodities are dependent 

on factors that are beyond the control of farmers and ranchers, such as temperatures, wind, and rainfall. 

Some Americans have a nostalgic view of agriculture and believe that livestock and poultry operations 

should function as they did 50 years ago. Fifty years ago, however, life was much more difficult on the 

farm, both for the farm animals and for farmers and their families. As recently as 30 years ago, 

Ms. Chinn’s family raised hogs outside in what many would consider a traditional manner; the animals 

were not protected from the weather, diseases, or predators, as they are today. Currently, her family’s 

hogs are housed in climate-controlled facilities where their health and comfort are easily monitored. This 

also makes it possible to raise hogs and simultaneously protect the environment. Ms. Chinn said that her 

farm follows, and often goes above and beyond, state and federal environmental laws and regulations. 

The farm has developed a comprehensive nutrient management plan and an environmental management 

system and is subject to internal audits conducted by an outside party. The farm monitors daily rainfall, 

tests the soil and manure, and uses scientific management to keep its animals healthy, the environment 

clean, and the farm productive. Together, these tools help ensure continual improvement of the operation, 

cost efficiency, and pollution prevention in all aspects of the business. Ms. Chinn emphasized that she is 

aware of many farmers and ranchers across the country who care for their animals, their land, and the 

environment as her family does. Many types of livestock businesses can be found in this country; the two 

factors that they all have in common is their desire to farm and their desire to protect the environment. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 35

American farmers and ranchers in this country produce a safe and abundant food supply. Ms. Chinn 

expressed hope that she would never see the day when the bulk of America’s food comes from other 

countries, such as China and Mexico. Ms. Chinn argued that her farm and a publicly owned treatment 

works share nothing in common. Compared to modern, large hog operations, human sewage treatment 

systems generate, on average, 125 gallons of sewage waste water for every 1 gallon from a hog operation. 

For modern poultry operations, this ratio would be closer to 125 to 0 because poultry manure does not 

have water added to it and is applied to land in a dry format. Human waste contains a higher 

concentration of potential contaminants than that of livestock; the two waste products cannot be 

compared. America’s livestock and poultry do generate more fecal matter than humans, but livestock and 

poultry do nothing to contribute to the large volume of grey water that is mixed with, and contaminated 

by, human feces. Manure is being successfully substituted for large quantities of synthetic fertilizer in 

U.S. crop production. In corn production, substituting swine manure for commercial fertilizer results in a 

net energy savings of 31–34 percent. These energy savings also can be translated into substantial 

reductions in GHG emissions. Ms. Chinn urged meeting participants not to assume that, because her 

family farm is big, it is necessarily bad. Her farm provides jobs for 13 people from the local community 

who work with her family. Ms. Chinn’s family has worked hard to build a successful and economically 

viable business to help contribute to feeding this country. They own their own feed mill, which allows 

them to purchase all of their grain from local corn producers, boosting the economic sustainability of their 

county. She asked EPA, as it considers new rules and regulations, to consider the effects of these rules 

and regulations on farmers like herself, the communities they represent, and other farmers they support. 

Comprehensive Livestock Management Strategy—Some Key Opportunities To Make a Multimedia 

Approach Workable

Suzy Friedman, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) 

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a national environmental organization that works on a broad 

range of issues. EDF considers both the economic and environmental opportunities to address pressing 

challenges and to do so collaboratively, working with industries and other nontraditional partners. EDF’s 

Center for Conservation Incentives focuses entirely on incentive-based opportunities for conservation on 

private land. Ms. Friedman said that she focuses on agriculture, especially animal agriculture, by working 

with partners to implement on-the-ground projects; she also engages in some policy work. To address any 

agricultural issue, one must consider both the economics and the environment to identify opportunities 

and implement effective approaches. Four issues and opportunities are crucial to a multimedia approach 

to agriculture-related conservation strategies. 

First, farmers need much more technical assistance than currently is available; this is especially true as 

farmers confront multiple issues, such as water, air, GHGs, and public health. Far greater resources—both 

public and private—are needed to enable farmers to address these multiple issues. Technical assistance 

through Web sites and publications can be helpful, but technical assistance through people is most 

important. Traditional forms of technical assistance should be considered; however, it is also important to 

find better ways to leverage the private sector to ensure the availability of training opportunities that 

expand the number of people qualified to work with farmers. The Waste Solutions Forum in the 

Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is an existing partnership opportunity that could be leveraged in this way. 

The goal of this diverse collaboration is to pursue solutions to the challenges faced by animal agriculture 

in the Shenandoah Valley. This group has focused on delivering economically viable opportunities 

through on-the-ground projects. The Waste Solutions Forum is a good model for the manner in which 

diverse public and private partners can come together, including environmental groups, industry, farmers, 

and state and federal agencies. 

Second, farmers require a strategy that focuses on adaptive management. This should not be a strategy 

that simply tells farmers what they should do; rather, it should provide sufficient information that farmers 

can understand the environmental issue, see what is happening on their farms relevant to that issue, and 

address the issue in ways that work economically and environmentally on that farm. Such a framework 
36 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

can deliver many benefits and put farmers in control of what happens on their farms. For example, the 

On-Farm Network, created by the Iowa Soybean Association, has developed an extensive network of 

farmers who collect and analyze data from their farms regarding crop nutrient needs, fertilizers, and 

fungicides. The farmer benefits, not only from the information for his or her own farm but also by seeing 

the information in aggregate form. This has enabled the farmers to significantly reduce fertilizer 

application in economically viable ways. This model, applied elsewhere, could provide enormous 

benefits. 

Third, marketplace opportunities and challenges related to a multimedia approach must be considered. In 

addition to carbon credits, nutrient credit trading also exists, as do opportunities with wildlife habitat and 

wetlands. Such approaches could enable farmers to tap into the marketplace. It is important to consider 

how to expand those opportunities and make them work for farmers. This becomes an increasing 

challenge as the number of markets continues to increase. How can those different markets be 

coordinated so that it is not a logistical nightmare for the farmer and problems such as double-dipping can 

be avoided? 

Finally, the needs both for technology and technology transfer must be addressed to determine how to 

enhance the development, refinement, and on-farm implementation of various technologies. With respect 

to animal agriculture, important technologies are those that can convert manure and litter into a valueadded product that enables farmers to tap into fertilizer and organic benefits. Resources are needed to 

develop and demonstrate these technologies and to transfer them. A fundamental lack of communication 

persists between the entities that develop and test the technologies and those that are responsible for 

getting those technologies onto the farm. Bridging this gap in a long-term, comprehensive way will result 

in enormous benefits. 

Question and Answer Session

Mr. Moseley asked Ms. Friedman to describe some difficulties and problems encountered by the Waste 

Solutions Forum and the outcomes and solutions. Ms. Friedman responded that the impetus for the 

formation of the Waste Solutions Forum was the significant water quality challenges for the Chesapeake 

Bay and the occurrence of hotspots based on the intensity of animal agriculture. The head of the state 

dairyman’s association said that the state’s farmers would face difficulties if they did not find 

collaborative solutions and work in partnership with other entities. The average dairy farm in this area has 

fewer than 100 cows, so solutions that might work for larger farms do not translate to farms of this size. 

Manure management posed a challenge. In particular, nutrient levels in the soil preclude the application 

of much of the manure to the land; this led to transportation issues as farmers attempted to move manure 

to other areas for land application. In addition, the sizeable Amish population in this area is not interested 

in government programs. The Forum determined which practices and technologies would be applicable to 

the size and diversity of agricultural operations in this area and obtained $5 million in grants for on-theground projects. The Forum also has collaborated with USDA and state programs. 

Dr. Bonanno asked Mr. Schrock whether the consent agreement used a size cut-off for operations in the 

project. Mr. Schrock replied that EPA did not recommend any size cut-offs, but cooperative extension 

representatives may have made such recommendations. Dr. Bonanno asked how producers decided 

whether their facilities were polluting and whether to sign up. Mr. Schrock explained that the CAA, 

CERCLA, and EPCRA were the three laws related to this agreement. CERCLA and EPCRA have 

reporting requirements. For example, a farmer who releases more than 100 pounds of ammonia or 

hydrogen sulfide within a 24-hour period is supposed to report that to the National Response Center, but 

few farms have reported such releases. Therefore, a farmer who had some indication that his or her 

facility may have exceeded those limits may have decided to sign up for the program. Mr. Moseley added 

that EPA was in the middle of a lawsuit; environmental groups had sued the Agency and the agriculture 

industry was confronting the real potential for a penalty. One could calculate the risk of a penalty 

reasonably well. The agriculture industry concluded that it needed some protection for a period of time 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 37

until it could work out a solution. Those who paid the penalty essentially subsidized those who did not. 

Mr. Schrock commented that the Agency’s goal was to obtain better data to improve future decisions. 

Mr. Grossi noted that, although voluntary programs are the preferred approach to addressing on-farm 

environmental issues, resource availability is crucial to spurring voluntary action. He asked Ms. Friedman 

if she finds that resources, such as funding through USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

(EQIP), are reasonably aligned with the need. Ms. Friedman replied that resources match need well in 

some states; in other states they do not. If EQIP had unlimited funds, it would be possible for the Forum 

to both work on farms that have already made some progress and clean up those in more dire need. The 

Forum makes cost-effectiveness the deciding factor by addressing the farms in the most trouble first. 

Mr. Scholl said that Ms. Friedman had made some fantastic suggestions in terms of approach. He asked 

her what she would do to put such things into effect if she were the EPA Administrator for a day. 

Ms. Friedman referred to the Agency’s recently released technical assistance request for applications and 

said she would like to see more details on how that program will work on the ground to improve technical 

assistance to agricultural producers. Improved technical assistance will require coordination across EPA 

offices and across agencies. Federal agencies also should collaborate on a strategy for technology transfer. 

Even if many of the programs developing those technologies are outside of EPA, the Agency still could 

play a role in facilitating a coordinated process for technology transfer. As voluntary and regulatory 

marketplace opportunities develop, it will be important to determine how they coordinate with each other 

and how the administrative burdens on farmers could be minimized. In terms of adaptive management, 

the Agency should consider what is required of farmers and determine how to put information into their 

hands. EPA also should determine the different agencies and programs with which EPA might coordinate 

to foster the ability of farmers to gather information, make decisions, and pursue a solution that will work 

for them. A comprehensive nutrient management plan, for example, is such a thick document that it is 

difficult to determine how to adapt it from year to year; adaptive management should be a greater focus in 

these plans. 

Mr. Scholl asked Ms. Chinn to share any thoughts or guidance she might have for EPA regarding her 

farm’s compliance with regulatory thresholds or the development of her farm’s environmental 

management plan. Ms. Chinn explained that, for the environmental management plan, her farm hired an 

outside party to evaluate all farm activities, including rainfall monitoring, training, the farm plans in case 

of disaster, plans in case of a spill, and so forth. The consultant identified areas where the farm was doing 

well and areas where it was not, and made suggestions for improvements. In response to these 

recommendations, the farm developed training manuals for employees, a plan of action in case of an 

accidental spill, and a plan of action in case of too much rainfall for land application of manure. State 

regulations in Missouri are more restrictive than federal regulations. The current head of the Department 

of Natural Resources (DNR) has taken a very proactive, nonconfrontational approach to working with 

farmers. This has been very beneficial for Missouri farmers. The DNR requires annual audits of farms to 

ensure that they are in compliance. The farm must file daily reports on rainfall, land application reports, 

and annual reports. Missouri DNR has a primary contact person for farmers who provides information on 

necessary permits and paperwork and helps facilitate paperwork for the farmers. This makes it easier for 

farmers to understand how to comply with the regulations. 

Mr. McDonald expressed his belief that Ms. Chinn echoes the sentiments of most producers across the 

country. Agricultural producers must be resourceful because they work with biological systems. Farmers 

need guidelines and regulations, but these should not be so prescriptive that farmers cannot function. In 

terms of multimedia and comprehensive environmental systems, he agreed with Ms. Friedman that 

farmers need technical assistance and perhaps new technology. He suggested that producers should be 

given room to manage systems and not so restricted that they do little more than check off boxes. 

Mr. Moseley commented that this is a good example of why this Committee was formed. EPA is curious 

about those areas in which farmers need flexibility to help achieve environmental protection. 
38 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Mr. Treacy remarked that the comprehensive study of air emissions from AFOs is a positive step that 

allows the industry to work with the Federal Government. The CAFO Rule, which has been batted around 

in the courts, was developed by the Agency, the agriculture industry, and others. He commented that 

Ms. Chinn described what really happens on farms; many producers are willing to work together to 

address problems with their neighbors or federal or state agencies. He recalled Ms. Chinn’s concern that 

CAFO has become a four-letter word. He discussed Ms. Friedman’s suggestions for solutions and noted 

that he was familiar with the Forum; this project works, and the people involved are engaged and working 

toward real solutions. Perhaps FRRCC can help facilitate this kind of thinking for the future. Mr. Treacy 

noted that he works for Smithfield Foods, which owns 500 hog farms in the United States and has an 

environmental management system. Smithfield Foods had four notices of violation last year. Although it 

should not have any violations, this is a small percentage considering the total number of farms, so the 

system clearly works. He agreed that the Committee should discuss how EPA characterizes farms, 

permitting, and regulations because, for example, the FY2006 OECA Accomplishments Report clearly 

indicates that CAFOs are bad. He expressed hope that this Committee will create the kinds of solutions 

that Ms. Friedman discussed. 

