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

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



## I NAUGURAL 

## M EETING



### March 13–14, 2008

The Madison Hotel

Washington, DC



### D ETAILED 

### M EETING 

### N OTES



### T HURSDAY 

### , M ARCH 

### 13, 2008

Call to Order and Introductions Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federa l Officer (DFO) for the Committee

Alicia Kaiser, DFO for the Farm, Ranch, and Ru ral Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC), called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. and welcom ed Committee members and other participants to the FRRCC’s inaugural meeting. Ms. Kaiser explained th is meeting was open to the public and that all remarks will become part of the public record. Seve ral 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 th e meeting, with up to 5 minutes for each comment. Ms. Kaiser asked any members of the public interest ed in commenting to sign in on the public comment

sheet.

Committee members briefly introduced themselves an d 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 expe riences that Committee members bring to the table as individuals; the purpose of such an advisory comm ittee 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 confusi ng. 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 agricultu ral 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 impo rtant 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 pe rsonal 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; how ever, a lack of respect is never an issue with individuals from rural America and the agricultura l community. Mr. Moseley described the manner in

which Committee members should indicate that th ey wish to be recognized during Committee

deliberations. He then described his role as Chair— to remain unbiased and to ensure that the Committee2 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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, id eas, attitudes, and opinions br ought forward by Committee members are presented to decision-makers, such as Admi nistrator Johnson and his political staff, and that they become part of the public record. To accomplis h 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 Commi ttee 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 th is 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 assu rance 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 pos ition at EPA, working on the intersection between agriculture and the environment. He had believed th at 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, a nd 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 administra tion. 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 releva nt 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 Agen cy 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 num ber of applicants for this Committee than for any past EPA advisory committee; this shows the agricu ltural community’s keen desire to participate. Mr. Peacock thanked Mr. Moseley for agreeing to ch air the Committee and added that he had worked with Mr. Moseley for a number of years. Novelis t Calvin Trillin wrote that, “when someone reaches middle age, people he knows begin to get put in char ge of things, and knowing what he knows about the people who are being put in charge of things scares th e hell out of him.” Mr. Peacock thanked EPA staff, especially Mr. Scholl, who has spearhead ed this effort. He said that Ms. Kaiser has devoted nearly all of her time to organizing this Committee. Mr. DeLe on 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, JannellMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 headquarter s building originally was the headquarters for the U.S. Postal Service (then called the Post Office De partment); an inscription in stone on this building reads, “The Post Office Department, in its ceasel ess labors, pervades every channel of commerce and every theatre of human enterprise, and, while visitin g, as it does kindly, every fireside, mingles with the throbbings of almost every heart in the land.” When th at 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 primar y 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 qui ckly 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 consider ing 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 co mmunity; 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 th is 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 liv e in a cooperative and collaborative way to complement the Agency’s exis ting 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 fro m the FRRCC’s advice on three major topics, which will frame the FRRCC’s productive efforts. First, the Co mmittee has been asked to consider the role of agriculture in addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emi ssions 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 a nd are workable for agricu ltural 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 cour se of action. Third, EPA is looking for the FRRCC’s thoughts on how the Agency can better communicate a nd interact with the agriculture industry to minimize conflict and achieve goals that benefit th e 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 implemen ting some recommendations. Committee members are participating out of a sincere desire to make a positiv e 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 Communitie s 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 ex ample of the heart of what he hoped this group would do: provide a connection between EPA and the agricultu re 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 fo r agriculture in terms of GHG standards, feedstock for biofuels, and so forth. The FRRCC should attemp t to mobilize quickly enough to provide input on such far-reaching decisions. Mr. Peacock replied that, a lthough he is very open to this suggestion, many hurdles exist. For example, it might have been help ful to have had input from this Committee during the development of the Concentrated Animal Feeding Op eration (CAFO) Rule. In any case, he expressed his desire to obtain the FRRCC’s input wh enever 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 Committe e to become engaged as quickly as possible.

Gary Cooper (Cooper Farms) asked wh ether Mr. Peacock expected the Committee to form three groups to address the three issues with which it is charged (G HG emissions, animal agriculture and environmental issues, and better communications), or whether th e Committee as a whole would address each issue in priority order. Mr. Peacock said that FACA committe es typically divide into groups to discuss separate issues; however, the third topic, communication, coul d 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) refe rred 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 e fforts. 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 addr ess 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 Committ ee 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 a dded 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 e xplained 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 determ ine 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 pr ocess; 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 th is 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 ofMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 thro ugh two Farm Bill rule- a nd 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 fina l 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 beyo nd this will have to be considered in light of

FACA rules.

Martha Noble (Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) no ted 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 co mmunity. Concerns have been growing within the human health community about agricultural issu es. 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 co mmunity. Mr. Scholl responded that EPA had aimed for perfection in the Committee member selection pro cess and is pleased with the resulting diversity and breadth of experience of members. It may be possi ble, however, to add other facets and aspects to the Committee over time to achieve perfection. The Co mmittee 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 probabl y will bring in a number of experts to share information and knowledge with the FRRCC. The Co mmittee’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 gaini ng traction. This concept, applied to agriculture, probably will be the centerpiece of many policy decisions for this admini stration 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 conti nuity on this subject from this administration to the next. He asked Mr. Peacock to comment on how the Ag ency 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 ag ricultural sustainability.

This forces all Committee members to th ink 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 a nd Mr. DeLeon recently had assessed the relationship between EPA and its advisory committees. They fo und 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 expressed6 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 produc tion agriculture now is under tremendous pressure to produce by the commodities markets. Many factor s are rapidly changing in the agricultural field for growers, producers, and processors; these chang es will accelerate as demands on the economy become greater through the diversity of the industry’s c onsumers. He expressed his appreciation for this opportunity to provide guidance to EPA. Mr. Peacock agr eed 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 intersecti on of agriculture and the environment. Mr. Peacock expressed his belief that the two are bound together.

Teferi Tsegaye (Alabama A&M University) observe d that the Committee had so far focused on USDA and EPA. It also may be valuable to focus on the ac tivities 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 synthesi s on sea level rise and will perform two more—one on human health and welfare and one on ecosystems. In a ddition, the Agency is invo lved 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 Coa lition) 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. Neve rtheless, 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 th e goals of agricultural producers with respect to protecting the earth but may use different means to ac hieve such goals. Many times, the actions of the agriculture industry are misconstrued as damaging rath er 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 tr uth 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 c oncurred 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 cl ass 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 SubstancesMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 hist ory with the federal advisory committee process. In 1995, OPP established the Pesticide Program Di alogue 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 Pr otection 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 polic y questions regarding both agricultural and nonagricultural pesticides. Some current topics unde r 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 be nefited 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 th en has more focused, informed discussions. One PPDC workgroup is addressing agricultural transition issu es 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 sev eral 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 de fined 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 re gulation. 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 fashi on 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 rega rding 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 A ssistance Foundation) remarked that farm worker protection standards have been delayed; she asked fo r a timeframe on those regulations and the potential role of the FRRCC in advising EPA on those regula tions. Mr. Gulliford responded that OPPTS continues to work with PPDC on farm worker safety issues. PP DC 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 major ity 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 nationw ide, including 37 percent of impaired rivers and streams and 30 percent of impaired lakes and reser voirs. Although not necessarily representative of every water body in the country, this report, based on data co llected by states, indicates that agriculture is associated with many water quality impairments, partic ularly those related to sediments and nutrients, as8 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary well as those attributable to low dissolved oxygen, habitat alterations, pat hogens, 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 Wad eable Streams Assessment (WSA), which characterizes a sample of small streams acr oss 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 hea lth 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 hi gh levels of nutrients or excess sedimentation. He

noted that this is not exclus ively an agricultural problem.

The role of OW under the Clean Water Act (CWA) is “t o 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 s ources 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. Technol ogy-based standards are promulgated nationally and must be met by all affected facilities. Because the t echnology-based approach often is not sufficient to restore the nation’s waters, the water quality-based appr oach is becoming increasingly important. In this approach, EPA develops water quality criteria inform ation, and states and tribes develop water quality standards and criteria specific to each watershed. Th ese 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 E limination System (NPDES) permit from EPA or authorized states to discharge into waters of th e United States. Water quality standards for each water body include three parts: designated uses (e.g., recr eation, drinking water, cold water fishery, or irrigation); numeric or narrative water quality crite ria for each pollutant; and an antidegradation policy. For each impaired body of water (i.e., one that does no t 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 in tended 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 aut hority exists at the federa l level for nonpoint sources, and the same is true for most states. Nonpoint so urces are becoming an increasingly large source of water quality problems. Under the Nonpoint Source Manageme nt 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 lo adings; (2) implement programs to promote best management practices (BMPs); and (3) monitor a nd evaluate progress, updating the program every 5 years. Much of the pollution from the agricultura l sector is considered nonpoint source pollution.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA ensu res 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 contam ination of drinking water, and ensures that each community water supply system can achieve the sta ndards. Under the Source Water Protection Program, states assess threats to drinking water supplies, delineat e 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 a ssociated 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 suppor t 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 rotati ons, the use of high-phosphor us distillers’ grain for animal feed, and increased runoff from marginal lands converted to corn production. In addition, USDA’sMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 9 voluntary conservation programs may cost more per acr e or enroll fewer participants; these programs play an important role in helping agri cultural producers address water quality.

