USDA Air Quality Task Force Minutes
Draft
3/3/99
M: Meeting called to order by the Designated Federal Official (DFO) and procedures presented. Meeting turned over for opening to our Chairman, Pearlie Reed.
PR: Good morning and welcome to all of you. This is the fifth official meeting of the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force. I think it would be appropriate if we start with self introductions and the only rule that we have is that you can say anything that you’d like to say, as long as you don’t talk anymore than about six seconds. So, Dr. Erickson, we’ll start with you.
LE: I’m Larry Erickson from Kansas State University.
SW: I’m Stephanie Whalen from Hawaii Agricultural Research Center.
JT: I’m Jim Trotter, farmer, from Illinois.
SS: Sally Shaver from EPA.
KS: Keith Saxton with Ag. Research Service in Pullman, Washington.
MC: Manuel Cunha, Nissei Farmer’s League from California
BQ: Bob Quinn, Eastern Washington University, Meteorologist
JA: John Ash from North Carolina, farmer
EB: Emmett Barker, Equipment Manufacturer’s Institute, Chicago
TC: Tom Coleman from Huntsville, Alabama
BF: Bob Flocchini, University of California, Davis
JM: Jerry Masters, Arkansas Pork Producer’s Association
BH: Bill Hamilton, California
TF: Tom Ferguson from U.C. Davis
PW: Phil Wakelyn, National Cotton Council, Washington, D.C.
AS: Annette Sharp, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
PB: Phyllis Breeze with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division.
GM: Gary Margheim, a special assistant to the chief of NRCS.
GB: George Bluhm, DFO, National Meteorologist, NRCS, Davis, California
(Note: John Sweeten and Calvin Parnell were present for the meeting, but were not available for the roll call. Kendall Thu and Clinton Reeder were not present at the meeting).
PR: Chairman Reed. We have one other official act I think we need to perform this morning. We have certificates of appointment from the Secretary for each one of you. Gary and George are going to lead me through delivering those.
Why don’t we read the first citation here so everybody knows what it says.
It says United States Department of Agriculture, Certificate of Appointment, Annette Hathorn Sharp is appointed to the 1999-2000 Agriculture Air Quality Task Force to provide Counsel on national air qualities issues relative to the Production of Food and Fiber, March 1999.
Certificates were handed out.
PR: Chairman Reed: The next person on the agenda is Jim Trotter. Jim, with your permission, I’d like to delay your presentation until approximately 11 o’clock. As we discussed, one of the reasons why we asked you to make this presentation was to provide a better understanding to the secretary, or to the deputy secretary of the breadth and the scope of the air quality issues and we had hoped that the secretary would be here this morning. He’s not here, but the deputy will be at 11, so if you would agree to make your presentation at that time I think it would be most helpful. OK. The next person on the agenda is John Beyer who will discuss the charter and the charge. John.
JB: Thank you Pearlie. I’m John Beyer. I’m an area conservationist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service out of Fresno, California and had the opportunity to work with the air quality individuals in California that were interested starting back in 1987 with Manuel Cunha, Mark Boese from your Air Pollution Control District, Dennis Tristao, Roger Isom with the Cotton Growers and Cotton Ginners. So that’s a little of my background. I have also been assigned here for the last two weeks preparing for this meeting and George gave me the opportunity to make this quick presentation. We’ll start with a few of the whys and wherefores of this committee.
Let us start out with the public law that was passed by Congress establishing the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF). I do believe there are seven new members on this task force. Under the Farm Bill Section 391, it stresses inter-governmental cooperation and oversight as a major goal for the effort. I’m not going to read this but on the second page, at the top under D, there is a lot of the direction as to establishment, composition and the duties of the task force. The Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pearlie Reed, has established this task force to address agricultural air issues. This AAQTF is made up of farmers, federal employees, industry representatives and experts in the field of production agriculture and human health. And the duties are that the task force shall advise the Secretary with respect to the role of the Secretary for providing oversight and coordination relative to agricultural air quality. So the law does leave it quite broad and open for interpretation. Moving down to the department regulations, the charter also gives further guidance to the air quality task force. In general it just gives the purpose and the background a little more enhanced than the law. We need to move to Item #5 on the second page on there. Under that the AAQTF will advise the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the knowledge of the scientific basis of the impact of agriculture on air quality. Many of you are in the research field and that is under duty A, (Strengthen vital research efforts related to agricultural air quality) on there strength of the vital research efforts needed related to agricultural air quality and that’s a prime directive. I guess duty B (Determine the extent to which agricultural activities contribute to air pollution) is very important to me because I’m out in the field working with the farmers and landowners trying to determine how are we going to implement some of the practices that affect agriculture. Hopefully, after the research has determined what levels of generation of particulate matter comes from agriculture then we can sit down with industry, sit down with the growers and determine what practices should go on the land and that’s duty B. Duty C ( Determine cost effective ways in which agriculture industries can improve air quality) is key for the field. And then coordinate research between agencies so that we don’t have duplication and we have insurance of data quality and so on. So, that’s the departmental regulations in regard to this task force.
There is one more piece of, guidance and that is a letter from President Clinton to the heads of agencies. I will pass this out for your reading. It does clarify that administration agencies are directed to work together in their air quality research efforts and I think that’s one of the tasks of the AAQTF, to insure that there is coordination of research. And directed by the President in his letter of July of 1997. .
That’s essentially the background that we have for the purpose of the task force and the tasks that are to be taken and completed by the task force. Pearlie, that is the end of my presentation.
PR: OK, thank you John. Are there any questions, comments, at this time? OK. There being none, With that I think we need to move on to the next item on the agenda and that is the FACA Rules with George Bluhm.
GB: There’s only a couple of things that we need to talk about relative to the FACA Rules themselves that you need to know and I’ll cut them very short because Dr. Ferguson would like to present some health aspects of where we’re at and what’s the latest thing that’s been put in the health journals. The first thing about the FACA Rule, is the issue or reason the FACA was needed. Our issue is, does production agriculture do something that is causing an air problem that is in tern causing a problem with human health or welfare. That is the issue. So then you separate that issue down to who the stakeholders are and you separate it into the different components and then you try and get representation from each one of those stakeholders areas of responsibility. In this case we have health advocates at the table, we have farmers at the table, we have industry at the table and we have scientists at the table. And this year we have, a little different than we had last time, we have a little more representation from extension. As we appoint sub-committees and the sub-committees do work, the work cannot be accepted by the combined body until they come back to a public meeting. So this means the public should be informed at all times of what’s going on. No recommendations come from this body unless the full body meets and agrees with, no matter what staff work is being done by a staff committee. So, with that said, if there are no questions about the general, overall FACA Rule, and if you have specifics about that I’ll talk to you individually and be of whatever service I can. Are there any questions? If not, I’d like to turn it over to Dr. Ferguson and let Dr. Tom Ferguson present what he has to do.
TF: Great. This will actually be fairly short. One thing I’d just like to reinforce is that there’s been quite a few more studies of the health effects from particulates on populations and I’d like to get some copies of those. They’re generally reinforcing the early studies. That is, there appears to be a low level effect on mortality. The difficulty still is to sort through what aspect it is of the small particulate is causing the problem, but that fraction certainly seems to keep coming up. Some of the studies have also shown that there is an oxidant effect and that is impacting mortality. If you have interest, I can arrange to get some photocopies of those studies. The other issue that I think is very important, especially as we’re hearing about the importance of working with other organizations in the federal government that are working on this topic, the NRC was involved in getting the committees together to study research priorities and that’s been in conjunction with the EPA and other federal agencies. I think it’s rather striking that when I look at the research in the appendix and I don’t think there’s any of the USDA projects in there. So, I would certainly recommend that we let NRC (National Research Council) know what we’re involved in. I think we may be reinventing the wheel here. They did come up with ten recommendations or ten things that the NRC committee approved. And they’re going to continue to meet, I think, for another couple years and this was the first of four reports. I think they’re supposed to have another one at the end of the year. I haven’t seen that. Is it out yet?