Dr. Doering observed that the Committee had been skirting a major issue: What is the best way to 

comply with environmental regulations? Producers could be required to meet what might be called a 

performance standard such that they have discretion in how to achieve the standard. Some of the projects 

described by Ms. Friedman are closely related to this approach. Some traditional regulatory approaches 

have relied on BMPs, such that if you use the BMP, you are in compliance, whether it works or not. He 

suggested that Committee members keep these alternative approaches in mind over the next year or so 

because it is very critical in terms of how regulations in the future will be designed and perceived. It is not 

possible to use a performance standard until measures are in place that would indicate whether the 

standard has been met. This is a real problem because many of the environmental issues have proven 

difficult to measure. Mr. Moseley said that the use of performance standards versus BMPs has been 

debated for at least 20 years, and the agriculture industry is not in complete agreement about which 

approach is better. Agriculture will have to weigh in on this question at some point. He suggested that the 

Committee may wish to discuss this issue further. 

Mr. Blackham recalled Mr. Nakayama’s assertion that OECA prefers prevention to a cure but pointed out 

that Mr. Nakayama did not say that the Agency prefers the carrot to the stick. EPA historically uses a 

baseball bat rather than a stick, perhaps with agriculture especially. When agricultural producers 

understand the problem and have a means to resolve it, they will be good stewards and improve the 

environment. When EPA approaches a farm about an environmental problem, the farmer reacts as if the 

Internal Revenue Service is knocking on the door. He suggested that the partners who have led agriculture 

to its current success—cooperative extension, conservation districts, state agriculture departments, and 

USDA—are the most appropriate organizations to approach farmers about environmental problems. 

These organizations are met with a more positive reception than EPA. It is critical, given the nature of 

agriculture, that we use this kind of approach. The total cost to the public would be much less than any 

alternative; in addition, it will preserve farms, maintain their ability to produce food and fiber, and result 

in environmental benefits. Dr. Doering remarked that the voluntary approach works very well if there is a 

hidden two-by-four in the closet. Mr. Moseley agreed with Dr. Doering and said that this is not a black 

and white issue. Many producers, once they understand that there is a problem, will want to take care of 

it. EPA is not the best organization or agency to interact with farmers about environmental problems 

because of the fear this interaction can produce. Some individuals, however, will do nothing to address a 

problem until they are penalized. This leads to a tension in agriculture between those who are trying to do 

the right thing and those who are not willing to change. Committee members must be cognizant of those 

differences within the agriculture industry. Those of us who are trying to do it correctly are being held 

back and are dishonored by those who are breaking the law and are never called to task for it. Ultimately, 

the cost is borne by those who are trying to do it right. That is the true tragedy. 

Ms. Bowlan suggested that each farmer must address the farm’s economic, environmental, and human 

problems. Some programs have unintended consequences because they do not look at all three kinds of 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 39

problems. Perhaps, as they develop rules and regulations, federal agencies should comprehensively 

consider everything farms are doing in terms of these three kinds of issues. 

Dr. Snyder said that he once worked with the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. 

When extension staff members became aware of environmental issues on a farm, they were reluctant to 

visit the farm and point out the problems for fear of alienating the producers. He wondered how receptive 

farmers might be to having an outside person come to their farms as occurred on Ms. Chinn’s farm. He 

noted that the nuclear power industry created its own oversight group, the Institute of Nuclear Power 

Operations, which serves as an internal auditor that conducts in-house peer-to-peer reviews of nuclear 

power plants. Perhaps such a peer-to-peer review process could be created within the agriculture industry. 

Ms. Chinn responded that biosecurity issues may be a barrier in the pork industry because a farm cannot 

allow people to walk around. She said that this was a concern when the auditor visited her farm. She 

suggested that the Committee keep this issue in mind as it discusses the concept of a peer-to-peer review. 

Mr. Moseley suggested that Dr. Snyder’s idea is worthy of discussion. USDA’s NRCS has a third-party 

advisor program that was an outgrowth of a similar discussion in the past. He commented that, 

unfortunately, USDA did not make the third-party advisory program very useful at the farm level. 

Nevertheless, such solutions can do a lot to address the issues the Committee is confronting. 

Ms. Noble asked Ms. Friedman if she works mostly with dairy operations with fewer than 100 cows and 

whether they also are mostly grazing operations or a mix of systems. Ms. Friedman clarified that in the 

Forum, she is working with a mix of dairy producers and poultry producers. Most of the dairies have 

fewer than 100 cows; they use a mix of full-time and part-time grazing. Many of the farms have some 

degree of confinement. Ms. Noble asked whether any of the grazing operations are enrolled in EQIP or 

the Conservation Security Program (CSP). Ms. Friedman replied that some of the operations have been 

enrolled in EQIP but said she is unsure whether any are using CSP. 

Dr. Boyd noted that a great deal of good information had been distributed to Committee members and 

asked whether the presentations would be posted on the FRRCC Web Site. Ms. Kaiser said that she was 

not sure whether presentations would be posted but said that Committee members already should have 

hard copies of all presentations other than Ms. Shaver’s, which Ms. Kaiser indicated she would provide 

via e-mail. The Committee could discuss how to distribute materials on the second day of the meeting. 

Electronic dissemination is an option, as is a password-protected Web site. She also notified Committee 

members that a writer from The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., was taking notes and would write a 

summary of the meeting, which will be posted on the FRRCC Web Site a few weeks after the meeting. 

Ms. Kaiser reminded everyone in attendance to sign in at the registration table if they had not done so 

already. She noted that this is an important part of the record-keeping requirements under FACA. She 

reminded Committee members that reporters and journalists may be present and asked Committee 

members to be sure that they do not make comments on behalf of the Committee as a whole; such 

comments should be made by Mr. Moseley or Mr. Scholl. In response to a question from a participant, 

Ms. Kaiser clarified that the publication Inside EPA is not an authorized EPA publication. 

Mr. Moseley commented that the Committee had not yet discussed what it should accomplish in light of 

the information that has exchanged hands at this meeting. He urged Committee members to be prepared 

on the second day of the meeting to make decisions regarding the best use of its resources to address its 

charge and accomplish its goals. Committee members must leave the meeting on the second day with a 

fairly clear notion of what the Committee will accomplish between now and the next meeting. 

Public Comment 

James Moseley, Committee Chair 

Mr. Moseley called for public comments. 
40 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Tom Van Arsdall (Pollinator Partnership) invited the Committee to consider addressing the pollinator 

issue because pollinators are important species that generate income for many people in rural America. 

He urged the Committee to advise EPA regarding ways in which the Agency could address the pollinator 

issue, such as partnership efforts with USDA, the agriculture industry, and other stakeholders. He offered 

to help provide expertise by participating in Committee workgroups or serving as a resource in the future. 

For more information, he referred Committee members to the Pollinator Partnership Web Site, 

http://www.pollinator.org, which describes the Pollinator Partnership’s activities to ensure that pollinators 

are addressed in the Farm Bill, USDA’s efforts to address colony collapse disorder, and other issues 

related to one of the key inputs to agriculture. The Committee also received useful information from 

Partners for Sustainable Pollination. Mr. Van Arsdall noted that people within the beekeeping community 

do not believe they are represented on the FRRCC, but he has assured them that there are enough people 

on the Committee who understand pollinator and beekeeping issues to ensure that the FRRCC considers 

these issues. 

Pat Albright (Michigan Farm Bureau) said that he is a pork producer from Michigan and serves on the 

Michigan Farm Bureau Board of Directors. About 10 years ago, some proactive leaders in Michigan 

facing some of the same issues under consideration by this Committee established the Michigan 

Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) to address the environmental challenges faced 

by the agriculture industry in Michigan. Representatives of the MAEAP met with the Michigan Farm 

Bureau, NRCS, Michigan State University, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to 

develop a strategy. The MAEAP started with livestock but now has modules for fruit producers and row 

crop producers. The MAEAP has worked extremely well. To date, about 500 farms are enrolled in this 

voluntary, incentive-driven program. The MAEAP provides information on the standards that producers 

must meet to relieve themselves of some environmental paperwork and permit burdens. Under the 

MAEAP, a farm-specific plan is developed based around a comprehensive nutrient management plan. By 

participating in the MAEAP, producers can avoid some of the burdensome regulatory paperwork by 

taking an incentive-based approach. Farmers follow the standards and are reviewed regularly to ensure 

that they are meeting the standards. Mr. Albright urged the Committee to consider this program and 

expressed his confidence that this program can work in other places. 

Ben LaCrosse (Michigan Farm Bureau) introduced himself as a cherry producer from northern Michigan. 

Azinphosmethyl is an organophosphate slated to be phased out by EPA by 2012. It is very effective in the 

control of certain insects in the specialty crop sector. He thanked EPA for fast-tracking new compounds 

that cherry producers had hoped would replace organophosphates. Unfortunately, during trials in 

Michigan, it was necessary to go back with five azinphosmethyl bailout sprays because the industry has a 

zero tolerance for worms in the finished product. Cherry producers had hoped that neonicotinoids would 

resolve this problem, but unfortunately they flare mites in tree fruit, necessitating another pesticide 

application that otherwise would not have been needed. This is very expensive to the producer and very 

prohibitive to the sustainability of the tree fruit industry in Michigan and potentially in the nation. Until 

cost-effective, reliable pesticides are available for tree fruit, organophosphates such as azinphosmethyl are 

needed. He expressed his appreciation for any time the Committee might devote to this issue. 

Hearing no more requests for comment, Mr. Moseley thanked the members of the public who had spoken 

and closed the public comment period. He then thanked the members of the Committee and EPA staff and 

recessed the meeting at 5:40 p.m. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 41

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2008 

Call to Order 

Alicia Kaiser, Committee DFO 

Ms. Kaiser called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. 

Mr. Moseley welcomed members of the Committee and other participants and reminded them that the 

FRRCC must develop an action plan before the meeting adjourns. He noted that the Committee would 

first explore the third area within its charge regarding the need to improve the relationship between 

agriculture and the environment. Mr. Moseley commented that from information comes knowledge, and 

from knowledge we can create understanding and, ultimately, wisdom. The charge of this Committee, 

ultimately, is to move from information to wisdom. 

Communications and Partnerships Workshop, Part 1

Lisa Lybbert, Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs, Office of the Administrator, EPA, noted 

that, whenever Administrator Johnson speaks to the agricultural community, he describes this community 

as producers of solutions. President Bush values the agricultural community and wants to ensure that this 

positive view of agricultural producers would be brought to the table every time EPA works with the 

agriculture industry. All agricultural producers need to ensure that the environment is not degraded. The 

agricultural community should, therefore, be viewed in a positive light, rather than as damaging to the soil 

or the land. Administrator Johnson takes this seriously and genuinely believes that the best solution can 

be achieved through open discourse. By hiring Mr. Scholl, Administrator Johnson publicly showed his 

support for the agriculture and his desire to improve EPA’s relationship with the agricultural community. 

Administrator Johnson has developed several of his ideas about the agricultural community in writing, 

and this should be reflected in the Agency’s actions. Administrator Johnson also says that there is more in 

the Agency’s toolbox than just a hammer. Enforcement is important, but there are many avenues by 

which this can be accomplished. By working together, EPA and the agricultural community can produce 

positive environmental, agricultural, and economic solutions. 

Ms. Lybbert observed that the agricultural community differs from others in its choice of media outlets. 

Agricultural radio or Farm Journal may be effective, for example. The open forum on EPA’s Web Site, 

Green Scenes, where senior advisors discuss various topics, may be an effective outlet for communicating 

with the agricultural community. Through this Committee, the agricultural community has a good 

opportunity to tell the Agency whether Internet, radio, print, magazine, or other outlets are most effective 

and to indicate how the Agency can more effectively convey its message. 

Molly O’Neill, Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information (OEI), EPA, explained that 

OEI and the Office of Public Affairs work together. OEI engages in central collection of environmental 

data and ensures that the Agency’s Web Site and workstations are running and secure. OEI also addresses 

access and analysis of information in partnership with ORD and the Toxic Release Inventory Program. 

The Office of Public Affairs and OEI work together to create new ways to disseminate both the 

information and the message (i.e., the data and what the data mean). OEI and the Office of Public Affairs 

need to engage with the agriculture community to determine the best mechanisms for access. OEI 

conducts a great deal of research to determine how to reach such audiences. OEI and the Office of Public 

Affairs are working together on some of the more innovative approaches. 