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

Rule in June 2006 to address the Court’s decisi on 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 ou tlines a framework for identifying the terms of the nutrient management plan to be included in the perm it. The framework offers alternative approaches for addressing application rates of manure, litter, and pr ocess wastewater. The new CAFO Rule reflects what the Agency has learned from the agri culture community in terms of th e most effective approaches. The implementation date will be Februa ry 27, 2009. The CAFO Rule will cover the majority of livestock manure but a minority of the country’s livestock ope rations. OW will continue to face challenges in working with the numerous smaller confined livestoc k 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 ensu re 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 agenci es recently signed an agreement to collaborate on reducing Chesapeake Ba y 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 pa rts of the agriculture co mmunity? (2) How successful has EPA been in getting its message and informati on out to those disparate groups? (3) How can EPA encourage agricultural producers to become engage d 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 im pacts 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 agri cultural community demonstrate progress in meeting water quality goals? Some of the best success stories occur when th e agriculture community tak es a leadership role in managing water quality issues, such as the remark able progress achieved when the agricultural community works with local watershed groups to: de termine 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 agricu lture 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 u se 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 commer cial 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 agricultura l side, the Nonpoint Source Management Program is voluntary. This program provides grants for pr ojects addressing nonpoint sources of pollution and encourages watershed-level partnershi ps to determine the best kinds of integrated activities to address nonpoint sources. OW strongly supports voluntary, colla borative efforts. Certain challenges related to10 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary traditional point sources work well with regulator y programs, but OW encourages individuals and industries to go beyond the minimum requirements. Re gulation plays an important role but is not well tailored to some of the current nonpoint source issues.

Senator Brubaker asked what proportion of the nitrog en 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 probabl y true for other water bodies as well. There is no question that multiple sources of nitrogen exist. Se nator Brubaker referred to reports indicating that atmospheric deposition accounts for as much as 40 per cent of nitrogen in water bodies, as well as reports indicating that power plants and agricultural fiel ds are the top two sources. He acknowledged that agricultural producers need to make improvements re garding sediment, but asked whether the results from a recent report from Franklin and Marshall Colle ge on legacy sediment have been factored into OW’s analyses regarding the current sources of sedim ent. Dr. Shapiro replied that there are cases, especially those addressed under Comprehensive Envi ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Reco very Act (RCRA) programs, in which legacy contaminants and legacy sediments drive the contamina tion. This certainly is the case in parts of the Great Lakes. The sediment issues from agriculture and othe r current nonpoint sources still are very real in some

watersheds, so one must consider each watershed individually to de termine 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 ag reed that multiple sources contribute to each of

these contaminants. The contamination of some waters heds 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. Mo seley for distribution to all Committee members.

Ms. Guzman Aceves said that, in California, poor ru ral communities have a greater-than $1 billion need to address problems with septic and wastewater system s. 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 mo re 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 furthe r 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 affecti ng water quality. There are differences between the SDWA and the CWA in terms of their statutory aut hority; for example, the SDWA offers much more flexibility to forgive loans. There is no such flex ibility under the CWA. He noted, however, that OW would be happy to work with such communities to ensu re that any available flexibility is fully understood and can be used. He agreed to follow up w ith Ms. Guzman Aceves on this issue.

Mr. Andrew asked whether the news stories on recy cled human pharmaceutical s 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 st udied. EPA has not yet concluded that there is an associated public health issue, but more research a nd attention needs to be devoted to that area.

Tom McDonald (Five Rivers Ranch) asked whether th is 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 fo r public comment. If the Agency were at an earlier stage in the rulemaking process, it would have incorp orated 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 pr oposed rule, whether as a Committee or individually. Once the comment period closes, the Agency will move as quickly as possible to th e issuance of the finalMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 unlik ely that the Committee as a whole will be able to comment during the public comment period; neve rtheless, 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” interpreta tions 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 cha nging and some USDA conservation program acreage is being brought back into pr oduction. In light of recent media attent ion on this issue, however, the kind of general summary provided in Dr. Shapiro’s presenta tion 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 l ess 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 cl osely 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 sta ff members are the experts. Michele Laur (USDA/ Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]) sec onded 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 grou ps considering how to respond to issues related to biofuels.

Thomas Franklin (Theodore Roo sevelt Conservation Partnership) asked whether OW’s assessments account for the loss of wetlands and recognize the ro le wetlands can play in addressing water quality problems. He specifically asked whether EPA is id entifying opportunities for restoring or constructing wetlands. Dr. Shapiro said that OW certainly cons iders wetland retention and enhancement to be a priority because wetlands can play a critical role in terms of both water quan tity 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 address ed 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 lo ng-term changes and emerging issues, such as pathogens and pharmaceuticals. Dr. Shapiro said that EPA uses NAWQA to asse ss 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 im portant source of information to gauge which new issues need to be addressed under the priority-setti ng processes for the SDWA or CWA for identifying

contaminants to be consider ed 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 fa rm applied for funding to install a stream crossing; she was told that her proj ect is not a priority because many other projects from bigger polluters are ahead of hers. Although she understands this rationa le, 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 Communitie s 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 pr oblems; 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 numbe r of projects that include a number of small farm projects. If Ms. Bowlan’s stream crossing were pa rt of a proposal from a watershed group with a collection of nonpoint projects, this might increase th e chances of funding. It can be difficult in grant programs for very small projects to get attention becau se 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 whic h 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 Agricultura l 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 respons ible 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 [SO

x ], nitrogen oxides

[NO

x ], and carbon monoxide [CO]). The Office of Tran sportation 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 likel y 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 de veloped new PM standards and has set a new ozone standard. OAR is engaged in ongoing reviews for NO

x , SO 2 , 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. St ate 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 th e previous ozone standard extend to 2024, and the

attainment deadlines for PM extend to 2015 for standa rds put in place in 1997. These delays are partially attributable to litigation. For the re vised 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 precurs or 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 so me areas, pesticide use is regulated to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions because this is n ecessary to meet the ozone standard. OAR also will revise its fire policy by July 2008; the 1998 interi m 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 Communitie s 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 ag ricultural 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 Ru le also was vacated. The Other Solid Waste Incinerators (OSWI) Rule dealt with animal incinera tion at animal feeding operations (AFOs); this rule

also has been vacated, so the di sposal 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 he avy duty truck emissions. OAR is very pleased with the National Clean Diesel Campaign, in which it wo rks 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) vo luntary 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 Stratos pheric 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, su ch as maps, monitoring and modeling information, and inventories, can be found on the Technology Tr ansfer Network Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn. OAR works with several advisory committees exclus ively 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 l ooks 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. Sh e 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 AgSTA R, OAR is working with individuals and groups on the use of anaerobic digesters. No regulatory activity o ccurs in that area; the fo cus 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. Th e 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), EPA14 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Res ponse (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 manageme nt and regulation of solid and hazardous waste. The Office of Underground Storage Tanks oversees effort s 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/swe rrims/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 l ead 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 identifica tion 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 chroni c wasting disease or avian influenza. In addition, OSW provides information, guidance, policy, and publi cations to help states and the regulated community address solid waste issues. For example, OSW deve loped federal criteria for the proper design and operation of municipal solid waste landfills a nd other solid waste disposal facilities.

The overall goal of OEM is to ensure that the nati on is better prepared for environmental emergencies. OEM’s key functional areas include the prevention of o il 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 Superf und and depends on a strong relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard and other federal agencies on th e 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 partic ipation, in conjunction with OSW and USDA, in carcass disposal issues that may arise in a catastrophi c 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 Functio n 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 f unctions can provide more seamles s assistance to local communities.

OEM is responsible for several regulations that in fluence the agricultural co mmunity. For example, OEM is responsible for implementing the Risk Manage ment 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 substan ces (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 Sec tion 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, farm s must report emergency releases of an EHS or CERCLA hazardous substance but not routine agricult ural applications. Under Sections 311 and 312 (Inventory Reporting) of EPCRA, farms are exempt fo r hazardous chemicals used in routine agricultural operations. Under Section 103 of CERCLA on notifica tion requirements, farms must report to the National Response Center any release to the envir onment of a hazardous substance at or above its reportable quantity. EPA will determine if an emerge ncy response is required. Section 311 of the CWA, the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SP CC) Program, is intended to prevent oil dischargeMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 15 to navigable waters or adjacent shorelines. Under th is program, farms and other facilities that store more than 1,320 gallons of oil must develop an SP CC 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 st ate, 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 clar ification 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 te mplate for facilities with no tanks greater than 5,000 gallons (and no more than 10,0 00 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 fo r an avian influenza epidemic, Mr. Cooper asked at what point OSWER is brought in to a carcass dispo sal 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 a nd local agencies. OEM does have response resources and can aid in the response. It would have to be an extr eme 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 t echnical 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 coopera tives—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 Califor nia 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 info rmation on any potential involvement of OSW in such regulation.