M: It’s not out.
TF: It doesn’t seem to be on the web. I went ahead and copied the executive summary there for you. Their ten most wanted list. How does the outdoor measurements of the fine particulate link with the actual human exposures. One of the other ones was, are there exposures of susceptible sub-populations of toxic particulate and what is in the particulate that are causing the problems? I thought it would be good for you all to at least look at the summary and this is available on the web at the National Academy of Sciences, I think it’s a worthwhile read.
Are you interested in any of the health effects studies that have come out? They are reinforcing what the earlier studies produced.
PW: Phil Wakelyn. Do any of them tell us anything about biological plausible explanation for what might be taking place?
TF: Tom Ferguson. My review of them is that they’re pretty much modeled after the original studies, but looking in other areas of the world, there was one from the American Journal of Public Health done in South America; another one done I think in Australia. Again, that’s been a real issue and it’s an issue for the NRC. You know, you’d love to be able to know what it is about these small particulate that causes the problem. I mean I suspect it’s going to be something that’s adsorbed on to them or it’s been possibly linked to heavy metals. It could be ozone, even, adsorbed onto those particles. One of the issues that the NRC was concerned about was that our present technology for measuring particulate we may be missing a fraction, or since we don’t know yet from an animal or a human exposure model, what it is, we may not be measuring what we should be. We may not be setting standards to protect health because we’re not sure what it is yet. Especially, they really suggested lightening up on the measurement of particulates, but strengthen the animal studies and human exposure studies. At least that was what I seemed to read. They’re recommending a lot more funding in those areas so we can find out what it is about that fraction causing health effects.
MC: Manuel Cunha. The question I have is that maybe since this is our fifth meeting of this task force, third year, that maybe it’s time that we invite or we participate in the National Research Council’s activities and give them a report because this is an agency of a task force that reports to the Secretary of USDA. This is a task force that is very important to what happens in agriculture across the country. We definitely don’t want to have bad science, or no science representing agriculture and suddenly we refrain cows from walking across the corral, you know. But I think it’s important that this task force be a part of what’s going on with that. This upsets me because I do know that there’s research going on in California for the last several years that this agency has spent about two and a half million already just in our own state and not even excluding Washington state and even Texas and even Kentucky that I think it’s kind of disappointing that nothing is in there about what agriculture has done and maybe it’s time this task force have some representation on that national council, as well as do a presentation probably to that council and let them know what we’re doing, that we are alive, and we do have blood running through our veins. And I think it’s important that we get that to them.
PR: OK. Emmett.
EB: Emmett Barker. You mentioned this relationship and the EPA and this committee. Is this not covered under our MOU between USDA and EPA. I thought that was one of the big issues was to avoid this kind of thing. As of a matter of fact that’s one of the specifics it sets out in this guideline from both the White House and then this, this communication between agencies doing this research. I guess, my question comes back to how has this fallen through the crack, between our MOU with EPA and USDA, if it has? Maybe it hasn’t!
TF: Ferguson again. I may have misspoken. I think this is completely separate from the EPA, but part of the charge, as I understand it, is to assemble what’s happening out there right now, put together and the air quality and health effects issues and I was struck, at least on this initial run through I didn’t see anything from the USDA. I don’t know what forums are allowed. I’m certain there must be a way that we could have input of some sort.
EB: Barker again. Maybe Sally you could speak to this, or somebody else. Isn’t the NRC funded by the government?
SS: Right. That’s correct.
EB: So we have a relationship there that exists contractually, in fact, if not in fact in spirit, don’t we, in this whole memorandum?
SS: Right. This is Sally Shaver with EPA. And actually Mr. Chairman, I have a person from our Research and Development Office who will be here tomorrow and I would like to share some of my time with him because he can discuss some of the, what’s going on with the NRC as well as the CENR subcommittee on air quality. I think that would be very helpful for the task force to hear some of that information which would elaborate on what Tom has brought up. So if I can defer that until my time tomorrow.
PR: Pearlie Reed. If there are no objections, Sally, we will proceed accordingly tomorrow. Any other questions for Tom? Dr. Parnell?
CP: Calvin Parnell. I don’t know whether I heard you right, but if I heard you right I’m extremely frustrated over here because as Manuel says it takes years doing research on air quality and what we hear is a recommendation that we go forward with a focus on the health effects and de-emphasize the measurement of the concentration – whoa, wait a minute. What we’re talking about here a regulation that basically says, we have a measured concentration PM2.5 and there’s some health effects associated with that and we, of course, at Texas A and M are doing work on the accuracy of that measurement and we’re finding there’s some significant errors associated with the accuracy of that measurement. And if we have a measurement that’s inaccurate and then we turn around and say, well we’re going to focus on health effects and de-emphasize on the measurement of the concentration seems a little bit illogical from this poor old Texas Aggie.
TF: Ferguson. I don’t want to speak for the NRC and I’m sorry if I stepped on anyone’s feet here. But my reading of this was a genuine concern from the scientists on the committee was that you know we really haven’t figured out what it is about this fraction of these particulate that are leading to health effects. So, we’re measuring this, but we’re not sure what it is in that that’s causing the problem so before we get too far along on that we really have to have a link with the health effects. The human exposures, the animal exposures, and they think EPA should be given more funding to do health effects work in addition to particulate work. That’s where the emphasis seemed to be, if you read through this, we’re so far along here, wait a minute – what are we measuring and why?
PW: Phil Wakelyn. Have any of these new studies used the federal reference method sampler? That’s one of the things that Dr. Parnell, I believe, is getting at is that of all the studies that were in the data base before, none of them used the federal reference method sampler. And that’s something that’s just being deployed now. We really don’t have data. You say it’s 2.5 – that’s sort of an arbitrary cut from something where you pick that number. You said they talked about ultra-fine. Well, maybe we’re more interested in that. But we absolutely, to do a proper study, have to measure what you’re talking about and know something about what you’re talking about to relate it. But if you just have any sampler that you say "has a cut off and measures something" and then we relate it with an association. That doesn’t really tell us anything. You have to accurately define what you’re talking about, which is the injurious material, even if we don’t know what the injurious constituent in that material is.
PR: Pearlie Reed. I need to interrupt. In order to maintain the appropriate order and to recognize everybody that wants to speak, I’m going to ask that you place your name tag up the long way when you want to be recognized and I will do my best to recognize you in the order which you asked to be recognized.
TF: Should I answer that then?
(TAPE SEEMS TO JUMP AS IF IT HAD BEEN TURNED OFF AND ON AGAIN HERE)
From Lowell’s notes:
TF: Tom Ferguson. The studies used technologies from the late 80s through the early 90s.
LE: Larry Erickson. Measurement and characterization is critical. We need to know what’s in it and what’s harmful. Biological material and endotoxins are important.
JS: John Sweeten. Page six of the executive summary of the NRC report calls for peer review of PM2.5 monitoring networks. There is no mention of agricultural sources or exposure. We should echo the desire for peer review and be a part of it.
RF: Robert Flocchini. Echoed Larry’s comments. We need speciation, but not at the expense of sampling. It’s not an either/or choice. We must know what we’re sampling and what’s in it. NRC probably doesn’t know USDA funds air quality research.
AS: Annette Sharp. Most state plans are already in and the public comment period is over.
EB: Emmett Barker. She hit on a critical issue. States already made plans and we don’t know what they are measuring.
AS: We’re not able to speciate yet. We’re just planning for mass measurements now. States have one year to start. They’re now in the data collection mode. We need three years to complete it.