OEI stores data in large databases, which makes it difficult for people to access and use the data. 

Ms. O’Neill anticipated a dialogue between OEI and various stakeholders regarding what they need in 

terms of both data and information and where they currently obtain data. EPA does not house all 

environmental data; the Agency has responsibility for collecting and managing about 15 percent of the 

environmental data for the Federal Government. Thus, federal agencies must partner with one another to 
42 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

bring the data together and make them more accessible. EPA must determine how to work with other 

agencies to design systems and to design and disseminate a message indicating where and how to access 

data. This Committee has a unique opportunity to help EPA deliver this information. Ms. O’Neill said 

that she is interested in learning which information sources Committee members use, what is missing, and 

whether the information is being delivered in a useful format. She asked Committee members to consider 

whether it would be useful for EPA to collaborate with other agencies to provide information more 

effectively. 

Panel Discussion

Mr. Moseley summarized the panelists’ requests. OEI and the Office of Public Affairs would like to know 

what information the agricultural community needs and how that information can best be transferred. 

Dr. Doering commented that the request from OEI and the Office of Public Affairs is not as simple and 

straightforward as it may seem, adding that Ms. Lybbert and Ms. O’Neill discussed several distinct kinds 

of messages. Some messages represent “feel good” outreach, others convey information reflecting 

regulatory decisions by EPA. He asked Ms. Lybbert and Ms. O’Neill if they know and work closely with 

USDA staff. Ms. Lybbert responded that the interaction varies. EPA and USDA public affairs staff 

members coordinate to ensure that USDA’s federal career and political staff are well engaged. The two 

agencies are reluctant, however, to work together so closely that USDA might be criticized for EPA 

policy decisions. Mr. Doering suggested, however, that the transmittal and application of information can 

be most successful when staff members work together “under the radar.” Developing such close working 

relationships with counterparts in the other agency can be very beneficial. Mr. Moseley asked whether an 

EPA press release on a major notice that would impact agriculture goes to USDA’s communications 

office for review. Ms. Lybbert explained that this is not always allowed or requested. The Office of Public 

Affairs cannot send interagency announcements and regulatory materials to USDA for review prior to 

release. EPA does sometimes coordinate with CEQ regarding the message; ultimately, however, it is the 

Administrator’s choice. 

Senator Brubaker asked both Ms. Lybbert and Ms. O’Neill to estimate the proportion of communications 

from each office that are proactive versus reactive. Ms. Lybbert responded that the proportion of 

communications that are proactive (at least 60%) is higher for agriculture-related issues than for other 

issues (about 10–20% proactive). This is partly because the Office of Public Affairs is constantly thinking 

about the agriculture message. In addition, most of the Agency’s agriculture-related activities are planned 

in advance. Ms. O’Neill explained that OEI does not address emergencies; therefore, probably 80 percent 

of the information released by OEI is related to long-term plans, new databases, and supporting 

information for rules and regulations. Increasingly, however, OEI is reaching out to determine what new 

information the Agency can make available and which formats it would be most useful. 

Ms. Noble asked for clarification on the Committee’s process and the purpose of this discussion. She had 

expected that the Committee would speak to EPA, but it appears that the Committee is expected to speak 

for EPA. The Committee certainly needs at least basic information from EPA regarding regulations and 

relevant data, but it is not clear that the FRRCC should spend time now listening to EPA’s agriculture 

message. Ms. Lybbert clarified that she hoped to determine how the Agency can more effectively 

communicate with the agricultural community, and Ms. O’Neill is asking what kinds of data would be 

helpful. Mr. Scholl explained that the Agency constantly searches for better methods to make 

connections. The topic of improved communications is one of the three issues that the Committee has 

been charged to address because Administrator Johnson hopes to take advantage of Committee members’ 

experiences. EPA has improved communications but clearly has a long way to go, especially with 

agriculture, which is very different from other industries. He urged the Committee to indicate what affects 

the decisions of farmers and ranchers and others in agriculture, where producers obtain information, and 

what kind of information they need. Helping EPA improve in these areas is an important function of this 

Committee. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 43

Mr. Moseley noted that, while working on the farm, Committee members probably spend time gathering 

information that is relevant to the business for that day. The question on the table here is whether EPA 

shares a role in that information delivery and whether producers want the Agency to have such a role. If 

so, what is the best mechanism? He emphasized that he did not intend for the Committee to spend 

considerable time on this issue, but this is a legitimate question. 

Dr. Boyd suggested that one barrier to communication is the disconnect in the countryside between EPA 

and what the Agency is trying to accomplish. In North Carolina, he noted that he was responsible for the 

environmental compliance of hundreds of farms in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He had no interaction 

with EPA because the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources is authorized to 

enforce all of the rules. EPA showed up only in the context of enforcement. Ms. Lybbert asked how this 

barrier could be eliminated. Dr. Boyd suggested that EPA should show its willingness to work with 

producers to try to find positive solutions to problems, rather than appearing only in an enforcement 

capacity. Many farmers simply do not have a reference point with regard to EPA because they interact 

with the state agency. 

Dr. Bonanno said that, in New England, producers who do not raise livestock rely on cooperative 

extension—and USDA to a certain extent—to get the information they need. The Region 1 EPA office is 

not in the public eye except in the context of grants, such as Strategic Agricultural Initiative grants. Thus, 

in this region, EPA appears when it has something to offer rather than in a regulatory context. In addition, 

staff members in OPP are inaccessible. Producers, therefore, rely on USDA for regulatory information 

and generally rely on cooperative extension for information on pesticides. It may be different among 

livestock producers, but among those growing crops there is not much interaction with EPA. 

From the perspective of EPA Region 7, Mr. Askew acknowledged that the regional office has been 

working with the Office of Public Affairs and others to figure out how to reach farmers. Regional offices 

put information on their Web sites and attempt to use video and other technology. Regional staff members 

attend and bring proactive messages to meetings of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters and 

other meetings relevant to agriculture. Some of this costs money, however, and regional office budgets 

often are insufficient for this kind of work. The media often approaches the regional offices only for 

reactive stories. 

Mr. Willard echoed the sentiments expressed previously by Mr. Blackham and suggested that the 

Committee will be wasting time if it attempts to develop a new mechanism for communicating with 

farmers. Mechanisms currently exist, based on relationships built over many years with cooperative 

extension, soil conservation districts, and state departments of agriculture. People deal with people. EPA 

staff members cannot simply appear on the farm and develop an immediate relationship. It would be 

more effective for EPA to work through the existing connections. Ms. Lybbert asked who farmers trust 

most. Mr. Willard responded that, in Maryland, the Maryland Department of Agriculture has real 

credibility in the field; however, this is region-specific. Several Committee members agreed, indicating 

that state departments of agriculture are not consistently trusted by farmers in other states. Mr. Willard 

suggested, however, that regional groups, such as soil conservation districts or cooperative extension 

offices have relationships in place and are likely be trusted by farmers. Ms. Lybbert said that it would be 

useful to have a list, for each state, of the entities producers trust most for information. She agreed that 

EPA must get the message to those who are trusted by producers, who then may share the message with 

producers. 

Mr. Moseley remarked that farmers are not homogeneous in the manner in which they access information; 

therefore, those delivering messages must use a broad array of mechanisms. 

Mr. Cooper observed that the “emotional bank account” appears to have been drained from the 

agricultural community’s perspective with respect to EPA. The Agency has not done this intentionally; 

rather, this has happened because EPA is a regulatory agency and only appears to address a problem. He 

recalled that EPA’s Region 5 presented one of his sow farms with an environmental stewardship award. 
44 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

This was a big addition to Cooper Farms’ emotional bank account with respect to EPA. The award 

generated a great deal of media attention. Mr. Cooper suggested that the Agency engage in more activities 

of this nature with more farmers. As in any industry, the “bad” companies can tarnish the image of good 

companies, whereas positive attention, such as a stewardship award, can help bolster the image of 

farmers. With more in the emotional bank account of producers, EPA’s appearance may not elicit such a 

negative reaction from the agricultural community. 

Dawn Riley (Dawn Riley Consulting) suggested that EPA become more involved in educating and 

communicating with young people, perhaps through 4-H programs and other youth groups. This 

Committee should help EPA interface and interact with youth in the agricultural community to help break 

through long-held notions about the Agency. Ms. Lybbert responded that Administrator Johnson has 

received warm receptions at 4-H events. She agreed that perhaps the EPA Administrator and other senior 

managers should attend more of these events because young people have not yet formed an opinion about 

the Agency. 

Mr. Andrew cautioned that EPA is in a very difficult situation. If the Agency is too proactive, 

environmental activists will complain; if the Agency is too regulatory, the farming community will 

complain. He noted that he spends about 6 months of the year confined to the cab of a tractor, combine, or 

sprayer with the radio on; therefore, farm broadcast radio is one of most effective means to communicate 

with him. He added that many farmers also listen to National Public Radio. Since Mr. Scholl has been 

with EPA, Mr. Andrew said he has looked forward to his farm broadcast radio updates. He added that he 

trusts Mr. Scholl and that he trusted Mr. Moseley before him. If a farmer is delivering the message, 

Mr. Andrew said he usually reacts positively. Mr. Andrew also suggested, however, that EPA should 

present a more balanced message, not only for the farming community, but for all regulated communities. 

This should include positive messages and results as well as information related to the environmental 

activist community. 

Dr. Tsegaye said that his university engaged in integrated water quality research, extension, and teaching. 

For about 5 years, Alabama A&M University had faculty members with joint appointments at USDA and 

EPA Regions 4 and 6; communication was fantastic. Now, however, these joint appointments have been 

removed and the communications from EPA are again failing. Dr. Tsegaye emphasized that cooperative 

extension agents are crucial in providing information to farmers. Currently, Alabama A&M University is 

engaged with EnvironMentors, a program of the National Council for Science and the Environment, as a 

way to reach high school students. He suggested that communications from EPA should reach these 

students to create awareness. He also urged EPA not to forget underserved communities, which often do 

not receive all of the relevant information. 

Ms. Noble commented that many of the farmers represented by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition are 

not regulated by EPA. These farmers, representing a wide array of agricultural systems, are doing a good 

job in terms of environmental issues, yet EPA’s environmental awards go to farms in the regulatory 

system. This raises some ire. To gain more credibility with the farming community more broadly, EPA 

should consider a wider scope of farming. 

Dr. Flocchini asked Ms. O’Neill for clarification regarding the amount of the country’s environmental 

data controlled by or accessible through EPA. Ms. O’Neill explained that, based on the federal dollars 

spent on managing environmental information, EPA stores about 15 percent of these data. Many other 

data are stored or controlled by other agencies. Dr. Flocchini recalled that he was approached in 1991 by 

people in the San Joaquin Valley to evaluate data released by EPA. He found that the data were totally 

incorrect. Dr. Flocchini said that he spent a couple of months just talking to people in the agricultural 

community, visiting farms, and attending meetings to brief himself; at that point he was able to present 

his data. If EPA is not in the field and in touch with the farmers themselves, farmers will not listen to the 

Agency. Further, he noted that EPA staff members had asserted that his data were nonexistent because 

they were not on the Agency’s radar; in fact, his data are published, and he is confident that the data are 

valid. EPA should be aware that, when push comes to shove, members of the agricultural community will 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 45

listen to those who are close to them. They will approach university researchers seeking information from 

experts, and they know that published literature at least has had one level of review. Ms. O’Neill replied 

that EPA essentially has “buckets” of information in the form of libraries, dockets, information on the 

EPA Web Site, PDF files, presentations, and so on. She asked whether Dr. Flocchini had suggestions for 

a federated search for this kind of information, with a link to libraries and universities, rather than a broad 

search that results in thousands of hits. She asked whether there are certain libraries in which 

Dr. Flocchini publishes to which EPA can link. Dr. Flocchini said that he recently published a paper on 

agricultural emissions in the journal Atmospheric Environment, but many other journals publish papers 

related to agriculture. USDA also can provide this information through its Computer Retrieval of 

Information on Scientific Projects (commonly known as CRISP) reporting system, through which one can 

see where university researchers are publishing. Each researcher lists a project and relevant publications. 

Thus, working with USDA may be the first step. Dr. Doering suggested that Ms. O’Neill visit the 

National Agricultural Library in Beltsville. 

Ms. Guzman Aceves said that, in terms of information needs, national reporting on pesticide-related 

illness is lacking. Of relevance to the Office of Public Affairs, she pointed out that the farming 

community is diverse and includes a large Spanish-speaking community in California, for whom radio is 

an important form of communication. She offered to provide Ms. Lybbert a list of radio outlets in 

California through which information could be disseminated to rural communities. Also, California and 

some other states now have an immigrant population that is not Spanish-speaking. Communication with 

those rural populations is therefore more limited, but radio also is the most appropriate form of media. 