Ms. Guzman Aceves commented that California ha d 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. Recen tly, emergency response teams have not been communicating with agricultural commissions that have the pesticide use informa tion for this state. She wondered if EPA’s proposed amendm ents to Section 311 of the CWA would exempt pesticide application equipment from that regulation. Ms. Dietrich e xplained 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 Pestic ide Programs, adding that, for identification of a hazardous waste, OSWER is guided by the lists in ex isting 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 Pestic ide 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 Communitie s 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 th e 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 histor y 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, Offi ce of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA),

EPA

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assuran ce (OECA) is responsible for enforcing all of the regulations and statutes for which EPA has authorit y and also is heavily involved in compliance assistance by educating people regarding the requi rements 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 cent ers, 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, Fungici de, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). OECA’s work cuts across media and across all states, involving mo re than 3,400 staff members in more than 40 locations. OECA is the largest office within EPA, em ploying more than 20 percent of EPA’s employees. OECA engages in administrative enforcement, ci vil enforcement, and criminal enforcement. Mr. Nakayama clarified that OECA does not write th e regulations; it enforces regulations as written.

OECA sometimes encounters situations in which it be comes clear that some of the older regulations probably were not written with agri cultural operations in mind. Some regulations, for example, have limits on how many tons of air emissions are allowe d 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 complicat ed with agricultural operations. For example, particulate emissions measured from a broiler or eg g-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 provi de helpful guidance to the Agency on such topics. With respect to the CWA, OECA established nationa l enforcement priorities based on input from states and citizens, and CAFOs are among OE CA’s national priorities. He noted that some CAFOs are so large that they generate more waste than some municipaliti es. 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 la nguage makes the distinction between temporary versus permanent facilities, rather than te mporary versus permanent grain storage.

OECA has a fairly broad portfolio and there is gr eat 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 compla int or a search warrant. This is not an effective way to build a relationship. Mr. Nakayama said that he considers advisory co mmittees 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 con cerns over any Agency policy issues. Mr. NakayamaMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 17 explained that he can talk about enforcement-rela ted 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 ye ars. 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 th at 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 assemble d 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 do n’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 su ch 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 pu blic comment-based process and develops priorities based on three criteria: a big environmental footpr int, widespread noncompliance, and an appropriate federal rule. Using these criteria, OECA selected CA FOs 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 resu lted 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 mi llion 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 pr omotes 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 ma ny environmental statutes were written at a time when it never was envisioned that they would be app lied 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 regulati ons 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 th e unique nature of agricultural operations.18 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary Suzy Friedman (Environmental Defense Fund) asked wh at 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 al ways 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 th rough states or cooperative extension agents. He suggested that Rick Colbert would be a good res ource for more detail on this. OECA becomes involved from an enforcement perspective wh en 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 la rge agricultural facilities have engaged in ethanol production without a permit.

Mr. Vroom asked how OECA approaches the issue of c onsistency and fairness with respect to fines and settlements, especially when a facility self-discove rs and self-reports violati ons. Mr. Nakayama replied that OECA has considered the issue of consistency b ecause 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 viola tion. 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 progr am, new owners will be given a period of time to discover any environmental violations and allow OE CA to address the problems with consideration for the fact that the facility is a new purchase. This will pr ovide 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, ot her than essentially an affidavit that a facility is not discharging. She understood that such facilities still w ould 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 disc harging 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 expres sed his interest in Co mmittee members’ thoughts about OW’s rulemaking. As evidenced by some of OECA’s enforcement actions, EPA clearly is concerned about facilities that repeatedly dischar ge. 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 th at OECA always is focused on CAFOs. Regarding self-certification, some CAFOs have no permits a nd 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 disserve d 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 thei r 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 in credibly fruitful for OECA, generating tens of thousands of useful reports. Individuals may report an onymously or provide their contact information if they would like a response.March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 k nowledge and, ultimately, wisdom. This is an important characteristic in an individual who makes decisions daily that aff ect 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 th e Committee. He worked in the Agency as an agriculture advi sor 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 a ddress 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 beha lf 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 comm unications 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 r ecognized the need and the opportunity to address the intersection between agriculture and the environmen t 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 a dvisory 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 addr ess energy security, growing energy demand, and ensuring that our energy is clean and affordable? A lthough 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 i ssues, such as how to conduct life cycle analysis of GHG emissions and the advantages and disadvantag es of corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol.

Mr. Johnson viewed this as a wonderful opportunity fo r 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 appreciati on for the willingness of all Committee members to serve in this way. This advisory committee will a dvise the EPA Administrator and the Agency regarding the steps EPA can take both to improve agricu lture 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 pe rspective 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary Mr. Peacock, and Mr. Scholl, but also the senior leader ship 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 adviso ry 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 na ture, particularly of those in public service, and Mr. Johnson is an ideal example of the kind of indivi dual we must have in such a position—someone who will take the responsibilities of the public sector se riously, listen, and be responsive. He shares camaraderie with Mr. Johnson in this important c oncept of public participation and citizen government. He again thanked Mr. Johnson for spending some ti me with the Committee me mbers 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 st ate of the knowledge regarding climate change. In addition, a shift has taken place in this country rega rding what can be done about it. For example, carbon markets now are proliferating across the county and in ternationally, 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 fro m 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 ag ain. Adding energy indepe ndence 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 Communitie s 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 Framew ork Convention on Climate Change. This division also implements a wide range of voluntary progr ams, 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 A ppropriations Bill for FY2008 requires the Agency to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule; this w ill create an opportunity for the Committee to provide advice and input. Last week, EPA began seeking stake holder 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 draf t 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 appropriat e thresholds in all sectors of the economy.” The accompanying explanatory statement is as follows: “T he 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 downs tream sources, to the extent that the administrator deems it appropriate . The administrator shall determine appropriate thresholds of emissions above which reporting is re quired and how frequently re ports 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 Ac t ...’.” 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 pr ovide data that could inform and support the development of a national climate policy. This is on ly a reporting obligation; it is not a requirement for any entity to reduce emissions and it does not trigge r any other regulatory obligations. Congress has directed EPA to obtain information from both ups tream and downstream GHG emissions. Upstream sources include fuel and chemical producers or importe rs, including oil refineries, natural gas processors, and hydrofluorocarbon producers. Downstream sourc es include GHG emitters, such as power plants, iron and steel plants, and cement manufacturers. Among the major sources of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, the largest source is the electrical power generati on sector, followed by transportation and industry. The agriculture sector is not a major source of CO 2 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 Depa rtment of Energy’s (DOE) Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 1605(b) Program, and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Since the 1990s, EPA

has collected CO 2 emissions data from electric power plants, the single largest source of GHG emissions in the United States. Further, EPA already collect s 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 In itiative. A number of corporations have been collecting or reporting GHG emissions data and prov iding 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 In itiative of the World Resources Institute and the22 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 stakehol der outreach, and conduct inter- and intra-Agency reviews prior to releasing the proposed rule by September 2008. From October 2008 to June 2 009, 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 fina l 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 threshol ds used in existing programs, such as a distinction between large and small facilities in terms of CO 2 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 pr ogram 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, a nd 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 th e 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 u sed in its U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The United States has been a leader in the development of in ternational methods for estimating GHG emissions, so many of the international methods have been inform ed by U.S. experts. Dr. Doering argued that, because the United States is dealing with a global climate an d is making agreements a nd arrangements with other

countries, it behooves us to have similar standards. Mr. Harvey agreed and said that, under the United

Nations Framework Convention on C limate Change, the United States provides one of the best annual

emission inventories. Emission inventories across c ountries are remarkably consistent, and the United States has been a leader in working with both de veloped and developing c ountries to improve their

inventories.

Richard Bonanno (Pleasant Valley Gardens) asked Mr. Harvey to explain the difference between global warming and climate change and provi de 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 clim ate 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 adap tation 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 Coun cil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is actively engaged in such discussions in preparation for the Group of Eight meeting.

Mr. Leonard Blackham (Utah Department of Agricult ure and Food) recalled the graph of U.S. 2005 GHG emissions that Mr. Harvey showed in his presentati on 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 theMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 23 graph are based on fuels, rather than individual driv ing. For industry, EPA does not have bottom-up data on GHG emissions; this is probably the key gap becau se a variety of different processes generate these emissions. The Agency has estimated industry emissi ons 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 refe rred to the EPA Web Site, which has great climate data from the distant past, data from more recent times, a nd projections for the future. Dr. Flocchini pointed

out the vast difference between d ecades and thousands of years.