CP: Calvin Parnell. If the measurement is inaccurate and puts an area in non-attainment, problems arise. Agriculture has overlooked air quality. States must currently plan with inaccurate data until better data comes along. How can we end up with fair regulations using inaccurate data?
PB: Phyllis Breeze. In response to Emmett Barker, the focus of monitors is on populated areas. But Calvin is right. If we find problems, we have to regulate as best we can. We’re finding problems with the federal reference method sampler.
SS: Sally Shaver. The ambient network requires 850 mass measuring sites for NAAQS compliance. We’ll have 300+ speciation sites, and 7 or 8 supersites with extensive measurements. The 800 will be placed in populated areas with little to no agriculture focus. We can deploy special purpose monitors.
MC: Manuel Cunha. The NRC report is the second of four. We’ll have two more opportunities to have input. We need to let them know we’re here.
PR: Do we need to have a health subcommittee? I’d also like to correct an earlier statement. This is the 6th meeting of the Task Force. We’ll be in session for two days.
TF: Tom Ferguson. I’d like to reiterate that we need to provide input. It is not just a health issue.
– End of Lowell Ashbaugh’s notes & return to transcript –
M: I think our real expertise here is in the sampling, perhaps, in helping them understand what we’re involved in now, what speciation might involve from our perspective, but whatever that forum is I think we have to head forward now because we’re already. We don’t have any input now.
PR: Chairman Reed. We go to Stephanie, then Phil, then Larry.
SW: Stephanie Whalen. Some comments, I’m wondering if the studies, the ones that I have seen before were mostly from urban areas and that had indicated that the particulate matter was a problem and, Tom, you had indicated that there was more studies, but it seems like most of these epidemiological type studies are being done in urban areas and none are being done in the rural areas. So that concerns me considerably since we are talking about the importance of speciation and we’re really probably talking about different chemicals. When we had the ambient air quality standards for ozone, SO2, etc. we’re dealing with single chemicals. When we’re talking about PM specifically now we’re talking about particles delivering, as has been said earlier, possibly different chemicals. I would expect very much so that the urban environment would be delivering those particles, would be delivering different chemicals than the rural environment. And I think that’s a basic problem here in that it is not typical that, at least in these standards, that EPA has looked at them as a multitude of problems. Like PM presents themselves as opposed to single problem like ozone or SO2, so, just to accentuate what’s being said here, I think it’s two problems. I had a little bit of background in toxicology and I need to go back and look at this, but it was always my understanding that when you get down to very small particles they don’t impact in the lung. They go in and they go out because they’re essentially dealing with Brownian Motion, so there’s no impact. They do not get delivered to the lung and there is a specific size range that is more probable of impacting in the airways and getting delivered. That’s partly the reason for the 2.5 micron level, because 2 micron was the highest delivery particle in the spectrum of small particles. So I think that kind of addresses some of the questions that have been brought up. But I’m happy to hear that EPA is doing some sites for speciation, but again there’s been no emphasis in the rural area. It’s a low populated area, but I think the particulate in that area is going to be significantly different than the particular in urban environment. If we don’t have enough studies in that area then, agriculture will be swept along with the urban environment for quality air. In fact, in Hawaii the studies, the monitoring that’s been done, both in the urban and rural areas, and in spite of the fact that we burn sugar cane on a regular basis there the particulate matter has always been less in the rural environment than in the urban environment. Although no speciation has been done. There’s been a couple of studies done by EPA.
PR: Chairman Reed. Thank you.
PW: Phil Wakelyn. I was interested that Sally said that they had 300 sites out for speciation. It’s my understanding the federal reference methods sampler doesn’t collect a sample sufficient so that you can do speciation on it. Of the samplers that are available, EPA chose not to accept the sampler that Dr. Flocchini’s developed that you can do speciation with. But it measures something different than the federal reference methods sampler. I think EPA recognized that, is why they didn’t use it. Dr. Parnell has done a good bit of research in this area. So, are you really doing with apples and apples or are you doing with apples and oranges when you do speciation on samples that are not measured the same. In other words you absolutely have to characterize and know what you’re measuring the sample that you collect before you’re going to do any speciation on it and show that it’s relevant to what the federal reference methods sampler is. The federal reference method sampler is used, it’s not that it measures only PM 2.5, but what it measures to be PM 2.5 and, therein, the sampler determines what the injurious constituent is, that is, PM 2.5 and not because that’s just what it measures or that particle size. In other words, a lot of what Dr. Parnell’s research is doing and what he’s talked about is we absolutely have to know what we’re dealing with if you’re going to do epi-studies. Dr. Ferguson mentioned that they use samplers back from the 80’s and 90’s. Those absolutely were not measuring 2.5. So you get associations with extrapolations from extrapolations. I don’t know what that really tells you. The fact that they are seeing something indicates that there is quite likely something there. But the biological plausible explanation of what’s taking place. There aren’t even good postulations. We have something from NRC that has a list of ten different things that they’re going to look at. In other words, it’s really pretty much of a fishing expedition that people are talking about. Sure you talk about biologicals, biologicals are part of all kinds of things. People talk about endotoxins. Endotoxins are related to a lot of organic dust diseases. But what you have on the westcoast, and the mid-west and the far west are all different things. It’s a very complicated situation and if we’re going to get into the health aspects of it, we absolutely have to be able to measure what we’re talking about and relate that before we can do anything else.
PR: Chairman Reed. Thank you. Larry.
LE: Larry Erickson. I would like to ask Sally a question. In terms of these supersites and 300 speciation sites, are things like pathogenic organisms and endotoxin and virus, will they be measured?
SS: No. We don’t have plans to measure those at this time.
PR: Chairman Reed. OK. Emmett.
EB: Emmett Barker. We’ve talked quite a bit about this issue before with our committee having to do with the basis for the science in this widely debated, discussed, challenged and everything else associated with the ozone standards, the particulate standards and so forth. And the health effects aspect of it. It seems to me we’re in a unique position to do and our charge is to help focus this on the agriculturally related issues, and I think Dr. Parnell has brought that into a useful perspective. We’re talking about the measurement’s effect in the equations that are used. I would respectfully suggest that one of the things that we try to focus on in here is what is unique or different about agricultural activities that would have an impact on location of the monitors. That would make a valuable contribution in determining how this could be or should be applied and, Cal, it would direct efforts to the kind of research we’ve already talked about that we need in agriculture that is not there. I’m in favor of letting the science and the health institute and all these other people debate which one of these particulates has caused the problem, if any, and how much of it, but I think we need to look and say, well, within agriculture, we’re accepting responsibility here. What is unique or different or special that needs to be considered as we go forward, by whomever is going to regulate agriculture, and deal with that. I wonder if our committee could talk to that a little bit, Mr. Chairman, before we break up when we leave here.
PR: Pearlie Reed. Thank you. Bob.
BF: Bob Flocchini. This discussion kind of reminds me of something we did, I guess a year and a half ago and I was asked to give kind of Air Pollution 101 to this group. First thing I wanted to correct the record. I thank Phil for crediting me with the development of the Davis Sampler, but that was a joint effort so I want to spread that responsibility and credit to the entire group. This also reminds me of a discussion I, probably an ongoing debate, had with one of the former executive officers of the California Air Resources Board and the argument settled around the whole issue of when you’re in violation and what does it mean to violate a standard. And I think that Stephanie raised the question and it’s a very valid question. Is the particulate matter the same in a rural area and in an urban area. The answer is absolutely not. I’ve done 20 years of collection. I have samples from urban areas, from rural areas, I know the speciations are not the same. That executive officer, and I won’t name him here, argued that it didn’t matter. The standard is being violated. And I argued with him and I think Manuel witnessed these arguments for two or three years and I finally learned that as far as he was concerned they were the same because the regulation says particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, particulate matter less than 10 microns. So if you had a number that exceeded the federal standard or the State of California standard, you were in violation. It didn’t matter if it was all silicon. It didn’t matter if it was all arsenic. It was violated in terms of the regulation. I think the challenge that we face, and again I’m going to go back to speciation, is important. Total mass is one parameter. It was stated that every time you measure PM 10 , you don’t know what the constituents are. You have a parameter. Total mass. What’s that made up of? It can vary. It varies day to day at the same location, it varies site to site. It’s absolutely critical that you understand what makes up that component. And, therefore, you can analyze if each of those components is injurious to human health or just one of the components. So again I’m going to go back . I think everything that we’re saying is absolutely critical, but remember when you address these two regulations, and our regulators in this room. They are faced with keeping the standard as stated. Gravimetric mass, 2.5. Gravimetric mass, 10. Researchers, however, are not limited to that and I think we still have to go forward and examine the constituents of the samples we collect. Understand what they are and do whatever we can to determine if those constituents in our areas are injurious to health.