Dr. Snyder stated that he has observed confusion over the difference between a point source and a 

nonpoint source. Traditionally, EPA regulates point sources in terms of air and water quality, but states 

are authorized to regulate nonpoint sources. Nevertheless, there is a disconnect between state and federal 

agencies in communicating information on nonpoint sources. Dr. Snyder noted that EPA has very useful 

information, such as the most recent U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The International Plant Nutrition 

Institute, however, generates quarterly publications and recently conducted a literature review, 

“Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cropping Systems and the Influence of Fertilizer Management,” as an 

information piece for the fertilizer industry, the agricultural community, and the scientific community. 

This review is an example of the big-picture view needed by farmers and educators. It is wonderful to use 

an individual farm as an example, or to present awards to farms using good practices; however, it can be 

frustrating to determine how well the agriculture industry is doing as a whole. For example, it is very 

difficult to find information on water quality trends over time. Much of that information is housed by 

USGS. This federal disconnect must be bridged if we are to understand our greatest challenges. He 

strongly encouraged EPA to work with USGS, USDA, and other agencies to develop indicators and 

reports on accomplishments in the agriculture industry as well as issues that must be addressed. 

Ms. O’Neill replied that the Agency currently is working at a senior level—and in close collaboration 

with USDA and the U.S. Forest Service—on a project related to national indicators. EPA probably will 

initiate a pilot project on water quality. She agreed that EPA must bridge data gaps among agencies. 

Mr. Moseley offered his assistance in working with USDA to initiate this project. 

Ms. Friedman agreed with Mr. Willard’s suggestion to make use of existing local advisors to 

communicate with the agricultural community. EPA should not simply go through other federal agencies 

or state environmental agencies; instead, the Agency should look for local agencies and work with both 

the public and private sector, including certified crop inspectors. Those groups—in addition to the farmers 

themselves—must understand any new information related to agriculture. Also, she noted that it would be 

helpful if EPA could put information on regulatory changes or new regulations in the context of the other 

demands or regulations that farmers must address. Advanced notification of future regulations also would 

be very helpful. Many farmers say that the playing field is changing so quickly that they do not know 

what is coming next; at that point they stop listening. Ms. O’Neill responded that it is difficult for 

scientists to synthesize a 200-page report down to what people need to know in terms they understand. 

The Agency needs to do a better job of this and will continue down that path. Ms. Friedman added that 

EPA may be able to partner who agencies and organizations that could help with this. Mr. Moseley 
46 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

agreed that policy changes are written in legalese. The information and messages could be scanned and 

summarized by Mr. Scholl, for example. Or perhaps the Agency could target different press releases to 

different constituencies. Ms. Lybbert agreed and said that the Agency is improving its targeting of press 

releases. She added that the Agency would welcome feedback indicating when a message has been 

effective and when it has not worked, whether or not producers agree with the decision. 

Ms. Laur reiterated that the agricultural community is a diverse group, and it is very important to use a 

mix of media, as well as personal relationships and partnerships, to disseminate messages. USDA’s field 

office staff works with farmers every day, as do cooperative extension agents. Partnership is crucial. For 

example, in California, EPA regional staff members have worked with the California Air Resources 

Board and USDA staff to ensure that farmers understand permitting requirements. Although these 

agencies do not always agree on what to do, they have produced clear messages so that farmers 

understand the requirements. 

Mr. Earl Garber (Louisiana Association of Conservation Districts) commented that more than 3,000 local 

conservation districts have contact with farmers almost daily. As a district supervisor for a conservation 

district, as well as a crop consultant, Mr. Garber said that he works with farmers daily. People in the 

farming community are very independent but will be receptive to a local source, such as a representative 

from a conservation district. Also, on a local level, the “good news” footprint of EPA is not very large; 

EPA is viewed primarily in a negative light. He emphasized that good local programs represent an 

excellent opportunity for EPA to present itself in a better light. For example, Louisiana State University 

runs the Louisiana Master Farmer Program, a voluntary environmental qualifying program for farmers. 

Mr. McDonald expressed his belief that EPA has improved its communication with the agricultural 

community, but the Agency has a reputation to overcome. EPA’s mentality seems nitpicky and leaves the 

farmer with the impression that the Agency is looking for problems. He suggested that the Agency’s feet 

should move in the direction of its press releases. The message must be real, not just a “feel-good” 

message. He also suggested that trade associations may be good vehicles for EPA’s messages and 

information because they provide information to their membership via newsletters and other publications. 

Most farmers also use the Internet and e-mail, including EPA’s agricultural e-mail updates. 

Mr. Vroom agreed that the agricultural community’s opinion of EPA is not as bad as Agency staff might 

imagine. He recalled the announcement of the first list of endocrine effects chemicals to be tested last 

year. The pesticide industry and others in the chemicals industry worked closely with staff in OPPTS and 

in the Office of Public Affairs to ensure that the message would be proactive when the list was published. 

This process worked very well and produced no unnecessary fear as a result of the press coverage. He 

asked if any reporters were present in room; one reporter raised her hand. Mr. Vroom commented that the 

lack of media coverage at this meeting represents a huge missed opportunity. Thirty people representing 

all facets of American agriculture met for the first time, convened by the EPA Administrator to talk about 

important issues, and almost no members of the press were present. He suggested that perhaps the few 

agriculture journalists in Washington, DC, probably are focused on the Farm Bill. He asked how the 

Committee and EPA could better communicate the FRRCC’s activities and purpose. Regarding 

Ms. Noble’s comment, he suggested that, although it is appropriate for this Committee to provide some 

advice on communication, doing so now puts the cart ahead of the horse. The Committee should work on 

some of the critical substantive issues before providing more advice on communication. Mr. Scholl 

responded that he appreciated the concerns raised by Mr. Vroom and Ms. Noble, but the Agency intends 

to listen to the Committee’s suggestions regarding ways in which EPA might communicate more 

effectively with the agricultural community. 

Ms. Riley noted that she had just finished working with 50 organizations on a strategic plan for Kentucky 

agriculture. Through this process, it became clear that the public does not know or understand what is 

happening in agriculture. The agricultural community is shrinking while everyone else is getting larger; 

therefore, she suggested, it is imperative to focus on communication. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 47

Mr. Andrew remarked that many Committee members probably will be approached by the farm press 

when they return home. He suggested that EPA’s Office of Public Affairs send Committee members, via 

e-mail, a one-pager that includes talking points and the take-home message about this meeting and the 

FRRCC. This would be helpful in case a Committee member receives a call from a journalist. 

Ms. Lybbert agreed that this meeting probably will receive media attention locally. She offered to provide 

each Committee member with a “swiss cheese” press release; this is essentially a template that Committee 

members can modify as needed. It will include basic information about the FRRCC and the Committee 

member from that community. The release will provide contact information for interviews and will be 

sent to media sources preferred by the Committee members, such as local newspapers. Ms. Lybbert 

indicated that she also would work with regional offices to ensure that each EPA regional office is 

familiar with that region’s Committee members. 

Mr. Scholl thanked Ms. Lybbert for designating an Office of Public Affairs staff person, Mr. Ryan, to 

serve as the media point of contact for all agricultural issues; this has been tremendously helpful. 

Mr. Snyder complimented Mr. Ryan’s work in the Office of Public Affairs, noting that he is quite 

effective. 

In terms of interviews with the media, Mr. Scholl clarified that, although he and Mr. Moseley would 

speak for the Committee as a whole regarding consensus decisions, other Committee members certainly 

may speak to the press but must do so as an individual rather than on behalf of the Committee. 

Mr. DeLeon agreed with this assessment. He also thanked Ms. Lybbert for her offer to help with this 

Committee and the other advisory committees. 

Ms. Lybbert stated that, if the Committee forms a workgroup on communications, she and Ms. O’Neill 

would appreciate any feedback from the group regarding better ways to communicate. Ms. O’Neill noted 

that this discussion has been a good start. As this Committee continues its work, she and Ms. Lybbert 

would both want to engage, listen, and learn from future discussions. 

Mr. Moseley thanked Ms. Lybbert and Ms. O’Neill and suggested that the Committee might form a 

workgroup with which Ms. Lybbert and Ms. O’Neill could work on a continuing basis. He also pointed 

out the significant difference between the theoretical and the practical. He noted that he and others in 

agriculture take comfort in the quality of the people representing agriculture in federal agencies, such as 

Mr. Scholl. The selection of these good emissaries for agriculture and the confidence they inspire in those 

in the regulated community is significant from the perspective of the regulator. He suggested that, 

although the Farm Bill is the issue of the day, this legislation probably will have less impact on 

agriculture in the next 10 years than some of the decisions that the EPA Administrator will make in the 

next year. 

Communications and Partnerships Workshop, Part 2 

John Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7, EPA, explained that, of the 17,000 EPA employees, 

about 50 percent work in the Agency’s 10 regional offices. EPA regional offices are very autonomous; 

the Regional Administrators report directly to Deputy Administrator Peacock and Administrator Johnson. 

The regional offices also work very closely with EPA headquarters on many issues. Many of the 

interactions agricultural producers have with EPA staff are with regional employees. EPA generally 

delegates responsibility for programs under the CWA, CAA, RCRA, and other laws to the states, and 

EPA regional offices have fiduciary and programmatic oversight of these state programs. When an EPA 

regional office becomes involved in an enforcement action, state officials often question EPA’s 

involvement and protest that they are doing a good job. This simply makes EPA even more determined to 

look into state activities. 

EPA is a very mission-oriented organization. Many highly skilled scientists and engineers work at EPA, 

but the Agency employs few business or communications experts. EPA does not have expertise in those 

arenas, and it shows. As a sixth-generation farmer, Mr. Askew has attempted to convey to EPA how 
48 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

farmers perceive the Agency. Farmers want to work with the cooperative extension service or USDA 

because farmers know and trust them, whereas farmers do not know or trust EPA. Most of the agricultural 

community would agree that EPA is not very good at communication or collaboration. The problem could 

be that EPA appears when it is necessary to enforce laws and regulations but is not there to praise farmers 

when they are doing positive things, such as organic or sustainable production. Mr. Askew urged the 

Committee to suggest ways in which regions might improve their communication to tell the true story. 

Region 7 works directly with the states and regularly meets with the state environmental directors. When 

the regional office asked state department of agriculture representatives for input, these officials offered 

many recommendations for changes that should be made by the Agency. Now Region 7 spends a great 

deal of time working with state departments of agriculture, providing them with information and asking 

them to disseminate the information to producers. Whether working through cooperative extension or 

USDA/NRCS or state technical committees, EPA must disseminate information. It is difficult to 

coordinate communications with USDA from a regional standpoint because USDA does not always have 

strong regional representation. It also is difficult to review a press release with four state conservation 

districts. He noted, however, that he reviews press releases from Region 7 to ensure that they do not cast 

agriculture in a bad light. The Agency must tell more positive stories about producers who are 

accomplishing positive things. This can be difficult because EPA has few voluntary or award programs. 

Mr. Askew noted that, although some groups lobby for more enforcement from EPA, no one lobbies for 

more voluntary Agency programs, especially related to agriculture. Mr. Askew urged Committee 

members to consider innovative ways in which EPA should collaborate with other agencies and 

organizations. 

On a positive note, Mr. Askew indicated that Mr. Scholl has developed a cross-media agriculture team 

composed of regional office staff members who work on the ground every day, engaging in outreach to 

the agricultural community, farm groups, state departments of agriculture, and so on. They work closely 

with Mr. Scholl to develop the message and the strategy. Region 7 also has developed a satellite 

environmental finance center with information on all available grant programs, including USDA program 

funding, and online training. This will allow farmers working in an impaired watershed to determine what 

they should do and how to pay for it. EPA has only limited grant money to implement projects through 

which farmers may achieve compliance; however, EPA regional offices do have some enforcement 

discretion and the ability to work with entities to get them on track. This small amount of flexibility under 

the statutes has worked well. EPA must be a part of collaboration and communication with the 

agricultural community; this should improve compliance and reduce the need for later enforcement 

action. In addition, Region 7 plans to hold “Ag Month” activities, with four panels that deal with policy 

and other issues. One panel will consist of individuals who have experienced EPA enforcement actions to 

see whether the enforcement actions have changed their behavior. Mr. Askew also is looking for input 

from others who have had this experience and how they have changed their behavior as a result. The 

regional office also will bring in a biodiesel panel to discuss concerns about the potential land application 

of the waste product. Another panel will address livestock operations to ensure that they are sustainable, 

both environmentally and economically. 

Gary Mast, Deputy Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, USDA, explained that in 

1862, President Lincoln founded the People’s Department, which now is USDA. From old pictures of 

USDA’s Whitten Building on the Mall in Washington, DC, one can see greenhouses and agriculture 

experiments on the Mall. Agriculture has come a long way since then. In 1940, one farmer fed 19 people; 

today, one farmer feeds more than 150 people. The agriculture industry now is producing fuel in addition 

to food and fiber. This year, 47 percent of the U.S. crop was used for ethanol production; at the same 

time, world demand for food is growing, creating tremendous opportunities and challenges for producers. 