Ms. Guzman Aceves asked whether EPA includes fer tilizers in the industry sector or the agriculture sector. Mr. Harvey responded that the NEI from wh ich 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 per cent 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 r esponded that he was not fam iliar with the details of fertilizer plants or their emissions. EPA’s rulemaki ng process with respect to mandatory GHG reporting is at an early stage. The Agency must determine an a ppropriate 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 ag riculture sector captures land conversion, including conversion from uses that might have sequestered GH Gs 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 an d 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 fe rtilizer producers in the United States and Canada are aware of public con cerns about GHG emissions. Most of these plants are doing everything possible to minimize their environmental footprint by reducing emissions, capturing

CO 2 , and selling carbon credits on the open market. Ofte n, 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 ra ised regarding the effects of climate change and regulation on natural gas co sts 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 di vision, 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 devel oping regulations to adopt24 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 implemen t 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 wh ether there is a reasonable need and opportunity to control GHGs. In May 2007, EPA adopted the regu lations 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 b illion gallons of renewable and other alternative fuels. EPA began working on regulations to adopt th e President’s mandate under existing CAA authority. The Agency had discretion to determine how to ach ieve the 35-billion-gallon goal and had almost proposed this rule in December 2007, when Congress p assed 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 renewabl e 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 billio n gallons of advanced biofuels must be used, including mostly imported ethanol and some rene wable diesel meeting a GHG reduction threshold of 50 percent. The category of advanced biofuels incl udes set-asides specifically for biodiesel (1 billion gallons by 2022) and for cellulosic biofuel (16 billi on gallons by 2022 of primarily cellulosic ethanol). The EISA requires EPA to conduct a life cycle assessme nt to determine which fuels meet the mandated GHG performance thresholds compared with the petrol eum fuel replaced. The renewable fuel must have at least a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions comp ared 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 throu ghout 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 func tion. 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 CO 2 from the air. Some of the public comments received on this standard suggested that the analysis may have been incomple te. A new analysis underway now will provide a more complete assessment of both domestic and internati onal 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 r esults in little net crop acreage increase in the United States, and a decrease in rice acres and livestock producti on (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 incl ude international impacts because another country will produce additional corn to replace the lost exports fro m 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 em ission 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. Spec ifically, EPA plans to: (1) build a consistentMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 understand ing of nitrous oxide emissions; (3) develop countryspecific GHG emission factors associated with land-us e change and agricultural practices; and (4) update the petroleum baseline data. EPA also is updatin g 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 transpor ted 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 happe n when 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels are introduced into the transportation fu el infrastructure, rather than what would happen if demand were reduced. Nevertheless, this problem has three compone nts: 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) aske d 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 consider ing 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 lif e 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, tilla ge practices, and fertilization strategies. Work underway within the USDA Agricultural Research Serv ice (ARS) apparently will expand this effort through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction through Agricu ltural 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 c ould 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 requi red. Mr. Harvey noted that, as part of EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, the Agency has been wo rking with agricultural scientists to improve understanding of nitrous oxide in soil; he agreed w ith 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 decisi on is difficult, but this is the task that must be undertaken by the Agency. Transpar ency 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 Cl imate Division will be responsible for increasing ethanol blends in transportation fuels. How will we u se 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 dist ance of those stations from Iowa and other states26 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 consider ing E20 blends and the capability of at least some modern vehicles (including lawnmowers) to run on E2 0. 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 co nversion 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 evaluati ng 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 CO 2 , and it would be interesting to know the tradeoff between native ab ility versus the artificial process using crops. Mr. Larson clarified that the Agency is consideri ng 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 enco mpasses 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 rota tions to other systems. Other groups also are assessing these issues. Region 7 recently convened a m eeting 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 et hanol from corn because that is what this country knows and can grow. He added that EISA does not ma ndate 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 suga rcane 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. On ce the technology is developed and the cost of

cellulosic ethanol comes down, there will be no r eason the United States cannot apply this technology across a wide range of feedstocks.

Mr. McDonald observed that the livestock-feeding bus iness 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 th e 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 a dvanced biofuels, 16 billion gallons of which is supposed to be cellulosic; this waiver would al low EPA to reset the standard for

cellulosic ethanol and the overall standard if tec hnology 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 altern ative fuel. Mr. Larson replied that EPA is looking atMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 biodi esel at minimal cost. The oil will be combined with grease to make a diesel fuel that is good in cold clim ates. In the southern United States, researchers are studying sweet sorghum, which looks like a good altern ative 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 i ndicators were proposed for inclusion in the Energy Policy Act and only GHG emissions we re 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 th e 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 wa ter 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 in to 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 horribl e 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 billi on gallons of ethanol from multiple sources, replacing an equivalent

amount of fossil fuel. That seems like a move in th e 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 Ag ency 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 could be from around 500 to 1,260 ppm in 2100, and this could create catastrophic climate changes. The scientific community has said that CO 2 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 signe d 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 stat es have proposed or enacted legislation, formed regional climate change mitigation e fforts, or initiated market-based programs to address climate change,28 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary such as the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Re gional 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 regulati ons. 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 sustaina bility 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 us ing renewable fuels to replace fossil fuels; and (3) offsetting via sequestration through biotic uptak es of carbon from the atmosphere (e.g., tree planting). In a cap-and-trade system, the emitting sectors of societ y (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 allo wances, 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 dair y farm may implement a new, voluntary project, such as an anaerobic digester; if it is an action that the non-regulating sector w ould 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 equiva lent 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 t on 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 prod ucts, and in anticipation of regulation. Voluntary carbon credit buyers are primarily (80%) businesses, as well as gove rnment agencies (12%), individuals (5%), and nongovernmental organizations (2%). Offsets are available for a variety of purposes, such as for emissions generated onsite via manufacturing process es 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 th e world complies with a strict set of rules mandated by the Clean Development Mechan ism 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 se questration 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 “busin ess-as-usual” activities; (3) measurable; (4) permanent such that emis sions are not simply displaced temporarily; (5) independently verified; (6) unique (not used more th an once to offset emissions ); (7) transparent to the public; and (8) conservative in the assumptions, valu es, and procedures used. Additionality is a very serious test for determining the quality of a carbon cr edit. For example, a farmer engaging in ordinary, business-as-usual farming activities would not meet this standard. The farmer woul d have to engage in something additional—such as building an anaerobic di gester—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 highe r prices for their products; (2) improve rural economies; (3) avoid potentially damagi ng 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 benefitsMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 an d builds on the farmer’s investments in manure collection and storage. Environmental benefits incl ude air quality improvements, such as reductions in odor, ammonia, particulate matter, and GHG emissi ons, and water quality improvements. Economic benefits include the generation of carbon credits, prov ision 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 comm unity has determined that any such reward would

have to occur outside of a carbon market. A firm th at 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 gui dance 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 plan ts a forest and it burns, the stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Some schemes are bei ng devised to address such concerns whereby money would be kept in a fund to cover emergenci es (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 th e ethanol industry is partially explained by the tremendous financial incentive created by $2/bus hel 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 d ecrease from 2007–2008 to 2008–2009 after increasing the previous year. Soybean acres are exp ected 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, co tton, 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 c onservation 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-cr op soybean:corn price ratio for the 2007 crop and the 2008 crop to date shows that corn prices were high comp ared 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 betw een 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 Communitie s 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 cen ts per pound, biodiesel would cost $4.50 per gallon. Soybean oil recently was more than 60 cents per pound.

Historically, certain correlations have existed betw een agriculture and energy. Crude oil and gasoline have been strongly correlated, as have crude oil an d ethanol and gasoline and ethanol. Ethanol has not been strongly correlated with corn, nor has crude oil b een 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 pri ce 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 c onsumer pays for the policy under an RFS with low oil prices, whereas the taxpayer pays for the policy und er 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 etha nol, 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 incl uding land cost, which adds $15–20 per ton. The cost winner, according to calculations by Dr. Doering and coll eagues, 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 re port 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 biof uel production, one must know what is actually occurring out on the landscape and whether farmers’ prac tices 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 co rn production will result in a greater pesticide or nitrogen load, but the water quality impact will depe nd on the location and other factors, such as soil

characteristics. Effects on CO 2 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 decisi ons regarding biofuels on the basis of CO 2 emissions; therefore, it is critically important that we determine the CO 2 impacts.

Question and Answer Session

Mr. Moseley noted that DOE’s use of out-of-date pri ces for cellulosic material suggests that decisions are being made using unrealistic data. If policies are being made with e rroneous 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 th em. Problems arise, however, when such data are used by officials who do not understand how quickly su ch 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 co rn for fuel to such an extent that it creates the potential for the livestock and poultry industries to ru n out of corn for feed. He suggested that corn growers must increase yield by six to seven bushels pe r acre to avoid running out of corn and still meetMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 31 the feed industry needs and exports. It appears, how ever, 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 an d grain uses. Everything we knew about grain prices, grain production, and so on is no longer relevant. Th is is partly because the ethanol industry has rapidly accelerated from nothing to consuming a third of the co rn produced. The decline in the value of the U.S. dollar is another factor. Three years ago, Dr. Doeri ng said, he would have pr edicted exports to drop, keeping corn prices down. Exports have not droppe d 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 suggest ed 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 Livest ock Management Strategy Panel Jon Scholl, Counselor to the Administrator for Agricultural Policy, EPA

Mr. Scholl recalled Administrator Johnson’s goal to mo re effectively engage the agricultural community. This will occur, in part, through improved communica tion. 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. Ai r quality issues related to livestock operations have become more pronounced in recent years, and this pr obably 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 ma ny 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 th at they can and let the chips fall where they may.

For EPA’s programs to succeed, the Agency must re cognize the costs and cha llenges 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 co mprehensive and manageable to producers. How can EPA ensure that its programs are multimedia in sc ope? How can EPA blend regulatory programs with voluntary programs? How should the Agency identif y and manage unintended consequences? How can the Agency provide certainty and clear targets for th ose who are investing a great deal of money in an attempt to comply with an environmental regula tion? Most importantly, how should EPA construct programs that are effective in meeting its environm ental 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 Communitie s 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 s uggested 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 al so must define the source; for example, it must determine whether an operation with both animals a nd 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 respons e 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 re presenting more than 13,000 farms across the country, including 42 percent swine, 35 percent broilers, 19 pe rcent 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 est imating 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 sit es have been selected in a number of states, including the regions where particular kinds of animal operati ons 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 ro le 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 build ings. 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 lo cations 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 20 07 and will continue for 2 years. Researchers will complete their data analysis, and EPA then w ill 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 emi ssion-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 st udy address only part of the NAS recommendations, and is just one piece of the overall strategy. Modifica tions 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 asconservation 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 33 Question and Answer Session

Dr. Snyder noticed that no monitoring sites are lo cated 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 met hodologies. Mr. Schrock clarified that participants must comply to maintain their protections under th e agreement, but compliance is expected from all

facilities.