PR: Chairman Reed. Cal.
CP: Calvin Parnell. I had a plan coming here that I was going to limit my discussion this morning. Let me give you some examples for the new members here of some of the kinds of problems we’re faced with. We had an emission for grain elevators and feed mills that was 10 pounds per ton. We had a situation where the state, a different state than Texas I might add, was going to classify all the grain elevators in the state as major sources. They were going to charge $25 per ton of every ton that was emitted from that facility and they were going to generate something like two million dollars for the state regulatory. They didn’t say that was regulating air pollution in the state. That was really going to be good because they could hire a bunch more engineers, do a whole lot more regulating and have a bigger agency and etc. Only problem is that the ten pounds per ton really was not accurate it should have been .3 pounds per ton based on research done subsequently done at A&M and duplicated other places. .3 pounds per ton and ten pounds per ton was viewed by some as saying well, that’s just tweaking of the number. Think about that. That’s tweaking of the number. More recently in a different state than Texas they have decided to using dispersion modeling, I might add, but we’re doing some work on research on dispersion modeling at A&M to determine or estimate what the concentration was at the property line of that facility. I had some conversations, thanks to Ms. Shaver, with an individual at Research Park, North Carolina. He says that’s exactly what the regulation meant to be used for and Dr. Wakelyn and I were losing our cool and having a conniption fit. For those of you that don’t understand that, I’ll explain that at the break. About using dispersion modeling to estimate concentration at the property line and saying you must be within the max at the property line. Now, another number, EPA has an emission factor that is wrong yet EPA will not change it. In AP42 cattle feed yards and we have a few of those in the state of Texas, AP42 says something like 280 pounds per thousand head per day. Listen folks at that level the elevation of the yard would go down and the level of the yards go up not down. You know that number is a bad number. We worked to find a more accurate number and we have yet to get the EPA to change it. We’re fighting over the science. But there’s some issues here that can greatly impact agriculture. And when I talk about agriculture, I’m not just talking about farmers. I’m talking about the grain elevator people and the feed mills and the cotton gins that are an integral part of agriculture. For a real life example, an agriculture process facility, because the dispersion model depicted that the concentration would exceed the max, 150 microgram per cubic meter PM10, they were not going to allow the operator to have a permit. What impact does that have? That facility would not be able to operate next year. That’s the kind of problem we’re faced with right now. We’re talking about significant serious problem right now with the regulatory process. Thank you Pearlie.
CP: Thank you Dr. Parnell. On your conniption fit thing, I’d rather you’d explain it, and not have one. This might be a good time for us to take a break, but before we do I think we need to plan to, Emmett, try to bring this to closure tomorrow after we hear the discussion and decide where we go from here. So we need to put a enough discipline in the system so that we make sure that happens. George, do you want to share with the crew where facilities are the coffee, etc.?
GB: Manuel, would like to explain the contributions from the California Group?
MC: Yes. The first thing is I, also, I know some of us talk a lot so you deliberately didn’t bring water here so that would curtail us and we think that’s the best method. So, Parnell, you and I and Wakelyn and Emmett will be curtailed because we’re not going to have any water so very good move George. I want thank of course USDA itself – we have from California some apples from one or our growers on Frank A. Logoluso Farms called Pink Lady. They’ll be out on the foyer for you, as well as chocolate covered raisins and almonds that are from one of our dehydrators. We were going to bring more, but not knowing the plane trip and the weather conditions, we certainly don’t have any peaches out yet, but there’s some fruit out here and stuff to help your self and please help yourself to it.
PR: Manuel, when we scheduled this meeting we thought the secretary would be with us and, for those of you who don’t know, when he is in this room, the prohibition on beverages and things like that is suspended.
MC: I know.
PR: Why don’t we take about a 15-20 minutes break and try to be back at 10:30.
– BREAK –
PR: Chairman Reed. When he arrives, we will suspend whatever we’re doing and enter into a dialogue with Secretary Rominger for 30 to 45 minutes. So the next agenda item will be Gary Margheim. Gary.
GM: Gary Margheim. Just a couple of things, particularly for the new members. We in the federal government tend to throw around acronyms so much. George used the word FACA – Federal Advisory Committee Act. Just for, I noticed a couple of people were wondering what that was, but it’s the act, the federal law under which we must operate these meetings. And in that regard there’s another one. DFO. Designated Federal Official. And the Chairman has designated George Bluhm as our Designated Federal Official to this committee. Each FACA committee has to have one so for you folks that were wondering, that’s what a DFO is and that’s what FACA is. OK. I’ve been asked to give a couple thoughts on the past activities of the committee. Yes?
SW: Stephanie Whalen. One more acronym in some of the literature that that was passed out,
NARSTO – It wasn’t in the document. What does that mean?
GM: I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know.
SW: National - North American something?
GM: I’d like to know that too.
SW: It must be North American.
SS: Sally Shaver. It’s North American something, I don’t know, I’ll get back to you on that.
GM: Gary Margheim. Depending on how you look at it, it’s either wedding day or a happy anniversary. It was exactly two years ago today, March 3, that we had our first committee meeting of the Advisory Committee here in Washington DC. I would say we’ve done wonders in terms of, at that time we met in small conference room in a hotel in northwest Washington and we’ve elevated ourselves to the Williamsburg Room here in the Department of Agriculture.
It was exactly two years ago to the day that we did start a journey, a journey to provide the secretary and I think that’s important, particularly for the new members to keep in mind that what we’re doing is providing the secretary with recommendations. Recommendations that he can use in terms of policy decisions that might affect air quality and agriculture. Over roughly the past year and a half the committee did meet, as Pearlie said, five times. And during that five times - and I’d also say there was a lot of sub-committee meetings, but during that course of five meetings I would characterize the outcome of the previous task force as three major things in assisting the Secretary. First of all, no pun intended, but they did raise the visibility of air quality and its relationship to agriculture, to the policy level, more than it had ever been previously. Second of all, one of the major activities that it took was to recommend research priorities for both agriculture and EPA. Those were basically looking at the national ambient air quality standards for PM 10, the national ambient air quality standards for PM 2.5 and ozone and then animal based odor. Those were the three priorities, if you will, that the previous committee established and, in addition, recommended 20 million dollars increase in funding both in USDA and EPA for research targeted to air quality. The third thing is, this committee worked very hard to develop a Memorandum of Understanding that Secretary Glickman and Administrator Browner signed. And I believe Emmett is absolutely right. That MOU and for the new members I think you need to take a look at that MOU because it’s still in effect – it establishes a broad framework for cooperation between the two agencies, departments if you will, in terms of air quality and how we’ll coordinate research and cooperate. So that was three or four major activities that the previous group undertook. Let me look into the future and give you my crystal ball. And I’d also like to say one thing about the previous committee, Mr. Chairman, if there’s two people that always agree, there’s no need for one of them to be on the committee. There was a lot of good candid discussion and there will be disagreements, but everybody respected the professional opinion and ultimately what we provided is credible science based recommendations to the secretary and not something based on emotional fiction. I can’t stress how important the words, credible science, are in terms of as this group makes recommendations to the secretary. Let’s look ahead a little bit, at least in my crystal ball. And I think, Mr. Chairman, it’s certainly up to this committee to decide whatever they want to do, but air quality certainly still is, in fact, elevating in terms of national concern, in particular as it relates to agriculture. Undoubtedly, the discussion we had this morning – there are still concerns about the monitoring. How we monitor particulate matter, but I think such things as agricultural burning – and we have a sub-committee on that and carbon sequestration – global warming. What’s the role of agriculture in animal odor. With the release of the President’s clean water action plan activities is taking on an elevated importance. I think this group needs to look in terms of implementation strategies and we started a little activity on that, albeit biased towards voluntary approaches, if you will. There’s a need for both voluntary and regulatory approaches, but making recommendations on how agriculture can be responsive in terms of voluntary programs to address air quality issues. So I guess what I’m saying, I think there’s a lot of work for this committee to do. As I look into the future, I think each of us should extend professional courtesy to and learn from others and, ultimately, the bottom line is we need to provide the secretary credible recommendations based upon sound science so he can make the appropriate policy decisions as it relates to agriculture and those air quality activities. Mr. Chairman it looks to me like we’ve got a great group here. I think they’re going to be very productive and I look forward to working with them.