Domestic demand for renewable fuels, world demand for food, and urban development put significant 

demands on the land base. Some of the greatest demands are related to water quality and quantity. The 

agricultural community must help address these issues. When should we regulate, when should we 

incentivize, and how should we educate? 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 49

NRCS has offices in all counties of all states and territories with an annual budget of about $95 million. 

NRCS publishes the Field Office Technical Guide, available through local NRCS offices and through the 

USDA Web Site, which shows how to correctly implement a conservation project. NRCS works with 

partners to initiate on-the-ground programs. NRCS employees in each county are part of their 

communities. They attend church with their neighbors, their children are in 4-H, and they serve as Little 

League coaches; they have earned the trust of people in their communities. That trust becomes apparent 

when farmers ask NRCS staff members for help implementing a conservation project. Landowners also 

receive assistance from the local soil and water conservation district, state employees, and other groups 

that partner with NRCS. Farmers and other landowners want to know how to do the project correctly and 

whether any funding is available. NRCS has a good delivery system; perhaps EPA should assign 

employees to work in each county with NRCS and its partners. 

It is very important for EPA and the agricultural community to work together. Mr. Mast recalled that 

20 years ago Holmes County, Ohio, in which 99 percent of the population was Amish, had an impaired 

watershed. The question was how to connect EPA and the Amish. The county received a $10,000 grant, 

which paid for a no-till corn planter. The soil and water district formed an Amish advisory committee. 

That community today is a strong supporter of conservation, and the advisory committee still functions. 

This all started with a $10,000 grant 20–25 years ago; often, all it takes is that one extra effort. 

Communication is very important and the positive stories about agriculture are too rarely told. Mr. Mast 

acknowledged that USDA is not sufficiently helping EPA to understand agriculture and is not doing 

enough to help initiate voluntary programs. Those in the agricultural community also need to listen and 

improve their efforts to educate EPA, neighbors in rural communities who do not farm, and the public at 

large. 

Congress mandated a regulatory function to EPA to protect human health and the environment. In 

comparison, USDA’s long history has been one of providing support for stakeholders, including farmers 

and the general public. USDA views its stakeholders—especially the agricultural community—as the 

original stewards of our natural resources. EPA and USDA share a mutual goal, to sustain and improve 

natural resources. Approximately 10 years ago, EPA began to consider agriculture as a possible source of 

environmental emissions and considered regulation. At that time, the agriculture industry was viewed 

much like other industries and considered capable of passing on rising operational costs to the consumer. 

Recognizing the gap in the research and information used as the basis for regulation, Congress mandated 

the establishment of the AAQTF by NRCS in the 1996 Farm Bill. For more than 10 years, AAQTF has 

made recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture for better air quality science; these 

recommendations have been shared with the EPA Administrator. This represents a successful 

communication partnership between the two agencies. Since 1996, these communication partnerships 

have expanded beyond this initial effort to include bimonthly EPA-USDA meetings. The two agencies 

also share technical information and conduct interagency reviews of guidelines, policies, and regulations. 

The two agencies have developed a good relationship. The FRRCC is the next big step; USDA expects 

the FRRCC to help solve some of these issues. Mr. Mast offered his assistance to the Committee if 

needed. 

Through a continued partnership and frequent and frank communication, EPA and USDA will be better 

informed and better able to achieve their mutual goal of sustainable natural resources. We are all on the 

same boat; we all want to solve natural resource problems, though perhaps with somewhat different 

approaches. We need to get know each other so that, when disagreements occur, the dialogue can 

continue. One cannot throw stones at people one knows. 

Panel Discussion

Mr. Tee asked if the cross-media agriculture team has a representative in each EPA region. Mr. Scholl 

clarified that this team includes staff members from each program office and about one-half of the 

regional offices. He noted that sometimes the stovepipes within EPA do not match up well when it comes 

to on-the-ground application of many of the Agency’s programs and regulations. The team was 
50 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

established to facilitate cooperation and communication internally within EPA to ensure that this does not 

become a barrier to the Agency’s activities. The team’s efforts related to communication and rulemaking 

has provided a broader focus that should result in decisions that represent more of the reality for those in 

production agriculture, thereby creating a more workable product for producers. 

Mr. Grossi commented on the “good cop/bad cop” relationship between USDA and EPA. The respective 

roles of two agencies are very important to the way in which the agricultural community does business 

and to the resolution of the conflicts at the intersection of agriculture and the environment. In some ways, 

he said, it appears that everyone wants to be a good cop now and have a soft touch and work together. 

This should be fine 98 percent of the time, but what are the two agencies doing about the bad actors? 

Mr. Grossi suggested that bad actors may be gaining an economic advantage because they are not 

spending the money required to comply with environmental regulations. Who will be the enforcer? 

Mr. Askew replied that EPA is the enforcer. He suggested that the good cop/bad cop analogy works well 

and reiterated the need for a hidden two-by-four. EPA regional offices offer some compliance assistance 

but not as part of a formal process. Because the Agency must deal with a tremendous amount of privately 

owned land to address a nonpoint source, a collaborative effort is needed. The majority of individuals 

already are accomplishing positive things and they do so, not only to avoid enforcement, but because it is 

the right thing to do. This is why EPA is partnering with USDA. 

Dr. Doering remarked that the institutional history of USDA is very important. The original Agricultural 

Adjustment Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. From this, the 1936 and 1937 

Conservation Acts were derived, and all programs were made voluntary. In 1985, it appeared that NRCS 

was forced to begin enforcing conservation compliance. When NRCS undertook that role, it was very 

damaging politically. Various farm groups made the bad actors out to be poster children who were being 

beaten up by USDA. NRCS and Congress backed off. As a result, conservation compliance by NRCS was 

watered down by Congress to the point where, today, it is practically meaningless. NRCS does not want 

to be the bad cop nor does it have the tradition or stomach for this role. It is much easier for agriculture to 

point the finger at EPA and to make EPA the bad cop. He stated that the Committee must be honest—this 

is the reality. Mr. Moseley agreed that Dr. Doering’s assessment is precisely on target. 

Mr. Blackham noted that, when a federal action affects agriculture, the local newspapers call the 

commissioner or secretary of the state agriculture agency for a comment. Quite often the state agriculture 

agency is not even aware of what has happened. When asked to comment, state agencies often are 

unprepared. If EPA worked with state agriculture agencies on positive programs and stories, these 

agencies probably would be willing to stand with EPA to address a bad actor. State agriculture agencies 

must have sufficient information to know what is going on; if they are involved and know enough facts, 

they can support EPA on enforcement. Communication between EPA’s information officers and those of 

the state agencies needs to be immediate and, if possible, a few minutes before the issuance of an EPA 

press release. Mr. Askew said that Region 7 gets information out to states as quickly as possible. In some 

cases, however, whether the farm involved is a bad actor or simply made a mistake, the statute requires 

that EPA treat them the same. Mr. Blackham countered that, as state agriculture commissioner, he does 

not have to treat them the same. The state agriculture agency can make it clear if the pollution occurred as 

a result of a mistake, for example. Mr. Moseley suggested that, if statutes do not distinguish between a 

bad actor and a mistake, the statutes need to be changed. This is the essence of the problem with the 

agricultural community; when something goes wrong and a producer is immediately treated like a 

horrible criminal, this stymies communication. 

Mr. Willard asked Mr. Mast what he considers to be the top three issues that the Committee should 

consider. Mr. Mast replied that solving communication problems between USDA, EPA, and the 

agricultural community is the top issue. He also suggested that the Committee consider ways to build 

relationships with people in a particular region, such as neighbors living in the agriculture-urban interface, 

commodity groups, and local conservation districts. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 51

Ms. Noble expressed her belief that the disconnect between USDA and EPA on the regulatory framework 

is not that large. She had been involved in evaluating the CAFO Rule from its initiation. A team of USDA 

and EPA staff, primarily considering USDA conservation practice standards, drafted that regulation. 

Many of the underpinnings of the regulation do reflect USDA’s standards, so EPA did not impose 

unreasonable tasks that producers had never seen before. In particular, the nutrient management plan and 

soil tests are routine farming practices. Good farmers want to know how much nutrients they are putting 

into their systems. Mr. Mast agreed completely. The CAFO Rule development has been a give-and-take 

effort to come up with something workable and practical in the field. It has teeth, so the bad actors are 

accountable, but it is not too regulatory. Nevertheless, state commodity groups and farmers in the 

countryside continue to view EPA negatively. That is where more communication can help. 

Ms. Noble observed that EPA is moving toward cross-media methods. Clearly, however, many of these 

tools rest with USDA, including comprehensive conservation planning. The organizations for which she 

works have been long-time advocates, not only of conservation planning, but also of whole-farm planning 

that pulls in economic factors, human resources, and lifestyle. These organizations also pay close 

attention to the yearly appropriations process for USDA and are increasingly concerned with reduced 

funding for conservation technical assistance. She asked Mr. Mast and Mr. Askew to speak to the need for 

technical assistance. Mr. Mast responded that enrollment in USDA Farm Bill conservation programs has 

gone from 132 million cumulative acres enrolled in 2004 to a projected 260 million acres for 2009. At the 

same time, USDA is losing 1,000–1,500 personnel. So this is a serious concern with respect to technical 

assistance. Mr. Moseley added that NRCS is in a horrible budget crunch that is exacerbated because many 

things that NRCS is asked to do may not produce the intended outcome. In addition, Congress continues 

to see NRCS as a regulator; for that reason, Congress withdraws funding. This is a ludicrous and 

immature approach that penalizes an agency with many responsibilities—and one that could be very 

helpful to EPA in delivering services. Mr. Moseley recalled his attempts, as Undersecretary for NRCS, to 

increase the NRCS budget, but each year, Congress declined to increase the budget. 

Mr. Askew said that EPA’s rulemaking process is different from that of USDA. These differences can 

create communication problems between the two agencies. He clarified, however, that EPA has worked 

well with USDA on issues related to technical service providers. EPA also has been able to have input on 

the Farm Bill and has had productive conversations on that topic with USDA. 

Jeffrey Vonk (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks) thanked Mr. Moseley for his efforts to 

increase the NRCS conservation technical assistance budget. He spent 20-plus years with NRCS and also 

was unsuccessful at obtaining resources. He discussed the growing and accepted body of knowledge 

regarding conservation and water quality issues. By considering those issues on a watershed basis, it is 

often possible to identify that, for example, around 80 percent of the impairment may come from 20 

percent of the watershed. This country has a rich tradition of voluntary, incentive-based conservation and 

a politics suggesting that we all are trying to make a living and have good intentions and should therefore 

be entitled to an equal share of very limited conservation funding. Recalling Dr. Doering’s point about 

performance-based conservation, Mr. Vonk expressed his hope that the Committee will discuss this 

notion because the marriage of voluntary incentive-based decision-making on the part of producers 

probably does need a framework based on regulation. He asked how to move from a voluntary, incentivebased system that treats everyone fairly when, not only are there bad actors but also differential impacts 

from operations simply through happenstance, based on their location in the watershed. Mr. Mast pointed 

out that state technical committees and local workgroups rank the USDA conservation practices; 

therefore, one might be able to secure funding for a highly ranked tool or practice in a particular county or 

watershed. He agreed, however, that Mr. Vonk had explained very well the dilemma NRCS faces, 

whether to fix the biggest problem or to spread out existing resources to all who want to participate. 

Mr. Vonk stated that, as an administrator for a regulatory agency, he has been required, under the CWA, 

to produce TMDLs for impaired watersheds. This planning process has not been widely accepted by the 

agricultural community. If producers are identified as contributing to hotspots in an impaired watershed, it 

will be important to invest in a planning process that is accepted by the agricultural community and by 
52 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Agency decision-makers. He suggested that the Committee consider how to develop a process—whether 

it is a USDA process, an independent process, or a TMDL process—that is more readily accepted by 

those at the end of the line who are being blamed for the impairment. Mr. Askew agreed that one might 

wonder, at the completion of a TMDL, whether it will make a difference. He said that this is why he 

supports performance-based initiatives that tie the on-farm practices to the performance of the watershed. 

Often, it is difficult to determine the source of the nutrient or sediment load; sometimes it comes from a 

very small part of the watershed. He wondered how to identify sources without pointing fingers and 

making people nervous about regulation. Mr. Moseley countered that at some point in the process, 

regulation must come to the table. 

One participant commented that improving the relationship between EPA and the agricultural community 

will not require reinventing the wheel. The conservation districts and NRCS have worked together on 

technical assistance for a long time. 