Mr. Moseley asked how the penalty is assessed, whet her it is according to the size of the unit, and

whether the owner of the animals or owner of the fac ility must pay. Most importantly, he asked where this money goes. Mr. Schrock responded that the pena lty depended on the size and number of operations. Participating farmers were required to fund the study in addition to pa ying the penalty; the penalty portion of the money went to the U.S. Department of th e Treasury, and a separate mechanism funded the study. Ultimately, “checkout” money was used from the re spective industry groups to fund the study. Mr. Moseley commented that he approved this con sent agreement while employed at USDA. He recalled the dissension within the animal industry over this ag reement, 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, a nd his daughter, as operator, were required to pay penalties for the same facility. He suggested that farmer s lost control of the status of negotiations at some point. This shows, again, why citizens must pay clo se attention to what is going on in government.

Dr. Flocchini indicated that he served on the NAS co mmittee that Mr. Schrock mentioned. It was clear that the numbers were in total disarray, so the comm ittee 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 Oper ation NPDES Permit Regula tion Development Program Allison Wiedeman, Rural Branch Chief, Water Perm its Division, Office of Wastewater Management,

OW, EPA

OW has been regulating CAFOs for some time and issu ed its first regulations in 1974. In 1999, EPA and USDA signed a unified national strategy for AFOs. Becau se both agencies have equal interests in some areas related to CAFOs, they decided to coordinate and collaborate. This rela tionship has continued and has provided many benefits. OW developed revised re gulations for the CAFO industry in 2003; in 2005, EPA was sued by environmentalists and the livestoc k industry. The Second Circuit Court issued its decision on the Waterkeepers case in 2005; since th en, 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 phos phorus, 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, 20 08. 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 in dustry, 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 ru le is viable and environm entally protective. EPA and34 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary USDA are engaged in a joint project on the developm ent 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 me et 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 co me to a facility and help farmers determine where they can improve operations to protect the environmen t, particularly with respect to mitigating runoff

emissions. In addition, the farmer could have a nutri ent 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 face d by producers in meeting regulations.

What barriers exist to a more comprehensive appro ach to environmental protection? Farms and other facilities are faced with myriad forms, regulations, an d requirements that may overlap and could even be contradictory. Challenges arise because the CAA, CW A, 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 comp lete the plethora of required forms. The Agency also must find ways to make this process more e fficient, effective, and feasible. Overcoming these challenges would benefit everyone because the easier it is to comply, the more facilities will comply.

Comprehensive Livestock Management St rategy, 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 ow n and operate a 2,400-sow farrow-to-finish operation. Ms. Chinn emphasized that the viability of American fa rmers and ranchers is st rategically important to our nation’s economy, energy, environment, and natio nal 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 othe r businesses function similarly. In other words, these small, medium, and large businesses set prices for everyt hing 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. Sec ond, 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 agricultu re and believe that livest ock 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 a nd their families. As recently as 30 years ago, Ms. Chinn’s family raised hogs outside in what ma ny would consider a traditional manner; the animals were not protected from the weather, diseases, or pr edators, as they are today. Currently, her family’s hogs are housed in climate-controlled facilities where th eir 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 envi ronmental laws and regulations. The farm has developed a comprehensive nutrient ma nagement 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 manageme nt to keep its animals healthy, the environment clean, and the farm productive. Together, these tools he lp ensure continual improvement of the operation, cost efficiency, and pollution prevention in all aspect s of the business. Ms. Chinn emphasized that she is aware of many farmers and ranchers across the count ry who care for their animals, their land, and the environment as her family does. Many types of livest ock 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 35 American farmers and ranchers in this country produce a safe a nd 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 argu ed that her farm and a publicly owned treatment works share nothing in common. Compared to m odern, 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 substitute d for large quantities of synthetic fertilizer in U.S. crop production. In corn prod uction, substituting swine manure for commercial fertilizer results in a net energy savings of 31–34 percent. These energy sav ings also can be translated into substantial reductions in GHG emissions. Ms. Chinn urged meeti ng 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 co untry. They own their own feed mill, which allows them to purchase all of their grain from local corn pr oducers, boosting the economic sustainability of their county. She asked EPA, as it considers new rules and re gulations, 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 w ith industries and other nont raditional 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 ag riculture, 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 ec onomics 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, ai r, GHGs, and public health. Far greater resources—both public and private—are needed to enable farmers to address these multiple issu es. Technical assistance through Web sites and publications can be helpful, but technical assistance through people is most important. Traditional forms of technical assistance shoul d be considered; however, it is also important to find better ways to leverage the private sector to en sure the availability of training opportunities that expand the number of people qualified to work w ith 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 so lutions to the challenges faced by animal agriculture in the Shenandoah Valley. This group has focu sed 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 ad aptive management. This should not be a strategy that simply tells farmers what they should do; rath er, it should provide sufficient information that farmers can understand the environmental issue, see what is happe ning on their farms relevant to that issue, and address the issue in ways that work economically an d environmentally on that farm. Such a framework36 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary can deliver many benefits and put farmers in contro l of what happens on their farms. For example, the On-Farm Network, created by the Iowa Soybean Asso ciation, has developed an extensive network of farmers who collect and analyze data from their farm s 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 enab led the farmers to significantly reduce fertilizer application in economically viable ways. This m odel, 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 technol ogy and technology transfer must be addressed to determine how to enhance the development, refinement, and on-farm im plementation of various technologies. With respect to animal agriculture, important technologies are t hose that can convert manure and litter into a valueadded product that enables farmers to tap into fer tilizer and organic benefits. Resources are needed to develop and demonstrate these technologies and to tran sfer 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 si gnificant water quality ch allenges for the Chesapeake Bay and the occurrence of hotspots based on the intens ity of animal agriculture. The head of the state dairyman’s association said that the state’s farm ers would face difficulties if they did not find collaborative solutions and work in partnership with ot her 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 tr ansportation issues as farmers attempted to move manure to other areas for land application. In addition, the si zeable Amish population in this area is not interested in government programs. The Forum determined whic h 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 ag reement used a size cut-o ff for operations in the project. Mr. Schrock replied that EPA did not r ecommend any size cut-offs, but cooperative extension representatives may have made such recommendati ons. 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 relate d 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 decide d to sign up for the program. Mr. Moseley added

that EPA was in the middle of a lawsuit; environmenta l groups had sued the Agency and the agriculture industry was confronting the real potential for a pe nalty. One could calculate the risk of a penalty reasonably well. The agriculture industry concluded th at it needed some protection for a period of timeMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 thr ough USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), are reasonably aligned with the need. Ms. Fr iedman 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 fant astic suggestions in terms of approach. He asked her what she would do to put such things into e ffect if she were the EPA Administrator for a day. Ms. Friedman referred to the Agency’s recently rel eased 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 techni cal 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 tech nologies are outside of EPA, the Agency still could play a role in facilitating a coordinated process fo r 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 farm ers and determine how to put information into their hands. EPA also should determine the different agen cies and programs with which EPA might coordinate to foster the ability of farmers to gather informati on, 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 y ear; 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, includi ng rainfall monitoring, training, the farm plans in case of disaster, plans in case of a spill, and so forth. Th e 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 fede ral regulations. The current head of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has taken a very proac tive, 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 cont act person for farmers who provides information on necessary permits and paperwork and helps facilitate pa perwork 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 ec hoes 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 comprehe nsive environmental systems, he agreed with Ms. Friedman that farmers need technical assistance and perhaps new te chnology. 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 flexibilit y to help achieve environmental protection.38 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 Gove rnment. The CAFO Rule, which has been batted around in the courts, was developed by the Agency, the ag riculture 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 st ate 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 wo rks, and the people involve d 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 ow ns 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 th e total number of farms, so the system clearly works. He agr eed that the Committee should discu ss 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 skir ting a major issue: What is the best way to comply with environmental regulations? Producers c ould 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 th is 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 alterna tive 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 measur es are in place that would indicate whether the standard has been met. This is a real problem b ecause 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 OE CA prefers prevention to a cure but pointed out that Mr. Nakayama did not say that the Agency pref ers 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, conserva tion 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 recepti on than EPA. It is critical, given the nature of agriculture, that we use this kind of approach. The to tal cost to the public would be much less than any alternative; in addition, it will preserve farms, mainta in their ability to produce food and fiber, and result in environmental benefits. Dr. Doering remarked that the voluntary approach work s 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. So me individuals, however, will do nothing to address a problem until they are penalized. This leads to a tensi on 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 in dustry. 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 addr ess the farm’s economic, environmental, and human problems. Some programs have unint ended consequences because they do not look at all three kinds ofMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 39 problems. Perhaps, as they develop rules and re gulations, federal agenci es should comprehensively consider everything farms are doing in terms of these three kinds of issues.

Dr. Snyder said that he once worked with the Univ ersity of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service.

When extension staff members became aware of envi ronmental 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 ow n 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 pro cess 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 w as a concern when the auditor visited her farm. She suggested that the Committee keep th is issue in mind as it discusses the c oncept of a peer-to-peer review. Mr. Moseley suggested that Dr. Snyder’s idea is wo rthy of discussion. USDA’s NRCS has a third-party advisor program that was an outgrowth of a si milar discussion in the past. He commented that, unfortunately, USDA did not make the third-party advi sory program very useful at the farm level.