PR: Ok. Thank you very much Gary. The next agenda item, reorganization of task force committees. I’m going to ask George Bluhm to walk us through that.
GB: Thank you Pearlie. This is George Bluhm. As we change committee members we have sub-committees that we need to fill in some of the slots. First of all we have three committees already in place that were in place from before. The research oversight committee, James Trotter was the Chairman, Manuel Cunha, Dennis Tristao, Phil Wakelyn and we have slots for a scientist and a health advocate on that committee to complete the balance. Do we have volunteers? OK.
LE: This is Larry Erickson. I would volunteer in the scientist slot.
GB: OK. Tom?
TF: Dr. Ferguson, health.
GB: OK. In the voluntary programs committee, Dennis Tristao was our committee chairman, Phyllis Breeze, Calvin Parnell, Sally Shaver and Phillip Wakelyn were the committee members and that represents balance on the committee. Is there anyone, other members who are interested in serving on that, we’d give you that opportunity. Manuel? Would you like to, too?
MC: Manuel Cunha. Could you just tell us what all the committees are so we know?
GB: OK. Last time we only had three committees, the Research Overview, the Voluntary Program sub-committee and the Burning. Those were the three that we had last time. As Gary talked, we had thought about and had talked in the past about having a new one on Confined Animals and Animal Emissions. Another one that comes to mind is Climate Change and another one that we addressed this morning was Monitoring. And another one that would come to mind as we go through this year, but may not be needed right now, might be Haze. So I’ll go back. I named the voluntary program one, and there is a balance there, is there anyone else that would like to serve on the voluntary program one. Bill Hambleton volunteered. On the burning sub-committee that we have, Dr. Quinn is our Chairman, Dennis Tristao, Calvin Parnell, Phyllis Breeze, Clinton Reeder and Manuel Cunha presently on that sub-committee. Are there any other volunteers? That does represent balance. OK. We have two. Thank you. The question then becomes one of, do we want a Confined Animal volunteer, John Sweeten has volunteered to chair such a committee. John, would you like to say just a few words to try and encourage people to volunteer to work with you?
JS: John Sweeten. Well, yeah, I’m always good for a few words. There are a number of issues before us and as mentioned earlier, odor is one of them and a second issue is one of feedlot dust. That was mentioned by Dr. Parnell this morning. A third issue there is the release of ammonia from manure handling in storage facilities and feeding surfaces. That also plays back into the possibility of secondary particulate formation. Other issues there that can be associated with confined animal operations are, as with many enterprises, the possibility of release of some of the so-called "greenhouse gases". These are some of the areas that they play into. One of the things that we do extremely well in the United States of America is feed animals. We’re the meat market of the world. And it is a sector that is extremely important. It is a sector that’s massive. It is a sector that provides a great boost to our economy and, yet, there are management practices in both air and water quality that need to be acknowledged. I think that there has been large sums of money spent on water quality protection from confined animal feeding operations. Tremendous amounts of public policy are being put into place at this time. There is, from the Vice-President's level on down to USDA and EPA, a joint unified strategy for water quality. There is not an air quality counterpart. Nor is the science as well developed, not anywhere near as much funding for air quality and I think that one of the things that we can do and must do as we move forward in the next few decades is that what we do to abate water quality is consistent with what should be done to protect air quality. At this same time recognizing this excellence that we have in America of producing meat in animal products.
GB: Thank you John. This is George Bluhm again. Do we have volunteers? Has John sufficiently indoctrinated all of you to jump up and be motivated? Looks like we’ve done well. By the way Clint Reeder was sick and could not come. He is in the second day of a multi day sickness. Flu bug of some sort. But, he volunteered, for your committee John over the phone last night.
GB: So Clint Reeder, Jerry Masters, Bob Flocchini I’ve got, Larry Erickson, Phyllis Breeze, Tommy Coleman….
M: Did you get Bill Hambleton?
GB: It looks like we’re going to have a very active committee there. Since we’re getting to the place where we’re talking about committees we may need in the future, but we may not be actually set them up today, I think we just would say that on the monitoring thing we agreed to let that wait until tomorrow. On the haze issue, that is sometime that will be coming up, but we don’t necessarily need to set a committee right now. And the climate change thing, we have a volunteer to come to our next meeting and present a complete case for that issue, so I just wanted to bring those up to put them on the table so that you had those on your mind. Although they’re not necessarily one of the committee. Calvin?
CP: Calvin Parnell. I just want to bring an issue here. One of my concerns is that we don’t get deluded in terms of our effort in working on areas that are not really related to air quality, air pollution and I’ve had this discussion with others that represent a different segment than I tend to represent. But we look at carbon dioxide. It’s not a regulated pollutant in terms of air pollution. We look at a number of greenhouse gases that are not air pollution regulated air pollutants. When we get into greenhouse gases and worry about the greenhouse phenomenon, we are diluting, in my view, our efforts. And we need to be careful that we don’t spend a lot of time on something that is not our charge.
JT: Jim Trotter. A couple, three issues. I disagree with Cal over here on that, about the greenhouse gases and so forth. We are also looking at odor, which is not a regulated emission at this point and, as a farmer, this type of thing does interest me a great deal. I have some concerns in that area. Maybe some opportunities exist in that area. There are not many chances to have input into this debate. And I think this committee does give us a chance, then, to have input. Going back here to a little bit of housekeeping, George. Are we going to be able to get each other’s members? We’ve had their e-mails and fax numbers and so forth. Will this be sent around or whatever? (GB:yes) And then Gary, in your presentation you mentioned that we had requested 20 million dollars in funds from the USDA and from the EPA as a part of our recommendations. What has happened to that?
GM: Gary Margheim. Jim, I think the deputy might be able to answer that when he comes in. I don’t want to upstage the deputy, but I think he’ll make mentioned of that, but if he doesn’t I’ll answer the question.
M: Ok, Sally?
SS: Sally Shaver. I think I must have been dozing on the job here. But when you mentioned the burning sub-committee, I’m not sure I heard my name, but I would like to volunteer for that as well. Thank you.
M: OK. Emmett?
EB: Emmett Barker. I would like to second Jim Trotter’s comments about what I’ll call the climate change opportunity. I feel that if this is handled properly, this climate change effort could significantly benefit the American farmer.