Ms. Bowlan commented that her farm now is organic, but she comes from a long history of conventional 

farmers. She expressed her desire not to pit organic farming against conventional farming, but she has 

noticed that both USDA and EPA say they want good actors but then reward the bad actors with money. 

She emphasized that the allocation of money speaks much more loudly than any press release. Therefore, 

it behooves both agencies to develop a fairer system that is neutral on size and monetary rewards. 

Dr. Tsegaye remarked that partnership is crucial. Alabama A&M University has a very strong partnership 

with the Forest Service and NRCS. Some NRCS and Forest Service employees communicate with 

university researchers and mentor the university’s students. Some students work for ARS and then come 

back to the university. EPA should take such an approach and have a presence on university campuses. 

He also noted that data are crucial for farmers. The Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) program is in 

jeopardy because of a budget cut. Drought is a big issue in Alabama and Georgia, so it is important to 

forecast drought and these long-term data are crucial. He asked Mr. Mast to comment on this issue. 

Finally, Dr. Tsegaye noted that he had heard nothing from EPA regarding environmental justice. 

Mr. Mast explained that the SCAN program is no different from any other in these difficult budget times. 

He did not have sufficient information about the program to comment but said that he would bring 

Dr. Tsegaye’s concern to USDA. He was unsure what role this program might have in the CEAP, a 

modeling effort that will demonstrate the benefits from the use of conservation practices. CEAP 

information will be available in August 2008, for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Regarding 

environmental justice, Mr. Askew replied that building capacity in small communities and reaching 

affected populations can be difficult. Also, although Region 7 did not have many staff working in 

counties and universities, regional staff members do engage in Intergovernmental Personnel Act 

programs, through which EPA staff members work in a university for a year. This is a good opportunity 

for collaboration and communication. The constraints of the President’s budget, however, make it 

difficult to participate in such programs. Mr. Mast pointed out that the President’s budget includes strong 

funding for conservation assistance for small, beginning, disadvantaged, and minority farmers. 

In terms of collaborative conservation, Mr. Andrews suggested that the USDA or EPA Web Site make 

available models of excellence in addressing environmental issues through collaboration. This would 

enable producers to see if a farmer is doing things with a somewhat different twist that other producers 

could apply to their own farms. Such a Web site also could provide contact information for potential 

collaborators in conservation projects. He also suggested that a manual or Web site with guidance on how 

to obtain assistance from USDA, EPA, OMB, or Congress with collaborative projects would be very 

helpful, especially for a beginner. He noted that EPA and USDA have been advised to push for an 

executive order in light of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to eliminate earmarks; this could 

affect such funding. Mr. Askew commented that, if such a manual exists, one-half of the people in 

Washington, DC, should see it. Understanding all of the intricacies of this system is very difficult. In 

response to Mr. Andrews’ notion of models of excellence, Mr. Mast pointed out that NRCS just initiated 

a campaign called “Conservation: Our Purpose, Our Passion” that exemplifies 10 producers across the 

country. Mr. Andrews also asked, as a farmer, how he might effectively, ethically, and legally interface 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 53

funding from private agribusiness, government agencies, foundations, and check-offs. Mr. Askew and 

Mr. Mast indicated that they did not know. 

Ms. Guzman Aceves commented that wastewater treatment and septic systems represent an increasing 

problem, particularly in California. The state board is making substantial progress in regulating 

wastewater and septic systems, but there is a need to collaborate with USDA, which is the only source for 

funding to put those systems in place or upgrade them. Coordination also is needed regarding 

enforcement because, although the pollution must be cleaned up, the communities have no money to pay 

for it. She suggested that USDA collaborate with EPA on this enforcement. She also asked Mr. Askew if 

his regional office allows states to use CWSRF interest as state revenue (e.g., for grants). Mr. Askew said 

that he did not know. Mr. Vonk added that at least one state in EPA Region 7, Iowa, does allow states to 

use CWSRF interest as state revenue. 

Mr. Askew clarified his earlier comment about enforcement discretion. The regional offices engage in a 

tremendous amount of compliance assistance via letters of warning, work on compliance orders, and 

negotiation on penalties. The extent of compliance assistance depends on whether the farmer involved is a 

bad actor or someone who made a mistake. 

Mr. Franklin said that, as part of the CEAP, the Soil and Water Conservation Society and The Wildlife 

Society reviewed the literature regarding conservation practices. Despite limited data overall, these 

reviews showed that some practices work well, but other practices do not work well at all. Therefore, the 

Federal Government is supporting some conservation practices that are not producing the intended results. 

He asked whether NRCS and EPA could work together to do a better job of prioritizing funding for the 

effective practices. Mr. Mast clarified that no CEAP data have yet been made public; the efforts by The 

Wildlife Society and the Soil and Water Conservation Society are literature reviews. The first CEAP data 

will be released in August 2008. NRCS is collaborating with EPA and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration using the SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes 

(SPARROW) Model and the CEAP. This coordination ensures that the agencies can effectively prioritize 

funding of the most effective conservation practices. Mr. Franklin asked for clarification on EPA’s role in 

this process. Mr. Askew replied that EPA is working very closely with USDA on these models to 

determine which practices are worthwhile. Ms. Laur added that personnel from EPA and NRCS meet 

periodically to inform each other of their respective research programs, fill data gaps, and ensure that they 

can provide both qualitative and quantitative assurance that the conservation practices achieve 

environmental benefits. 

Mr. Vroom expressed his concern over the loss of funding for the Pesticide and Fertilizer Use Survey of 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service, noting that this affects the livelihoods of many Committee 

members. He asked Mr. Mast to reinstate the funding for that survey. Dr. Doering agreed that this is very 

important. The loss of this survey would be bad for agriculture and for USDA because the lack of these 

basic data would make it difficult to evaluate the performance of BMPs. He added that this does not 

appear to be a budget “game” in which funding is expected to be returned before the budget is final. 

Mr. Cooper recalled Mr. Peacock’s assessment of the three priorities for this Committee: (1) GHG 

emissions; (2) environmental concerns related to animal agriculture; and (3) improved communications. 

Communication is third on the list, but the Committee has spent more time discussing communication 

than the first and second priorities. Mr. Moseley remarked that some may think that this topic is not very 

important, and others may think that it should be the centerpiece of the Committee’s goals. He asked the 

Committee members how this topic should be approached in the future. Dr. Doering expressed his doubt 

that, over the long term, the Committee could help significantly with general communication between the 

agriculture industry and EPA. The FRRCC could provide some helpful hints and already has done so. The 

Committee could be most helpful with respect to communications about specific EPA regulations and 

tasks. 
54 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Mr. Moseley asked Committee members whether they agreed that the Committee had sufficiently 

explored the communications issue. Several Committee members indicated their agreement with this 

assessment. 

Public Comment 

James Moseley, Committee Chair 

Mr. Moseley noted that, although time was set aside on this day for public comment, no one had signed 

up to make a comment. 

FRRCC Next Steps 

James Moseley, Committee Chair 

Mr. Cooper suggested that the Committee should consider forming a workgroup to address 

communication. Mr. Moseley agreed with this suggestion. Discussion of the formation of this workgroup 

could set the stage for the Committee to consider how to approach the other two major topics and any 

other topics that the FRRCC deems important. Committee members considered calling for volunteers for 

a communication workgroup, then decided to discuss how it will address the other two topics first. 

Mr. Moseley asked for input on what the Committee could realistically do in terms of advising EPA on 

the topic of climate change and biofuels. 

Dr. Doering remarked that climate change is an almost endless black hole; therefore, the Committee 

should set some boundaries on this topic. The FRRCC could, for example, provide some guidance on 

biofuels and the intersection between climate change and biofuels. The Committee could focus on those 

areas where EPA must make regulatory decisions under the EISA to help ensure that those decisions are 

sound. 

Mr. Scholl recalled Mr. Larson’s statement that one of the Agency’s big challenges is the implementation 

of the RFS under EISA; much of that boils down to the life cycle assessments. In that context, climate 

change impacts are part of the life cycle assessments. He conveyed Mr. Larson’s willingness to engage 

with a workgroup regarding the RFS, life cycle assessments, and what the Agency should do to make 

decisions that reflect the realities in agriculture. Mr. Nelson agreed that the Committee should advise the 

Agency in this manner. 

Dr. Boyd asserted that, in the next 2 years, Congress probably will pass legislation directing EPA to cap 

emissions from some sectors of the U.S. economy and to develop a broad cap-and-trade and offset 

system. This Committee could play a valuable role in advising EPA and fighting for agricultural offsets, 

which can offset billions of metric tons of GHG emissions, provide a new source of revenue for farmers 

and ranchers, and decrease the cost of GHG regulations for consumers. He suggested that the Committee 

become active on this issue. Mr. Moseley expressed his support for this notion because agriculture often 

is left out of climate change discussions. Therefore, the agricultural community will have to fight to gain 

any benefit from offsets. Dr. Snyder also supported Dr. Boyd’s suggestion for the Committee to become 

involved in the issue of a U.S. cap-and-trade and offset system. He cautioned the Committee, however, 

that agriculture increasingly is asked to compensate for the errors of others, which will reduce the ability 

of the agriculture industry to respond to global demand for food, fiber, and fuel. Mr. Moseley agreed, 

adding that the United States should not increase the number of starving people around the world to 

address climate change issues. 

Ms. Guzman Aceves expressed her concern that Dr. Boyd’s presentation on cap-and-trade was very onesided. The notion of trading emission allowances has generated significant global opposition to cap-andtrade programs. One concern is the effects of cap-and-trade on rural communities, though this probably 

will depend on how such a program is set up. She suggested that the Committee take the recommendation 

of EPA staff to concentrate on life cycle assessments, noting that the Committee could help incorporate 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 55

potential externalities into that formula. In addition, she suggested that the Committee work 

constructively, listen to each other, and address the difficult issues. The Committee will continue after the 

elections in November, when some of these issues may move to the forefront; both rural communities and 

farms will play a role. Finally, she recalled the Committee’s discussion on the first day of the meeting of a 

cross-media approach to regulations. In particular, the Committee considered situations in which 

compliance with an air quality regulation could exacerbate a water quality problem. California dairy 

farmers, for example, received significant air quality incentive money while they contaminated the 

groundwater. This demonstrates the need for a holistic approach to regulations and policies. Ms. Guzman 

Aceves suggested that the Committee approach the topic of GHGs holistically and devise solutions that 

do not exacerbate public health or environmental concerns. Mr. Moseley asked Ms. Guzman Aceves if 

she meant to suggest that the Committee explore the validity of cap-and-trade and consider whether to 

provide guidance on this issue to ensure that such a program is well designed. Mr. Moseley agreed with 

Dr. Boyd that Congress is likely to pass legislation mandating a cap-and-trade program. This is just the 

political reality. Ms. Guzman Aceves contended that some people believe that permits should not be 

provided for the right to pollute. She suggested that it would not be a good use of the Committee’s time to 

discuss cap-and-trade. She thought the Committee could address the biofuels life cycle assessments more 

constructively. Dr. Boyd agreed that the Committee should not debate how GHG emissions should be 

reduced across society because this will be legislated. Instead, the FRRCC should determine where 

agriculture fits in, once EPA is given a broad mandate, and fight for the right to provide offsets. He 

asserted that an offset program probably will be mandated because this is what the rest of the world has 

done and is part of the Lieberman-Warner bill. 

Dr. Doering suggested that the Committee start with a narrower focus—EPA’s rulemaking obligations 

under EISA—because this will provide learning experience that the Committee then may use to address 

broader GHG issues. In considering the biofuels life cycle assessment, the Committee will have to trace 

GHGs through agriculture and consider sequestration. Within that narrower box, the Committee can learn 

enough to make sense of broader issues later. 

G. Douglas Young (Spruce Haven Farm) suggested that the Committee form two or three workgroups. 

The first workgroup could address climate change, focusing on three specific issues: (1) quantification of 

U.S. emissions (with international standards in mind); (2) identification of achievable goals; and 

(3) determination of the best approach. The next FRRCC meeting could include presentations from 

United Nations representatives. The second workgroup would address renewable energy and nutrient 

optimization. This workgroup would review approaches to quantify the benefit:cost ratio of known 

approaches, then the group would consider different sectors, with a focus on livestock because of the 

Committee’s charge. Mr. Young referred to the NAS recommendation for a process-based approach to 

addressing agricultural emissions and the consent agreement discussed on the first day of the meeting. 

The dairy industry has recognized that a process-based model is the ultimate tool and allows farmers to 

plan 10–20 years into the future. The dairy industry committed $1 million to pursue such an approach and 

has assembled a tremendous team of scientists for this effort, including researchers from the University of 

California–Davis, USDA/ARS and Pennsylvania State University, and the University of New Hampshire. 

He suggested that this research team could update the Committee on the status of that effort at the next 

FRRCC meeting. He also expressed interest in encouraging other livestock groups to contribute to this 

effort. The livestock industry must quantify emissions and, most importantly, identify cost-effective 

mitigation options. Land-based approaches and ocean-based approaches also should be considered. 