Nevertheless, such solutions can do a lot to a ddress 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 informa tion had been distributed to Committee members and asked whether the presentations would be posted on th e FRRCC Web Site. Ms. Kaiser said that she was not sure whether presentations woul d be posted but said that Committee members already should have hard copies of all presentations other than Ms. Shav er’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 passw ord-protected Web site. She also notified Committee

members that a writer from The Scientific Consulti ng Group, Inc., was taking notes and would write a summary of the meeting, which will be posted on th e 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 j ournalists 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. Scho ll. 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 ye t discussed what it should accomplish in light of the information that has exchanged hands at this m eeting. He urged Committee members to be prepared on the second day of the meeting to make decisions re garding 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary Tom Van Arsdall (Pollinator Partne rship) invited the Committee to consider addressing the pollinator issue because pollinators are important species that ge nerate 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 ag riculture industry, and other stakeholders. He offered to help provide expertise by participating in Comm ittee workgroups or serving as a resource in the future.

For more information, he referred Committee me mbers to the Pollinator Partnership Web Site, http://www.pollinator.org, which describ es the Pollinator Partnership’s activ ities 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 Arsda ll 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 beekeep ing 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 proac tive leaders in Michigan facing some of the same issues under considerati on by this Committee established the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAE AP) to address the environmental challenges faced by the agriculture industry in Michigan. Representa tives of the MAEAP met with the Michigan Farm Bureau, NRCS, Michigan State University, and the Mi chigan Department of Environmental Quality to develop a strategy. The MAEAP started with livest ock 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 provi des information on the standards that producers

must meet to relieve themselves of some envi ronmental 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 th e 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 hi mself 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 sect or. He thanked EPA for fast-tracking new compounds that cherry producers had hoped would replace or ganophosphates. Unfortunately, during trials in Michigan, it was necessary to go b ack with five azinphosmethyl bailout sprays because the industry has a zero tolerance for worms in the finished product. Ch erry producers had hoped that neonicotinoids would resolve this problem, but unfortunately they flar e 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, organo phosphates such as azinphosmethyl are needed. He expressed his appreciation for any tim e the Committee might devote to this issue.

Hearing no more requests for comment, Mr. Moseley th anked the members of the public who had spoken and closed the public comment period. He then tha nked 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 41 

### F RIDAY 

### , M ARCH 

### 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 meet ing adjourns. He noted that the Committee would first explore the third area within its charge rega rding the need to improve the relationship between agriculture and the environment. Mr. Moseley co mmented that from information comes knowledge, and from knowledge we can create understanding and, ulti mately, 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 Pub lic 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 agri cultural community and want s to ensure that this positive view of agricultural producers would be bro ught 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 serious ly and genuinely believes that the best solution can be achieved through open discourse. By hiring Mr. Sc holl, 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. Enfor cement is important, but there are many avenues by which this can be accomplished. By working togeth er, EPA and the agricultural community can produce positive environmental, agricultu ral, 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 t opics, may be an effective outlet for communicating with the agricultural community. Through this Committee, the ag ricultural 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 E nvironmental 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 wo rkstations 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 th e data mean). OEI and the Office of Public Affairs need to engage with the agricu lture 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 vari ous stakeholders regarding what they need in

terms of both data and information and where th ey currently obtain data. EPA does not house all environmental data; the Agency has responsibility fo r collecting and managing about 15 percent of the

environmental data for the Federal Government. Thus, federal agencies mu st partner with one another to42 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary bring the data together and make them more accessi ble. EPA must determine how to work with other agencies to design systems and to design and disse minate a message indicating where and how to access data. This Committee has a unique opportunity to he lp EPA deliver this information. Ms. O’Neill said that she is interested in learning which informati on sources Committee members use, what is missing, and whether the information is being delivered in a usef ul 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 a nd the Office of Public Affairs would like to know what information the agricultural co mmunity needs and how that informa tion 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. Lybb ert 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 a nd Ms. O’Neill if they know and work closely with USDA staff. Ms. Lybbert responded that the inter action 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 togeth er “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 imp act 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 ann ouncements and regulatory materials to USDA for review prior to release. EPA does sometimes coordinate with CEQ re garding 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 reactiv e. 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 th e 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, ho wever, 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 sp eak to EPA, but it appears that th e Committee is expected to speak for EPA. The Committee certainly need s at least basic information from EPA regarding regulations and

relevant data, but it is not clear that the FRRCC s hould 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 indust ries. He urged the Committee to indicate what affects

the decisions of farmers and ranche rs and others in agriculture, where producers obtain information, and what kind of information they need. Helping EPA impr ove in these areas is an important function of this

Committee.March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 whethe r 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 th e late 1990s and early 2000s . He had no interaction with EPA because the North Carolina Department of E nvironment 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 problem s, rather than appearing only in an enforcement capacity. Many farmers simply do not have a referen ce point with regard to EPA because they interact with the state agency.

Dr. Bonanno said that, in New England, producer s 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 h as something to offer rather than in a regulatory context. In addition,

staff members in OPP are inaccessible. Producers, th erefore, rely on USDA for regulatory information and generally rely on cooperative extension for info rmation 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. Aske w 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 u se 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 th is 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 previ ously 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 re lationships built over many years with cooperative extension, soil conservation districts, and state depa rtments 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 existi ng connections. Ms. Lybbert asked who farmers trust most. Mr. Willard responded that, in Maryland, th e Maryland Department of Agriculture has real credibility in the field; however, this is region-sp ecific. Several Committee members agreed, indicating that state departments of agriculture are not consiste ntly trusted by farmers in other states. Mr. Willard suggested, however, that regional groups, such as so il conservation districts or cooperative extension offices have relationships in place and are likely be tr usted by farmers. Ms. Lybbert said that it would be

useful to have a list, for each st ate, 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 homogene ous 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 accoun t” 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 so w farms with an environmental stewardship award.44 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary This was a big addition to Cooper Farms’ emoti onal 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” comp anies can tarnish the image of good companies, whereas positive attention, such as a stew ardship 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 th at EPA become more involved in educating and communicating with young people, perhaps throug h 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. Ly bbert 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 youn g people have not yet fo rmed an opinion about the Agency.

Mr. Andrew cautioned that EPA is in a very diffi cult situation. If the Agency is too proactive, environmental activists will complain; if the Agen cy 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 hi s farm broadcast radio updates. He added that he trusts Mr. Scholl and that he trusted Mr. Moseley be fore 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 fa rming 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 inte grated 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 informati on to farmers. Currently, Alabama A&M University is engaged with EnvironMentors, a program of the Na tional 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 repr esented by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition are not regulated by EPA. These farmers, representing a wi de array of agricultural systems, are doing a good job in terms of environmental issues, yet EPA’s e nvironmental awards go to farms in the regulatory system. This raises some ire. To gain more credib ility with the farming community more broadly, EPA should consider a wider scope of farming.

Dr. Flocchini asked Ms. O’Neill for clarification re garding 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 st ores 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 re leased 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 member s 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 willMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 45 listen to those who are close to them. They will a pproach university researchers seeking information from experts, and they know that published literature at le ast 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. Sh e 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 ask ed whether there are certain libraries in which Dr. Flocchini publishes to which EPA can link. Dr. Fl occhini 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 know n as CRISP) reporting system, through which one can see where university researchers are publishing. Each resea rcher 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 inform ation needs, national repor ting on pesticide-related illness is lacking. Of relevance to the Office of P ublic Affairs, she pointed out that the farming community is diverse and includes a large Spanish-sp eaking 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 dissemin ated 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 confusio n over the difference between a point source and a nonpoint source. Traditionally, EPA regulates point so urces in terms of air and water quality, but states are authorized to regulate nonpoint sources. Neverthel ess, there is a disconnect between state and federal agencies in communicating information on nonpoint sour ces. Dr. Snyder noted that EPA has very useful

information, such as the most recent U.S. Greenhou se Gas Inventory. The International Plant Nutrition Institute, however, generates quarterly publica tions and recently conducted a literature review, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cropping Systems and th e Influence of Fertilizer Management,” as an information piece for the fertilizer industry, the ag ricultural community, and the scientific community. This review is an example of the big-picture view need ed by farmers and educators. It is wonderful to use an individual farm as an example, or to present aw ards to farms using good practices; however, it can be frustrating to determine how well the agriculture indust ry is doing as a whole. For example, it is very difficult to find information on water quality trends ov er 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 indu stry 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 work ing with USDA to initiate this project.