EB: Emmett Barker: I’ve suggested to some other people that we talk about carbon sequestration and all these sort of things for agriculture where there is an economic opportunity. I think that this committee is in a unique position to offer some good advice to look at this with a broad range of scientific investigators and with practicality from the farmer’s standpoint, and, from time to time, maybe throw a little cold water on the enthusiasm, lest we get running away with the idea so much. So I would hope that either at this meeting or, certainly by the next meeting we give a little more consideration to our role as an Advisory Committee, because I don’t see how the Secretary of Agriculture is going to escape being brought into this one way or another. Calvin, I would suggest that there must be some role in which this committee can offer some thoughts and guidelines. Because I don’t know where else a group is better formed than this group, with the multiple people, interests, and ideas we have to offer. Perhaps a special committee ought to be appointed from Agriculture to deal with this beyond what we are. George, last year, last time, didn’t we have a kind of strategic planning committee with two or three or four people that were looking to keep all of these different sub-committees, work committees tied together so that we achieved some objectives at the end of the day or the end of the session or whatever. I think I was on it, plus a couple more people—Phil and Manuel, I think. Is my memory faulty on this or did we have something?
PW: Phil Wakelyn: There were many people providing input during the day, but I don’t think there was any official sub-committee named for that purpose. However, there were several of us working on making sure that that got done and, hopefully, that will continue.
PB: Phyllis Breeze: Just a point of clarification on Jim Trotter’s comment about odor. It is becoming a big issue. Colorado recently passed an odor regulation for air quality, and it does have a water quality component, too. There are many other states that are looking at the issue, so I think it’s an important one for us to discuss.
SW: Stephanie Whalen: I also agree with Jim Trotter and Emmett Barker, and I would like to volunteer for the Research Oversight Committee.
BQ: Bob Quinn: I share Calvin’s concern about dilution of our efforts. But I also think the whole climate change issue is a big one, certainly at the national level and certainly in the political arena, and I think it’s one that we can offer some advice and consent and expertise, after we get some staff presentations. So while I am concerned that it take over too much of our time and duties, I think there’s a role that we can play in it.
PR: Chairman Reed: Before we move on to Cal and Manuel, I have one issue I’d just like to throw out for a little feedback. I would like to see us consider agreeing to, at the end of the day of these sessions, re-capping what we’ve talked about and try to come up with some kind of list of things we’ve agreed to do so that we all leave here with the same understanding relative to where we’re headed. Is there anybody that would object to us doing that? OK. So, I will order that it be done. George, at the end of the day, before we close out, we need to recap today’s events and then tomorrow, today’s and tomorrow’s events, and try to have some kind of agreement on those.
CP: Calvin Parnell: I want to reinforce what Phyllis said. Odors are a regulated air pollutant and they are regulated on nuisance standard. But I would appreciate it if all my distinguished colleagues here would quit disagreeing with me. I might add, I testified to Congress twice to oppose the PM 2.5 standard, but we have a PM 2.5 standard. That shows you how much influence I have on this issue. But one of my concerns is, if we do odor work, let’s make sure we don’t confuse regulated pollutants with greenhouse gases. I had a discussion with an Environmental Defense Fund representative one time who wanted emissions inventory from the air pollution regulatories in the State of Texas on carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide is not a regulated pollutant. Let’s make sure when we talk about greenhouse gases that we don’t confuse them with regulated pollutants.
MC: Manuel Cunha: Basically, if we’re going to do six or seven committees, the problem that I saw in 1996 through 1998 was not allowing this task force the ability to meet and to discuss these issues in a frame to get things done. Sub-committees were impaired on times to try to get together because this group only has a budget of $50,000 and the issues you’re taking on are huge issues that affect the entire industry of agriculture at all levels, from animal waste to air quality. I think we need to present to the Deputy Secretary the importance of providing the funding to allow this task force to meet. In 1997 and ’98, this task force made a tremendous impact, getting the NAAQS standard recommendations, getting a voluntary plan through, getting a memo of understanding (MOU), which, given history, you would have never thought could have happened between USDA and EPA. But our biggest problem was we couldn’t meet enough, and these issues are of such magnitude that we need to have input from the public. We need to have input from the Advisory Committee. We need to be involved with some of these other national groups that are meeting and making publications. But we do not have the resources to do that. And either this FACA group should be a part of the USDA budget or it should move into the agency of NRCS where Pearlie is the Chief. That’s the place it really should be to give us the opportunity to have more meetings because under the FACA requirements we’re going to have our hands tied again. It’s going to be frustrating, as it was in ‘97 and ‘98 when we ran into a criteria we couldn’t meet. So, I think we need to get that message across that this is a valuable resource to the Secretary and it’s going to need the resources to make it happen. Several of us do not charge the agency for our time or travel; that’s a commitment we have. Some of you can’t afford to do that. You’re farmers or private individuals and we understand that, and that’s why the money’s there. But if we’re going to have these committees, then we had better have the funding to support the committee to meet and to talk about these issues at a level of, as Gary Margheim said, credible, scientific results. We cannot rush through because we only have two hours to meet and we have to make a rush decision. We can’t do that with what we’re dealing with here. We are dealing with farmer’s businesses in this United States. With El Niño activities to everything else, we’ve got to do it right. We are going to need the proper funding and it seems that the FACA does not meet that and that needs to be discussed today, Mr. Chairman, if it’s appropriate. I think we need to figure this out with the Deputy Secretary.
The Deputy Secretary comes in.
Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture: I want to congratulate all of you on your appointment or re-appointment to the re-established task force on agricultural air quality. I think those of you who are new members already know, probably, that this is a pretty dynamic group that has done some good work and focused on some important issues in the last couple of years. I just wanted to mention some of the things that the task force did in their first term, and they certainly tackled aggressively the charge that they were given by the Secretary. The members developed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to facilitate cooperation on all the agricultural air quality issues, and that MOU was signed by the Secretary and by Administrator Browner. As a result, we have staff from USDA, NRCS, the Forest Service, the Agricultural Research service, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service all meeting regularly with EPA staff on agricultural and forestry air quality issues. So, you gave us a big push in getting more cooperation there. You also, of course, recommended some priorities for air quality research here at USDA, and that resulted in a proposed ARS initiative on air quality and the FY 2000 Budget. Now, I know we never get as much in our budgets as you would like to see in this particular subject or as others would like to see on other subjects as well. We always fight the constraints, but the USDA’s response to the air quality initiative is to conduct research to gain a better understanding of some of the processes of particle and odor emission. Whether it’s from agricultural burning or animal production facilities, additional efforts are going to focus on improving technologies to control or mitigate those emissions. The research will also be conducted to determine the physiological and economic impacts of tropospheric ozone on crop production and how ozone exposures interact with some of the other environmental variables—carbon dioxide, for example, or pest and pathogen activity. So we’ve got a two million dollar increase proposed in the research budget for the coming year—as I say, not as much as you would like, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
I understand the task force is currently working on recommendations on agricultural burning and guidance for an air resource voluntary program. I’m sure you’ll discuss which other issues you’ll want to tackle in the next two years here.
As you know, this task force was established in the 1996 Farm Bill, and its purpose was to oversee and coordinate agricultural air quality issues. At the time, the legislators were particularly concerned about PM 10, but, as you know, agriculture faces many additional air quality issues on top of the PM 10 issue. In the last two years, odors associated with animal feeding operations have become a major public policy issue in a number of states—North Carolina, Iowa, and Indiana, just to name three. We’ve got prescribed fire in the west beginning to increase in order to reduce some of the high fuel loads on our public forest and range lands, so agricultural burners are faced with increased competition for burn permits and tighter controls with respect to some of the regional haze and visibility issues. As the National Research Council studies the health effects of PM 2.5, scientists are focusing on ammonia. Over 80% of the ammonia emissions come from crop and livestock operations, so that’s one issue on which more work will occur. Other challenges include ozone and greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. In the case of greenhouse gases, we think agriculture promises to be part of the solution through carbon sequestration in the soil and in a greenhouse gas trading scheme that has been proposed by some. Soil carbon may become a new source of income for farmers. That’s an issue we need more research on as well.