Ms. Noble suggested that the Committee also consider the implications of bringing agriculture into a capand-trade system as the sector that is required to do carbon sequestration with existing systems. What will 

this mean for flexibility for future agriculture? Farmers often emphasize the need for flexibility in 

regulations. In addition, the questions from the international community regarding agriculture and 

additionality are legitimate. Finally, what are the implications of agriculture’s involvement in offsets as 

opposed to having one standalone factory trading with another standalone factory? The potential 

contradictions in cap-and-trade should be explored. 
56 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Mr. Grossi observed that Ms. Noble had brought the Committee back on point. He suggested that the 

Committee consider how it is responding to its purpose. The Committee’s primary purpose should be to 

respond to Administrator Johnson’s request for advice on issues such as regulations that EPA must write 

in the near future. In addition to fulfilling this primary purpose, the Committee could raise red flags, as 

Ms. Noble just did, regarding emerging issues. A workgroup could address such issues. Third, the 

Committee should consider whether to anticipate a new Administrator who may have the flexibility to 

take on particular issues. Mr. Moseley expressed his belief that much of the Committee’s charge is to 

become established and functional so that it has a life beyond the election. He said that the FRRCC is 

expected to continue into the future. Committee members must ensure that the Committee provides value. 

He asked Mr. Grossi if he meant to suggest that the Committee focus on the charge from the 

Administrator or, through an additional workgroup, address additional areas of interest and concern. 

Mr. Grossi responded that the Committee’s first priority is its charge to provide information that will help 

the Administrator make decisions. If the Committee has additional concerns and issues to put on the radar 

screen, these would be issues to raise with the next Administrator. The Committee could, for example, 

produce a document that would be on the new Administrator’s desk when he or she arrives next year. 

Mr. Moseley asked Committee members if there was agreement to form three workgroups on the three 

charge areas—comprehensive livestock management, climate change and biofuels, and communications. 

Several committee members expressed agreement with this plan. 

Mr. Vroom asserted that the issue of sustainability cuts across biofuels, climate change, and livestock and 

challenges the Agency’s regulatory authority in many ways. He suggested that the Committee create a 

workgroup to focus on cross-cutting sustainability issues. Mr. Moseley asked if the members agreed with 

creating a workgroup to address sustainability and its definition. A number of Committee members 

disagreed. In particular, Dr. Doering said that the issue of sustainability is as big a black hole as that of 

climate change, so the workgroup would have to define key cross-cutting sustainability issues. This 

would be valuable, but the workgroup would have to spend considerable time just organizing its task. 

Mr. Vroom stated that he ordinarily would not advocate this, but other forces outside of the Federal 

Government will race past the Agency on the sustainability issue if the Committee does not take this 

opportunity to provide this focus. Ms. Noble observed that it might be beneficial for forces outside of the 

Agency to run ahead if those entities also are engaging in dialogue with many different players. EPA may 

not need to be the leader on sustainable agriculture, whereas other issues—livestock and environmental 

issues, the RFS, and climate change—require EPA’s attention now. 

Mr. Scholl stated that, because the Agency must provide support for any workgroups, such as by 

providing requested information, it is important to keep the number of workgroups reasonable. Two or 

three workgroups would be reasonable from the Agency’s perspective. Focusing on the issues with which 

the Committee has been charged, especially such specifics as the life cycle assessments, is appropriate 

and helpful to the Agency. The Committee probably also will have the opportunity, however, to get into 

other related areas that arise. For example, in considering life cycle assessments, the issue of mandatory 

reporting will surface. Also, workgroups could provide input on how to structure the next meeting, who 

should provide presentations, and how to obtain information. He also clarified that a chair person for each 

workgroup will provide leadership and work with Agency staff to plan conference calls and develop 

agendas for such calls. The workgroups generally will meet via teleconference rather than face-to-face. 

Ms. Friedman asked how workgroups will interact with the full Committee. Mr. DeLeon responded that 

workgroups will present their findings to the full Committee via teleconference, electronically via e-mail, 

or at the next face-to-face meeting. In terms of workgroup interactions with the full Committee, 

Dr. Snyder asked whether and how consensus is to be reached. Mr. DeLeon said that each workgroup will 

deliberate and come to consensus on what it will present to the larger group. The workgroup has no 

authority to send its recommendations directly to EPA. Mr. DeLeon said that he would allow 

Mr. Moseley to determine how the full Committee will act on the workgroups’ conclusions—sometimes 

Committees use a show of hands or a vote to reach consensus; however, there is no prescribed method. 

Mr. Grossi said that he did not realize the Committee members would have to reach consensus. He asked 

whether the full Committee would vote on recommendations from workgroups and send approval or 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 57

disapproval to the Administrator. Mr. DeLeon responded that the Committee may function in this way, 

but each workgroup must submit its work to the full Committee; then, Mr. Moseley and the Committee 

will decide how to move forward, whether this is done via a vote, by reaching consensus, by having 

majority and minority positions, or other means. The one thing that is clear is that the work of all 

workgroups must come before the full Committee. 

Mr. DeLeon also provided clarification on terminology. Specifically, subcommittees and workgroups 

should not be confused. Subcommittees are much more formal, and the Committee would have to go 

through a formal process to establish a subcommittee. EPA has recommended workgroups in this case 

because they are more efficient. Workgroups are composed of members of the FRRCC. Committee 

members must determine what they consider most critical within the three charges. Further, it is important 

not to confuse the charter of the Committee, which is a formal document, with the charges to the FRRCC. 

Ms. Noble asked to what extent the Committee can veer from its charge. Mr. Scholl replied that the 

Committee should focus primarily on the charge. The Agency also hopes to gain an indication of other 

issues of concern to the agricultural community and any opportunities EPA should try to capture. As this 

process evolves, it may be possible to modify the charge. For now, however, the Agency would like to see 

the Committee’s attention and resources focused on the three issues with which the Committee has been 

charged. 

Mr. Moseley suggested that the Committee begin to frame one workgroup to address climate change and 

biofuels and one workgroup to address environmental issues related to livestock production. He said that 

he would look for volunteers to serve on each of these workgroups as well as a volunteer to chair each 

workgroup. 

Mr. McDonald noted that cross-media approaches could be one piece of the livestock workgroup’s task, 

but it would be useful to provide input on other issues as well. He suggested that this workgroup should 

not limit itself, for example, to considering how to combine water and air permits into one system. 

Dr. Flocchini suggested forming an emerging issues workgroup, noting that this has been done before in 

other advisory committees. This would not require the Committee to define in advance which emerging 

issues the workgroup will address; however, that workgroup would be available to address such issues 

that may arise and to gather information as needed. Ms. Guzman Aceves agreed with Dr. Flocchini’s 

suggestion for an emerging issues workgroup. She volunteered to be on this Committee because some 

issues currently receive little regulatory attention, such as contamination of groundwater, which in some 

areas of California constitutes 90 percent of the drinking water. By participating on the Committee, she 

hopes to have face time with the Agency on such issues. Although her preference would be to serve on a 

workgroup addressing groundwater and drinking water contamination, Ms. Guzman Aceves would be 

willing to serve on an emerging issues workgroup instead. 

Ms. Friedman asked for clarification on whether the Committee has formed three or four workgroups. 

Specifically, she asked whether the workgroups include: (1) climate change and biofuels; (2) animal 

agriculture; (3) emerging issues; and (4) communication. Mr. Moseley agreed that this was his 

understanding. 

Senator Brubaker suggested that communication could be a subcategory of each workgroup; in this way, 

communication does not need its own workgroup. Many other Committee members agreed that 

communications should be treated as an overarching issue and a responsibility of each workgroup. 

Mr. Andrews raised the concern that communication is part of the Committee’s charge. Mr. Scholl 

indicated that the manner in which the Committee has chosen to address communication is not a problem. 

Mr. Moseley concluded, therefore, that the three workgroups will focus on: (1) a comprehensive 

livestock management strategy; (2) climate change and renewable energy; and (3) emerging issues. 
58 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Mr. Moseley suggested that Committee members volunteer for workgroups and asked for suggestions on 

the process by which they might self-select. A participant suggested going around the room to indicate, 

orally, who would like to serve on each workgroup; this would allow the choices to be recorded. 

Mr. Grossi suggested, in the interest of time, that EPA provide a short description of each workgroup to 

Committee members via e-mail. The Committee members then could sign up via e-mail. This would 

allow for a bit more agreement on exactly what each workgroup will do. Mr. Moseley suggested that both 

strategies could be used. Those who already know that they would like to serve in a specific area may 

commit themselves now and these decisions will be recorded. Those who are uncertain will be contacted 

for their decisions within 10 days. The Committee members agreed with this decision. 

The Climate Change and Renewable Energy Workgroup will include the following Committee members 

(in addition to any who sign up via e-mail): Mr. Nelson, Ms. Laur, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Franklin, 

Ms. Hammerstrom, Dr. Snyder, Ms. Guzman Aceves, Mr. Andrew, Dr. Tsegaye, Ms. Bowlan, 

Dr. Doering, Ms. Noble, Dr. Boyd, and Mr. Willard. 

The Comprehensive Livestock Management Strategy Workgroup will include: Mr. McDonald, 

Mr. Young, Mr. Tee, Ms. Friedman, Ms. Chinn, Ms. Guzman Aceves, Mr. Treacy, Mr. Cooper, 

Mr. Vonk, Senator Brubaker, and Ms. Noble. 

The Emerging Issues Workgroup will include: Mr. Vroom, Mr. Grossi, Ms. Guzman Aceves, 

Ms. Hammerstrom, Dr. Bonanno, Dr. Flocchini, Dr. Tsegaye, Ms. Bowlan, Mr. Garber, 

Senator Brubaker, and Mr. Willard. 

Mr. Moseley noted that he would contact an individual from each workgroup to serve as chair. 

Mr. Vroom asked whether substitutes would be allowed on workgroups. Mr. DeLeon said that nothing 

prohibits this but suggested tabling this discussion for now. 

Mr. Blackham suggested that everyone be given notice of all workgroup meetings so that they can 

participate if they are available. Ms. Hammerstrom asked if it was permissible for a Committee member 

to participate on all workgroups. Mr. Moseley and Mr. DeLeon agreed that this is not a problem. 

In response to a question from Dr. Doering, Mr. Moseley agreed that Committee members would receive, 

via e-mail, the lists of those who signed up for each workgroup in case someone was missed. In response 

to a question from Ms. Friedman, Mr. Moseley agreed that contact information for all Committee 

members would be circulated to the Committee. 

Mr. Moseley asked Committee members whether the specific charge for each workgroup should be 

developed in the near future, after a chair for each workgroup is chosen and after each workgroup has had 

an opportunity to begin communicating. The workgroup chairs then would convey the specific charge to 

Mr. Moseley, the full Committee, and to EPA. Other Committee members agreed with this notion. 

Mr. Treacy asked if workgroups will be supported by EPA staff. Mr. DeLeon explained that only 

Ms. Kaiser is available to manage workgroup meetings. The Agency will try to obtain programmatic 

assistance for the Committee from other staff members as needed, but for the most part, Ms. Kaiser will 

be the only staff person available. This is the rationale behind limiting the number of workgroups to three. 

Dr. Boyd offered a few ideas for the Committee and EPA to consider, based on his experience serving on 

the AAQTF. First, he suggested that Mr. Moseley consider forming an executive committee to help 

determine the agenda. If so, the executive committee should have more input than EPA staff in the 

structure of upcoming meetings. He noted that it is critical for agriculture to have a voice in determining 

the business of the meetings. Second, he suggested that farm tours are critically important. For example, 

because of the notion of CAFO as a four-letter word, it is important to get senior-level EPA staff 

members onto farms where they can observe an environmental management system in action. Third, he 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 59

suggested asking EPA to start each meeting with a report on accountability based on recommendations 

that the Committee previously made to the Administrator. This did not always happen with the AAQTF. 

Fourth, to ensure that the Committee’s recommendations are acted on, the Committee should structure 

each recommendation as an action item that cannot be interpreted as a recommendation for a study or 

simply for consideration. Finally, most AAQTF meetings were attended by an equal number of EPA staff 

and USDA staff, which allowed for quite a bit of improved communication. OECA almost never was in 

attendance, however, so much of the progress the task force made with EPA was lost because OECA was 

not there. Ultimately, Dr. Boyd asserted, OECA ignored the AAQTF’s recommendations. This embittered 

many task force members. He suggested that this Committee ask for a representative from OECA to be 

present at all FRRCC meetings. 

Mr. Moseley thanked Dr. Boyd for his suggestions. He said that he may form something like an executive 

committee. Mr. Moseley said that he is enormously impressed with all of the Committee members. 