Ms. Friedman agreed with Mr. Willard’s suggesti on to make use of existing local advisors to communicate with the agricultural community. EPA s hould 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 in spectors. 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 cha nges or new regulations in the context of the other demands or regulations that farmers must address. Adva nced 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 lis tening. 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 organi zations that could help with this. Mr. Moseley46 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary agreed that policy changes are written in legalese. The information and messag es 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 welcom e feedback indicating wh en a message has been

effective and when it has not worked, whethe r 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 re lationships and partnerships, to disseminate messages. USDA’s field office staff works with farmers every day, as do cooper ative extension agents. Partnership is crucial. For example, in California, EPA regional staff member s have worked with the California Air Resources

Board and USDA staff to ensure that farmer s 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, th e “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 be tter light. For example, Louisiana State University runs the Louisiana Master Farmer Program, a voluntar y 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 overc ome. EPA’s mentality seems nitpicky and leaves the farmer with the impression that the Agency is lookin g 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 chemic als 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 unne cessary fear as a result of the press coverage. He asked if any reporters were present in room; one repor ter 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 ti me, 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, probabl y are focused on the Farm Bill. He asked how the

Committee and EPA could better communicate th e 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 pr oviding 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 regard ing 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 agricu ltural 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 47 Mr. Andrew remarked that many Committee member s 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 Committe e member receives a call from a journalist. Ms. Lybbert agreed that this meeting probably will re ceive media attention locally. She offered to provide each Committee member with a “swiss cheese” press rele ase; this is essentially a template that Committee members can modify as needed. It will include b asic 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 me mbers, 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 Offi ce of Public Affairs staff person, Mr. Ryan, to serve as the media point of contact for all agricultu ral issues; this has been tremendously helpful. Mr. Snyder complimented Mr. Ryan’s work in the O ffice of Public Affairs, noting that he is quite

effective.

In terms of interviews with the media, Mr. Scho ll clarified that, although he and Mr. Moseley would speak for the Committee as a whole regarding con sensus decisions, other Committee members certainly may speak to the press but must do so as an indivi dual rather than on behalf of the Committee. Mr. DeLeon agreed with this assessme nt. He also thanked Ms. Lybbert fo r her offer to help with this Committee and the other advisory committees.

Ms. Lybbert stated that, if the Committee forms a workgroup on communica tions, she and Ms. O’Neill would appreciate any feedback from the group regard ing 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 a nd 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 qua lity of the people representing agricultu re in federal agencies, such as Mr. Scholl. The selection of these good emissaries for agri culture 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 th an 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 regi onal offices. EPA regional offices are very autonomous; the Regional Administrators report directly to Deput y 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 how48 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary farmers perceive the Agency. Farmers want to wo rk 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 la ws and regulations but is not there to praise farmers when they are doing positive things, such as organi c or sustainable production. Mr. Askew urged the Committee to suggest ways in which regions might im prove 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 agricu lture representatives for inpu t, these officials offered many recommendations for changes that should be ma de by the Agency. Now Region 7 spends a great deal of time working with state departments of ag riculture, 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 regi onal 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 te ll 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 rela ted 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. Sc holl 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 departme nts of agriculture, and so on. They work closely with Mr. Scholl to develop the message and the st rategy. Region 7 also has developed a satellite

environmental finance center with information on a ll available grant programs, including USDA program funding, and online training. This will allow farmers wo rking in an impaired wate rshed 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 ge t 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 complia nce 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 cons ist of individuals who have experi enced EPA enforcement actions to see whether the enforcement actions have changed th eir behavior. Mr. Askew also is looking for input

from others who have had this e xperience 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 Res ources and Environment, USDA, explained that in 1862, President Lincoln founded the People’s Departme nt, which now is USDA. From old pictures of USDA’s Whitten Building on the Mall in Washingt on, 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 ag riculture 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 tr emendous opportunities and challenges for producers.

Domestic demand for renewable fuels, world dema nd for food, and urban development put significant demands on the land base. Some of the greatest dema nds are related to water quality and quantity. The agricultural community must help address these issu es. When should we regulate, when should we

incentivize, and how should we educate?March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 49 NRCS has offices in all counties of all states and terri tories with an annual budget of about $95 million. NRCS publishes the Field Office Technical Guide, av ailable through local NRCS offices and through the USDA Web Site, which shows how to correctly impl ement 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 im plementing a conservation project. Landowners also

receive assistance from the local soil and water con servation district, state employees, and other groups that partner with NRCS. Farmers a nd 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 co mmunity to work together. Mr. Mast recalled that 20 years ago Holmes County, Ohio, in which 99 percen t of the population was Amish, had an impaired watershed. The question was how to connect EPA a nd the Amish. The county received a $10,000 grant, which paid for a no-till corn planter. The soil and wa ter district formed an Amish advisory committee. That community today is a strong supporter of con servation, 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 th e 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 stakeholde rs—especially the agricu ltural community—as the original stewards of our natural resources. EPA a nd USDA share a mutual goal, to sustain and improve natural resources. Approximately 10 years ago, EPA be gan 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 Ag riculture 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 incl ude bimonthly EPA-USDA meetings. The two agencies also share technical information and conduct interage ncy 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 communicati on, EPA and USDA will be better informed and better able to achieve their mutual goa l 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 th at, 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 fro m each program office and about one-half of the regional offices. He noted that sometimes the stove pipes within EPA do not match up well when it comes to on-the-ground application of many of the Ag ency’s programs and regulations. The team was50 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary established to facilitate cooperation and communication in ternally within EPA to ensure that this does not become a barrier to the Agency’s activities. The team’s efforts rela ted to communication and rulemaking has provided a broader focus that should result in decisi ons 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” re lationship between USDA and EPA. The respective roles of two agencies are very important to the way in which the agricultu ral community does business

and to the resolution of the conflicts at the intersecti on 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 ga ining an economic advantage because they are not spending the money required to comply with envi ronmental regulations. Who will be the enforcer? Mr. Askew replied that EPA is the enforcer. He s uggested 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 unc onstitutional by the Supreme Court. From this, the 1936 and 1937

Conservation Acts were derived, a nd all programs were made voluntary. In 1985, it appeared that NRCS was forced to begin enforcing conservation complia nce. When NRCS undertook that role, it was very damaging politically. Various farm groups made the ba d 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 c op. 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 affe cts agriculture, the local newspapers call the commissioner or secretary of the state agriculture agen cy for a comment. Quite of ten 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 EP A to address a bad actor. State agriculture agencies must have sufficient information to know what is goi ng 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 po ssible, a few minutes before the issuance of an EPA press release. Mr. Askew said that Region 7 gets inform ation 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 sugg ested that, if statutes do not distinguish between a

bad actor and a mistake, the statutes need to be ch anged. This is the essence of the problem with the agricultural community; when some thing 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 comm unication problems between USDA, EPA, and the agricultural community is the top i ssue. 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 Communitie s 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 evalua ting the CAFO Rule from its initiation. A team of USDA and EPA staff, primarily considering USDA conserva tion practice standards, drafted that regulation. Many of the underpinnings of the regulation do re flect 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 wo rkable and practical in the field. It has teeth, so the bad actors are accountable, but it is not too regulatory. Neverthe less, 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 cr oss-media methods. Clearly, however, many of these tools rest with USDA, including comprehensive con servation planning. The organizations for which she works have been long-time advocates, not only of con servation 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 appropria tions process for USDA and are increasingly concerned with reduced funding for conservation technical assistance. She aske d Mr. Mast and Mr. Askew to speak to the need for technical assistance. Mr. Mast responded that enroll ment 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 th is is a serious concern with respect to technical assistance. Mr. Moseley added that NRCS is in a ho rrible 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 re called his attempts, as Undersecretary for NRCS, to increase the NRCS budget, but each year, C ongress 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 agenci es. 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 conve rsations on that topic with USDA.

Jeffrey Vonk (South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, a nd Parks) thanked Mr. Moseley for his efforts to increase the NRCS conservation technical assistance budge t. He spent 20-plus years with NRCS and also was unsuccessful at obtaining resources. He discu ssed the growing and accepted body of knowledge regarding conservation and water quality issues. By co nsidering 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 intenti ons and should therefore be entitled to an equal share of very limited con servation 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 volun tary 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 on ly 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 hi ghly ranked tool or practice in a particular county or watershed. He agreed, however, that Mr. Vonk ha d 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 regulat ory agency, he has been required, under the CWA, to produce TMDLs for impaired watersheds. This pl anning process has not been widely accepted by the agricultural community. If producers are identified as cont ributing to hotspots in an impaired watershed, it will be important to invest in a planning process th at is accepted by the agricultural community and by52 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary Agency decision-makers. He suggested that the Co mmittee 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 fo r the impairment. Mr. Askew agreed that one might wonder, at the completion of a TMDL, whether it will ma ke a difference. He said that this is why he supports performance-based initiatives that tie the on-fa rm practices to the performance of the watershed.

Often, it is difficult to determine the source of th e 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 relatio nship between EPA and the agricultural community will not require reinventing the wheel. The conserva tion districts and NRCS have worked together on technical assistance for a long time.

Ms. Bowlan commented that her farm now is organi c, but she comes from a long history of conventional farmers. She expressed her desire not to pit organi c 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 mu ch 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 st udents. Some students work for ARS and then come back to the university. EPA should take such an a pproach 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 issu e 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 not hing from EPA regarding environmental justice. Mr. Mast explained that the SCAN program is no diffe rent 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, fo r 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, althou gh Region 7 did not have many staff working in counties and universities, regional staff members do engage in Intergove rnmental 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 constraint s 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, be ginning, disadvantaged, and minority farmers.