Clearly, the chosen Committee members have practical experience, represent particular arenas within the 

agricultural community, and have the kind of demeanor that works well on an advisory committee. He 

indicated that he will, therefore, ask a few Committee members to help him guide the ship. Regarding 

accountability and feedback from the Agency, Mr. Moseley noted that this is one of his own requirements 

for serving on this Committee. He recalled many other task forces and advisory committees that did not 

receive feedback from the agency they advised. It demoralizes such a group to meet and put their efforts 

into providing meaningful recommendations, only to find that nothing happens. He reiterated 

Administrator Johnson’s agreement with the importance of feedback. 

Drs. Doering and Flocchini asked for the date of the next meeting. Mr. Treacy requested that the 

Committee consider a rural location for the next meeting. Mr. Moseley agreed with this location idea. 

Ms. Kaiser said that she had considered coordinating the next FRRCC meeting with the next AAQTF 

meeting, but the timing may not work out. Ms. Laur, who is the DFO for the AAQTF, stated that she did 

not know when the next AAQTF meeting (after its May meeting) will be held, but it probably would not 

be until after November. Dr. Doering thought the FRRCC should meet again before November. 

Ms. Kaiser suggested late August or early September. Committee members agreed with September. 

Mr. Cooper suggested that Committee members could provide to Mr. Moseley, via e-mail, the dates on 

which they are not available so that Mr. Moseley can select a date that suits the majority of Committee 

members. Other Committee members suggested that a date could be chosen during this meeting. 

Mr. Moseley asked Committee members to consider their availability during the first 2 weeks of 

September for a 2-day meeting. Ms. Kaiser and Ms. Laur suggested that Committee members plan on 

2.5 days for the meeting and 1 day for a farm tour. Mr. Treacy asked whether the third week of September 

could be considered; other Committee members agreed. Ms. Kaiser proposed targeting the middle 

2 weeks of September. 

Mr. Moseley asked for suggestions for the meeting location. Mr. Askew suggested that a regional office 

could host the meeting and the regional staff members could help set up the farm tour. Mr. DeLeon said 

that holding the meeting at an EPA regional office would simplify the logistics. Experts from the region 

could be brought in and EPA regional staff members can assist. Mr. Moseley suggested Kansas City, 

Kansas, the location of the Region 7 office. He noted that biofuels and animal agriculture are common in 

this region. Committee members agreed to meet in Kansas City, Kansas. Mr. Askew welcomed this idea. 

Mr. Moseley clarified that the Committee would decide on the exact dates in the next week. Within 10 

days, he will have decided on the workgroup chairs and meeting date. Dr. Doering asked Ms. Kaiser if 

she would e-mail Committee members to inquire about possible dates in the middle 2 weeks of 

September. Ms. Kaiser agreed that she would do this unless Committee members preferred that she offer 

a date for them to respond to. Committee members agreed that Ms. Kaiser should offer a date. Some 

Committee members reiterated that the third week of September might be better than the second week. 
60 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Mr. Moseley commented that Committee members could assume that they will meet on a Tuesday, 

Wednesday, and Thursday. 

Mr. Moseley asked Committee members for any last business. 

Mr. Vroom suggested that, for the next face-to-face meeting, the Committee would have more time for 

deliberation with each other and to interact with experts if most materials are provided in advance, via 

e-mail, rather than through presentations at the meeting. 

Ms. Kaiser asked all Committee members to complete their travel vouchers before the end of the meeting 

to expedite reimbursement. 

Ms. Laur commented that it would be useful for the AAQTF and FRRCC to work together. She agreed to 

inform the AAQTF members about when FRRCC meetings are scheduled and vice-versa to facilitate 

attendance of each other’s meetings if desired. Mr. Moseley agreed that this would be a good idea. 

Ms. Kaiser and Ms. Laur noted that the next AAQTF meeting will be held during the week of May 12, 

2008; they will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday, have a tour on Thursday, and conclude business by 

mid-day Friday. Ms. Kaiser said that she would send out information on the May 2008 AAQTF meeting 

to members of the FRRCC. Mr. Moseley suggested that he might serve as an emissary to the May 2008 

AAQTF meeting, and Ms. Laur welcomed his attendance there. 

Mr. DeLeon asked Committee members to join him in saluting Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Moseley for their 

efforts on behalf of the FRRCC. 

Mr. Moseley thanked Mr. DeLeon and stated that the effectiveness of this Committee is dependent on 

how well the process works. If Committee members have issues or problems with the process or 

suggestions for improvement, he asked that they e-mail him. The Committee must work very efficiently. 

At the same time, however, this is a democratic process, and each Committee member should have the 

opportunity to express his or her opinion. Mr. Moseley also welcomed Committee members’ suggestions, 

via e-mail, for Committee goals. He emphasized that he is here to serve the Committee members and the 

process and to get this job done. 

Mr. Moseley adjourned the meeting at 1:28 p.m. 

Action Items 

 Mr. Moseley will work with Ms. Kaiser and Mr. Scholl to provide a suggested reading list to 

Committee members on environmental issues. 

 Senator Brubaker will provide the Franklin and Marshall College report on legacy sediment to 

Mr. Moseley for distribution to all Committee members. 

 Dr. Shapiro will provide information to the Committee on flexibility in the CWSRF. 

 Ms. Shaver will provide more information to the Committee on the OSWI Rule to indicate whether 

EPA will remand parts of the rule or reevaluate the entire rule based on the court ruling that vacated 

it. 

 Ms. Dietrich will provide information to the Committee regarding the potential for EPA (OSW) to 

regulate the use of sludge as a fertilizer in agricultural production. 

 Mr. Harvey will provide information to the Committee regarding emissions from fertilizer plants 

compared with emissions from other sources. 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 61

 Ms. Kaiser will provide Committee members Ms. Shaver’s presentation. 

 Ms. Lybbert will provide each Committee member a “swiss cheese” press release. 

 Committee members who have not yet volunteered to serve on a workgroup will do so via e-mail by 

March 28, 2008. 

 Mr. Moseley will select a chair for each workgroup by March 28, 2008. 

 Mr. Moseley will ensure that contact information for all Committee members and the membership of 

each workgroup are disseminated to Committee members. 

 Each workgroup will develop a specific charge; workgroup chairs will provide the specific charges to 

Mr. Moseley and the full Committee. 

 Ms. Kaiser will e-mail Committee members with proposed dates for the next meeting in the second or 

third weeks of September 2008. 

 Ms. Kaiser and Ms. Laur will ensure that FRRCC and AAQTF members are kept apprised of their 

respective meeting dates. 
62 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC) 

Inaugural Meeting—March 13-14, 2008 

Meeting Participants 

Committee Chair: 

James R. Moseley 

Owner 

Jim Moseley Farms, Inc. 

Members: 

Martha Guzman Aceves 

Legislative Advocate 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 

James O. Andrew 

Owner 

Andrew Farms, Inc. 

Leonard M. Blackham 

Commissioner 

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food 

A. Richard Bonanno, Ph.D. 

Owner 

Pleasant Valley Gardens 

Marion Long Bowlan 

Farmer 

Long-Bowlan Farms 

Garth W. Boyd, Ph.D. 

Senior Vice President 

Camco Global 

Senator Mike W. Brubaker 

Senator 

Pennsylvania State Senate 

Christine Chinn 

Manager 

Chinn Hog Farm 

Gary A. Cooper 

Owner 

Cooper Farms 

Otto C. Doering, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Agricultural Economics 

Purdue University 

Robert G. Flocchini, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources 

University of California, Davis 

Thomas M. Franklin 

Senior Vice President 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Suzy Friedman 

Project Manager of Agricultural Projects 

Center for Conservation Incentives 

Environmental Defense Fund 

 

Earl J. Garber 

President 

Louisiana Association of Conservation Districts 

Ralph Grossi 

President 

American Farmland Trust 

Karri M. Hammerstrom 

Co-Owner 

Hammertime Ranch 

Michele Laur 

National Atmospheric Resource Specialist 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Tom McDonald 

Vice President for Environmental Affairs 

Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding 

Dave Nelson 

Chairman of the Board 

Global Ethanol 

Martha L. Noble 

Senior Policy Associate 

Sustainable Agriculture Coalition 

Dawn R. Riley 

Owner 

Dawn Riley Consulting 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 63

Cliff S. Snyder, Ph.D. 

Nitrogen Program Director 

International Plant Nutrition Institute 

Jeff Tee 

President 

Panhandle Environmental Resource Coalition 

Dennis H. Treacy 

Vice President for Environmental 

and Corporate Affairs 

Smithfield Foods, Inc. 

Teferi Tsegaye, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Department of Plant and Soil Science 

Alabama A&M University 

Jeffrey R. Vonk 

Secretary 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, 

and Parks 

Jay Vroom 

President 

CropLife America 

William F. Willard 

President 

Willard Agri-Service 

G. Douglas Young 

General Partner 

Spruce Haven Farm 

Designated Federal Officer: 

Alicia Kaiser 

Special Assistant for Agricultural Policy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA Participants: 

Sonia Altieri 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

John Askew 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 7 

Lynn Beasley 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Erin Birgfeld 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Nina Bonnelycke 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Dan Breedlove 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 7 

Pat Cimino 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Rick Colbert 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Robert Cunningham 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Tom Davenport 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 

Rafael DeLeon 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Debbie Dietrich 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Robin Dunkins 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Katie Flahive 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Karen Flournoy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 7 

John Guy 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Marrietta Haggins 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Michael Harrison 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Steve Heare

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Tracy Hudak 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
64 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Brian Joffe 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Khanna Johnston 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Cynthia Jones-Jackson 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mark Joyce 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Daniel Kaiser 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Richard Keigwin 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Randy Kelly 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Van Kozak 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6 

Robert Larson 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Sylvia Malm 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Megan Moreau 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Granta Nakayama 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Roberta Parry 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jon Scholl 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

William Schrock 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Michael Shapiro 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Sally Shaver 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Suzanne Stevenson 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 

Greg Susanke 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Denise Tennessee 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4 

Christopher Voell 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Stephanie Washington 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Allison Wiedeman 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Jannell Young-Ancrum 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Hank Zygmunt 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 3 

Other Participants: 

Rebeckah Adcock 

American Farm Bureau 

Pat Albright 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Tom Van Arsdall 

Pollinator Partnership/Coevolution Institute 

VanArsdall & Associates 

Joe Atchison, III 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Hillary Barile 

Rutgers University 

Ken Blight 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Joel Brandenberger 

National Turkey Federation 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 65

Paul Bredwell 

U.S. Poultry and Egg Association 

Chris Clayton

DTN 

Jim Cranney 

U.S. Apple Association 

Carol M. Davis 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Gene DeMichele 

World Economic Forum 

Adam Diamond 

CF Industries 

Justin Dickey 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Erick Doyle 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Matt Duffield 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Tracy Duvernoy 

U.S. Department of Defense 

Meredith Fishburn 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Michael Formica

National Pork Producers Council 

Keira Franz 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

Matthew Germane 

The Dragun Corporation 

Creela Hamlin 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Matt Hamlin 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Jessica Hammons 

DC Legislative and Regulatory Services, Inc. 

Ron Heavner 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Glenda Humiston 

University of California, Berkeley 

Charlie Ingram 

National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture 

Sho Islam 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Jenny Johnson 

Inside EPA 

Debra Kauffman 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Lisa Kelley 

National Corn Growers Association 

Angus Kelly 

Syngenta 

Bradley Kennedy 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

Jeff Kinney 

BNA 

Meghan Kolassa 

National Potato Council 

Ben LaCross 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Kelsey LaCross 

Michigan Farm Bureau 
66 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary

Amy Link 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Steve Lomax 

Corn Refiners Association 

Evan Madlinger 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Peter Melick 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

 Development Program 

Karen Molnar 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Doug Myers 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Mary Nikola 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Meredith Niles 

Center for Food Safety 

Tom Nugent 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Steve Paradiso 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Dale S. Parsons 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Jeff Pritchard 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Jean Reimers 

Bayer Crop Science 

Louise Reynnells 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Rural Information Center 

Dennis Rudat 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Michael Rybolt 

National Turkey Federation 

Nancy Santiago 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Denise Savageau 

National Association of Conservation Districts 

Sally Schuff 

Feedstuffs 

Jacob Secor 

Dow AgroSciences 

Isi A. Siddiqui 

CropLife America 

Burleson Smith 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Allan Stokes 

National Pork Board 

Tamara Thies 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

Jill Thomson 

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 

Saulius Vaiciunas 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Jeff VanderWerff 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Ranee Vermeesch 

Michigan Farm Bureau 
March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 67

Sarah Weinrich 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Mike Wenkel 

Michigan Farm Bureau 

Carissa Wilhelm 

National Association of State Departments of 

Agriculture 

Diane Zahorsky 

New Jersey Agricultural Leadership 

Development Program 

Rutgers University 

Support Contractor: 

Bette Stallman 

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.