In terms of collaborative conservation, Mr. Andrew s suggested that the USDA or EPA Web Site make available models of excellence in addressing enviro nmental issues through collaboration. This would enable producers to see if a farmer is doing things wi th a somewhat different twist that other producers could apply to their own farms. Such a Web site al so could provide contact information for potential collaborators in conservation projects. He also suggest ed 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 Pelo si’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 excelle nce, 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 interfaceMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 53 funding from private agribusiness, government ag encies, 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 substan tial 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 enforcem ent discretion. The regional offices engage in a tremendous amount of compliance assistance via letter s of warning, work on compliance orders, and negotiation on penalties. The extent of compliance as sistance 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 conserva tion practices. Despite limited data overall, these reviews showed that some practices work well, but ot her practices do not work well at all. Therefore, the Federal Government is supporting some conservation pr actices 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 Soci ety are literature reviews. The first CEAP data will be released in August 2008. NRCS is colla borating with EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration using the SPAtially Re ferenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) Model and the CEAP. This coordination en sures 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 wo rking 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 re search programs, fill data gaps, and ensure that they can provide both qualitative and quantitative assu rance 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 th at 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 fo r 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 exp ected to be returned before the budget is final.

Mr. Cooper recalled Mr. Peacock’s assessment of th e 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 Committ ee 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 th e centerpiece of the Committee’s goals. He asked the Committee members how this topic should be approach ed in the future. Dr. Doering expressed his doubt that, over the long term, the Committee could help si gnificantly 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary Mr. Moseley asked Committee members whether th ey agreed that the Co mmittee had sufficiently explored the communications issue. Several Commit tee 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 sugges tion. Discussion of the formation of this workgroup could set the stage for the Committee to consider ho w to approach the other two major topics and any other topics that the FRRCC deems important. Comm ittee 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 c ould 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 cha nge and biofuels. The Committee could focus on those areas where EPA must make regulatory decisions under th e 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 assessmen ts. He conveyed Mr. Lars on’s willingness to engage with a workgroup regarding the RFS, life cycle assess ments, 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 a nd 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 em issions, 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 supporte d 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-a nd-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 incorporateMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 55 potential externalities into that formula. In a ddition, 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 ma y move to the forefront; both rural communities and farms will play a role. Finally, she recalled the Commit tee’s discussion on the first day of the meeting of a cross-media approach to regulations. In particul ar, the Committee considered situations in which compliance with an air quality regulation could ex acerbate a water quality problem. California dairy farmers, for example, received significant air qua lity 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 Committe e approach the topic of GHGs holistically and devise solutions that do not exacerbate public health or environmental co ncerns. Mr. Moseley asked Ms. Guzman Aceves if she meant to suggest that the Co mmittee 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 coul d address the biofuels life cycle assessments more constructively. Dr. Boyd agreed that the Committe e should not debate how GHG emissions should be reduced across society because this will be legi slated. 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 mandate d 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 w ith a narrower focus—EPA’s rulemaking obligations under EISA—because this will provide learning experi ence 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 th at the Committee form two or three workgroups. The first workgroup could address climate change, focusi ng 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 ne xt FRRCC meeting could include presentations from United Nations representatives. The second workgro up would address renewable energy and nutrient optimization. This workgroup woul d 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 agre ement 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 Un iversity, and the University of New Hampshire. He suggested that this research team could update th e Committee on the status of that effort at the next FRRCC meeting. He also expressed interest in encour aging other livestock groups to contribute to this effort. The livestock industry must quantify emissions and, most importantly, identify cost-effective mitigation options. Land-based approa ches and ocean-based approaches al so 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? Fa rmers often emphasize the need for flexibility in regulations. In addition, the questions from the in ternational community regarding agriculture and additionality are legitimate. Finally, what are the imp lications 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 Communitie s 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 purp ose. 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 pr imary 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 ne w 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 fu ture. 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 concer ns 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 Administ rator’s desk when he or she arrives next year.

Mr. Moseley asked Committee members if there was ag reement 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 cu ts across biofuels, climate change, and livestock and challenges the Agency’s regulatory authority in ma ny ways. He suggested that the Committee create a workgroup to focus on cross-cutting sustainability issu es. Mr. Moseley asked if the members agreed with creating a workgroup to address sustainability an d its definition. A number of Committee members disagreed. In particular, Dr. Doering said that the issu e of sustainability is as big a black hole as that of climate change, so the workgroup would have to de fine key cross-cutting sustainability issues. This would be valuable, but the workgrou p would have to spend considerable time just organizing its task. Mr. Vroom stated that he ordinarily would not ad vocate this, but other forces outside of the Federal Government will race past the Agen cy 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 agricultu re, 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, esp ecially 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 cons idering 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 Ag ency 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 Comm ittee 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 Committ ee members would have to reach consensus. He asked

whether the full Committee would vote on recommend ations from workgroups and send approval orMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 57 disapproval to the Administrator. Mr. DeLeon responde d 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 terminol ogy. Specifically, subcommittees and workgroups

should not be confused. Subcomm ittees are much more formal, a nd the Committee would have to go through a formal process to establish a subcomm ittee. EPA has recommended workgroups in this case because they are more efficient. Workgroups ar e 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 Ag ency also hopes to gain an indication of other issues of concern to the agricultura l community and any opportunities EPA should try to capture. As this process evolves, it may be possible to modify the ch arge. For now, however, the Agency would like to see

the Committee’s attention and resour ces focused on the three issues w ith 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 c ould be one piece of the livestock workgroup’s task, but it would be useful to provide input on other i ssues 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 wor kgroup, 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 wor kgroup 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 vol unteered 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 dri nking water. By participating on the Committee, she hopes to have face time with the Agency on such issu es. Although her preference would be to serve on a workgroup addressing groundwater a nd drinking water contamination, Ms. Guzman Aceves would be willing to serve on an emerging issues workgroup instead.

Ms. Friedman asked for clarification on whether th e Committee has formed three or four workgroups. Specifically, she asked whether the workgroups includ e: (1) climate change and biofuels; (2) animal agriculture; (3) emerging issues; and (4) communicat ion. 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 overarchi ng 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 thr ee 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary Mr. Moseley suggested that Committee members volunt eer for workgroups and asked for suggestions on the process by which they might self-select. A particip ant 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 descrip tion of each workgroup to

Committee members via e-mail. Th e 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 reco rded. Those who are uncertain will be contacted for their decisions within 10 days. The Comm ittee members agreed with this decision.

The Climate Change and Renewable Energy Wor kgroup 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 Acev es, Mr. Andrew, Dr. Tsegaye, Ms. Bowlan, Dr. Doering, Ms. Noble, Dr. Boyd, and Mr. Willard.

The Comprehensive Livestock Management Stra tegy 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 i ndividual from each workgroup to serve as chair.

Mr. Vroom asked whether substitutes would be a llowed on workgroups. Mr. DeLeon said that nothing prohibits this but suggested tabling this discussion for now.

Mr. Blackham suggested that everyone be given no tice 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. Mo seley 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 agr eed 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. Othe r 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 mee tings. 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 rationa le 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, heMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 Administ rator. This did not always happen with the AAQTF.

Fourth, to ensure that the Comm ittee’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 meeti ngs were attended by an equal number of EPA staff and USDA staff, which allowed for quite a bit of im proved communication. OECA almost never was in

attendance, however, so much of th e progress the task force made with EPA was lost because OECA was not there. Ultimately, Dr. Boyd asserted, OECA i gnored 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 Committ ee 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 othe r task forces and advisory committees that did not receive feedback from the agency they advised. It demo ralizes such a group to meet and put their efforts into providing meaningful recommendations, onl y 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 meeti ng. Mr. Moseley agreed with this location idea.

Ms. Kaiser said that she had considered coordi nating 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 Ma y meeting) will be held, but it probably would not be until after November. Dr. Doering thought th e FRRCC should meet again before November. Ms. Kaiser suggested late August or early Septem ber. Committee members ag reed 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 ag reed. Ms. Kaiser proposed targeting the middle 2 weeks of September.

Mr. Moseley asked for suggestions for the meeting lo cation. Mr. Askew suggested that a regional office could host the meeting and the regional staff member s could help set up the farm tour. Mr. DeLeon said that holding the meeting at an EPA regional office w ould simplify the logistics. Experts from the region could be brought in an d 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 a nd meeting date. Dr. Doering asked Ms. Kaiser if she would e-mail Committee members to inquire ab out 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 ag reed 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 Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary Mr. Moseley commented that Committee members co uld assume that they will meet on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Mr. Moseley asked Committee me mbers for any last business.

Mr. Vroom suggested that, for the next face-to-face meeting, the Co mmittee would have more time for

deliberation with each other and to in teract 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 th eir travel vouchers before the end of the meeting to expedite reimbursement.

Ms. Laur commented that it would be useful for th e AAQTF and FRRCC to work together. She agreed to inform the AAQTF members about when FRRCC meeti ngs 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 th e 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 a nd 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 th e Committee on the OSWI Rule to indicate whether EPA will remand parts of the rule or reevaluate th e entire rule based on the court ruling that vacated

it.

 Ms. Dietrich will provide information to the Co mmittee 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 Comm ittee regarding emissions from fertilizer plants compared with emissions from other sources.March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s Advisory Committee Detailed Meeting Summary 61  Ms. Kaiser will provide Committee me mbers Ms. Shaver’s presentation.

 Ms. Lybbert will provide each Committee member a “swiss chee se” 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 disseminate d 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 memb ers 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 Communitie s 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 ConsultingMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 Agency64 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 FederationMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 Bureau66 March 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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 BureauMarch 13–14, 2008 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communitie s 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.