So, the task force has plenty of work cut out for it. I’m sure issues will continue to arise, such as the proposed new rules to curb emissions from light trucks and diesel vehicles and lower sulfur levels in gasoline. There’s probably going to be no end to the issues that you’ll be looking at. In the past the task force has commented on the impact of some of these proposed rules on agriculture, and I’m sure that you will do the same thing in the future. But the Department is committed to improving agricultural air quality and finding cost effective ways for producers to meet the existing and, in some cases, new National Ambient Air Quality Standards and to mitigate some of the greenhouse gases. We’re depending on this task force to assist us with direction on research and in developing cooperative, voluntary, positive approaches to addressing agricultural air quality. We at USDA are looking forward to continuing our relationship with you and continuing to working with you to solve some of these tough problems. I want to thank all of you for being willing to spend your time in participating in this task force and helping us all do a better job.
PR: Chairman Reed: Thank you Mr. Secretary. Do we have any questions or comments that anyone would like to make?
LE: Larry Erickson: In animal production there is a significant concern with biological airborne particulate matter, endotoxins, and micro-organisms, and these problems are also in other parts of agriculture as well. From the discussion we had this morning, I think there may be some question as to where the research should be done to address issues such as biological airborne particulate matter. Certainly these problems are important to agriculture, but they’re also important in other parts of society; we have large wastewater treatment plants that are sources of biological airborne particulate matter as well. Does the Department of Agriculture intend to fund this type of research, or do you have a place where you think it should be funded?
Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger: You can probably answer some of that question better than I can, but we always have a limited number of research dollars and when we take on a new project, it usually means that something else that we’ve been doing is going to get less money. We’re always looking for other sources of funds and, in many cases, we’re successful in getting funds from EPA to add to our research dollars on some of these new projects. We would welcome any recommendations that you have on the best and most efficient way to do this. In some cases NIH is working on some of these things as well, but we do need to get as many dollars as we can into these new areas of research.
PR: Chairman Reed: We now have a short presentation by Jim Trotter that we postponed this morning.
JT: Jim Trotter: I’m a farmer from Illinois. I appreciate the chance to address the task force here today. A couple years ago, when I was first invited to this task force, one of the first speakers was Calvin Parnell. Calvin started speaking in Ag. Engineering language at about 100 miles an hour and then he started picking up speed. Dr. Flocchini started addressing the group in technical terms that I’d never heard before, and I thought, what in the world is Trotter doing here? After two years I still wonder that at times, but I’m happy to be here and taking part representing agriculture—the farming end of it. When I first came on the task force, it seemed to me that most of our problems were western problems, like the PM 10 issues; we heard a lot from Manuel and the people out west. I wasn’t really concerned. As long as it was Manuel’s ox getting gored, better his than mine. But now that I’ve been on the task force a little while, I’ve come to a different conclusion on this. Using some materials that have come from the EPA and USDA, I hope to illustrate that it’s not just a western problem, it’s a problem that concerns agriculture clear across the United States.
This was a study done by the USDA on the average annual soil erosion by wind on crop land and CRP land. Look at where the colored areas are located. Keep in mind where problems might be. Does this have an impact on our task force on agriculture? A number of the issues that the task force has looked at deal with livestock. Dr. Sweeten has addressed these quite well. Let’s look at where the livestock concentration is in the United States. The red areas are the highest in the numbers of animal units in the counties. Look at the distribution. I think we’d have to say this is an issue that can affect all of agriculture in the United States in just about every area. The odor issue. The ammonia issue. The odor issue goes beyond scientific data. It’s an emotional issue out in the country, and it’s dividing farmers, it’s dividing neighbors, it’s dividing families. I live right here in Illinois. Two counties to the north it’s been reported that there were shots fired through windows of a pick-up over this issue where a family was fighting internally over the possibility of a big hog operation going in. So, it’s an emotional issue that we need to address, as well as scientific that we need to be aware of in the agricultural community.
We’ve talked about haze issues and their impact. Let’s look at Class I areas and where they’re at in the United States. We do see a large concentration in the west. The question is, how is that going to impact those of us in production agriculture? It’s an issue we need to stay on top of. This is the classified ozone non-attainment areas. You can see where they’re at. If a farmer is in or close to one of those areas, what effect is it going to have on him? Is it something we need to address? I think it might be. We need research, again, and help on implementing and getting the farmers to get around these problems.
These are areas currently designated non-attainment under pre-existing PM standards. Now, I’m not well qualified to talk to this like somebody with the EPA or some of you that do this for a living every day. We do see quite a bit out here. We also know there are not many monitors in this area. So, does the problem exist there or not? We don’t know. But again, it’s an issue that affects all of us. Think back to that first map that I showed you on windblown erosion. On the PM 2.5 issues. Darkest color indicates the highest quarterly average; lightest color, a little less. Where do we see the darkest color? Toward the east coast, rather than the west coast.
I hope that in making this brief presentation today we all become a little more aware, as I have become while on this task force for the last two years. It’s not just Manuel’s ox. It’s all of our oxen that perhaps could get gored by this.
MC: Manuel Cunha: The issues that you brought up in your presentation are areas that this task force is looking at now, has looked at in the past, and will be looking at in the future. This is quite a different task force in that it is so new to all of our industry in agriculture across the nation and very new to EPA. EPA has done research in the past, many, many years ago. At times, some of the EPA research people forgot to go to the farmer. They didn’t really understand what a farm was. And that has definitely changed in the ‘90’s. EPA has been tremendous with Sally and Robin and other folks there to say we need farmers at the table. We need to look at the research. As Mr. Trotter just pointed out, we need to have everybody at the table to understand what’s going on because the task before us is so complex, and it’s so new, that research is the key mechanism because what’s out there is not as valid. A majority of it does not pertain to agriculture, from an urban versus rural setting, from a cow walking across the feedlot, from a cow walking out on a range.
In this committee process, the biggest problem we have had was trying to meet frequently enough as members of this task force and sub-committees to do the most accurate thing for the Secretary: giving him a recommendation based on solid science, research information, and data. Doing those things requires time and resources. We do appreciate the two million dollars that has now been appearing in the Secretary’s budget for air quality. Yes, it does not meet our requested ten million from USDA and the ten million from EPA. But those are processes that we all work through. On the agenda, prior to the Deputy Secretary coming here, we also looked at several major task forces or sub-committees: the research committee; the voluntary compliance program for the PM 10’s and those plans that are being developed now with the backstops; agricultural burning across the nation and in line of what the wild land fires forest service is doing; animal waste, a very huge issue from the water part of it to the air issues; haze; monitoring; and climate changes. Those committees are an integral part of what we are trying to understand in this whole complex issue of air quality. But we need the proper resources for this FACA committee to function over the next two years because Sally, along with Robin, are dealing with the new NAAQS standards. All these other regulations that each of the different states are trying to implement under their state "SIPS" to meet the PM 10 mandates to meet the NAAQS standards. We will be meeting more than we ever have before so that we can pull off the best recommendations to the Secretary and follow forward to Ms. Browner. It’s frustrating when we only have $50,000 under the FACA, but we understand the law and the regulatory part of it. Is there some part or way that maybe this group could also be involved in the NRCS program by putting the proper funds in the NRCS budget so that when the FACA runs out this group can then meet as a public forum and continue in getting funding from NRCS? We need to appropriate more funding for this group to meet because of the technical issues that merit its request.
Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger: Well, as you say, you understand the FACA limit that Congress has put on us. They’ve put a cap on the amount of money we can spend on advisory committees and we’ve got, I think, thirty-some advisory committees at the Department, so we have a tough time funding the advisory committees. Congress, on a couple of occasions, has added more money for a particular advisory committee. But unless they do something like that, we have to live within the current law. We’re always looking for ways that we can help fund some of the tasks of the task force. I don’t know whether Pearlie has had a chance to explore your suggestion for ways that we might fund some of this, but we have to make sure that we stay within the parameters of the current law. Spending money on the advisory committee out of other NRCS funds I think would be a problem, but we’ll certainly take a look at all of the ways that we might be able to augment what you’re doing.
EB: Emmett Barker: In the equipment manufacturing industry we’re quite interested in what’s taking place in California in the CARB activity out there on the diesel engines. While this committee is structured to focus more on some of the research needs, there are other issues that go on beyond that. It is generally considered in our industry today that the way CARB is going now, and probably with some support from EPA on the health effects from particulates from diesel engines, that there’s a strong movement underway to essentially ban the diesel engine from use in California. One alternative to that is to change the fuel formulation in diesel, reducing the sulfur in it. Any way you go about this, it’s going to raise the cost significantly to agriculture. Since California is still, I guess, our number one agriculture state, the impacts on agriculture would be very significant, like limiting how many trucks could be at a produce stand, at a processing center, food distribution center, how many could be on a given stretch of highway at any one time under certain levels, and so forth. If they reformulate the fuel, obviously that’s going to cost a lot more money. Who, where, and how in USDA are these kinds of air quality issues being addressed from agriculture standpoints?
Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger: We do have the Office of the Chief Economist here at USDA, and one of the responsibilities that the Chief Economist now has is our cost benefit and analysis office. We have been beefing up the activities of that office and getting some scientists involved there. Any proposed major regulation has to have a cost benefit analysis by that office, so that’s the place where we’d find out what the impacts would be. This committee’s liaison with that cost analysis group is Keith Collins. Just send a request to Keith’s office that you’d like to talk about what that office is doing.
PB: Phyllis Breeze: I’m Phyllis Breeze and I work for Colorado’s air quality regulatory agency. One thing I think we should probably keep in mind for both the short-term and the long-term planning calendar is that as we continue to gather a lot of good information and build the case for solid science for agriculture, we need to get this information out to the state air quality planners so that when they are making decisions about non- attainment areas and putting together state implementation plans, they can base it on this information. It can filter down from this group and from the MOU process so it’s important to get that information to the state regulatory agencies.
Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger: That’s absolutely important. And, I’m sure Pearlie, as Chairman of this group will make sure that all of this information gets down to the people that need it. Thanks for the opportunity to visit with you here this morning.
PR: Chairman Reed: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have one order of business that we might want to address before we break for lunch and that’s the approval of the minutes from the last meeting on August 18. [The minutes are approved.]
CP: Calvin Parnell: One quick comment for the new members: let me say that I really had some reservations getting on this task force because I spent my entire career working on air pollution. I mean I’m one of those nerd professors who has been working on this stuff for 25 years. I was extremely frustrated that we did not have the attention of the USDA, and we did not have real large funding at Texas A&M in this area either. Then when somebody called me and said, Calvin, we want you to be on the task force, my first question was, are you going to do anything? Yeah, we’re going to do something. But I had questions. And I really questioned whether coming to Washington D.C. and coming to these meetings was really going to be beneficial to the people I work with—the farmers like Jim, and cotton ginners, and cattle feeders, and people who work grain elevators. Is it really going to have an impact? Well, I want you to know that this was a really rewarding experience for me. It really was. I met people like Manuel Cunha and actually understood what he said. It’s been a fun thing to do. Now people don’t agree with me. Jim Trotter over here, he says, you know I don’t agree with what Calvin says. That’s the way it should be. If somebody says something that you don’t agree with, stand up and speak out. But we can have an impact. That’s what the point I want to make is. Take it seriously, and we can work with Pearlie, who’s providing outstanding leadership, and with the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary. We can have an impact.
LE: Larry Erickson: I was listening to the interchange on the funding for this committee, and I noticed in the minutes that the last meeting was by telephone conference call. That’s certainly less expensive both in time and money than bringing us all together face to face. I appreciate the opportunity to meet face to face with all of you, but I do think that if we’re short on funding that we certainly can at least do a lot of business with telephone conference call and that can be quite effective and I think it’s a way for us to move forward in a very positive way if we have a limited budget.
GM: Gary Margheim: Folks, before you break, I’d like to recognize Russell Laird. Russell works on the House Ag. Committee and was instrumental in getting the legislation passed in 1996 that, in fact, established this task force.
PR: Chairman Reed: I think it would be helpful to provide an opportunity for the guests to make short self-introductions.
Ray Sinclair: My name is Ray Sinclair. I’m with the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Carol Whitman: I’m with NRCS and I’m an air quality specialist here at headquarters.
John Byer: John Byer, State Conservationist with NRCS out of Fresno, California.
Dick Amerman: Dick Amerman from the Agricultural Research Service and National Program Staff at Beltsville, Maryland.
Al Dedrick: I’m Al Dedrick, National Program Staff. I work for Agricultural Research Services also.
Melvis Grey: Melvis Grey from the EPA employee with Sally and Robin.
Liz Rogers: Liz Rogers, and I’m with the NRCS in Connecticut and I’m an RC&D Project Coordinator.
Lowell Ashbaugh: I’m Lowell Ashbaugh with the University of California at Davis and I’m conducting research for USDA and also responsible for the IMPROVE program.
Ross Rodgers: I’m Ross Rodgers from the Arizona Governor’s Ag. Task Force.
Jeff Schmidt: I’m Jeff Schmidt with the NRCS and Arizona Community Assistance Coordinator.
Jim Sogelman: Jim Sogelman, North Carolina Division of Air Quality. You mentioned the odor rule before, or odors before, we just had a rule past.
Diane Vern: I’m Diane Vern, I’m with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mark Boese: Mark Boese. I’m the Deputy Director for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Unit.
Mark Boyd: Mark Boyd. I work for Del Marva Poultry Company of Owenville in Maryland and we are here for a week just to listen and see wherever you consider as big issues.
Gary Baise: Gary Baise. Lawyer, I’m am here for the Equipment Manufacturers Institute.
Bill Satterfield: I’m Bill Satterfield. I’m Executive Director of Del Marva Poultry Industry Incorporated, the trade association for the chicken industry in Delaware, eastern shore of Maryland, eastern shore of Virginia.
Robin Dunkins: Robin Dunkins, Environmental Protection Agency . I’m a team leader for particulate matter implementation and responsible for Agricultural Issues.
PR: Chairman Reed: I’d like to just re-cap the agenda for this afternoon. We have Dennis Tristao, Manuel Cunha, Ed Knipling. And then, for the three o’clock slot here that’s shown on the agenda, we want to move Dr. Sweeten up to talk about confined animal feeding because he can’t be with us tomorrow. Dr. Quinn has agreed to do that. And then we’re going to have a summary, action register kind of thing by George Bluhm, and then we’ll go into the public input and Carol will lead us through that.
DT: Dennis Tristao: I’m an industry representative on the Task Force from California and actively involved in farming all of my life. I’m active with the California Farm Bureau, Local Farm Bureau, and Cotton Growers Association. From the perspective of those groups, I would like to start out today by building your informational base, especially for the new members, of the genesis of some of the issues that led to the formation of the Agricultural Air Quality Task Force. First off, I’ll concede this: most of the thunder for the presentation I had to give has been taken out with discussions upon the importance of state implementation plans and time frames involved for those implementation plans to be submitted to the federal EPA. In the case of California, what we were faced with in the early ‘90s was the requirement for our local air districts to submit to the federal EPA the state implementation plan which would contain strategies for control of particulate matter less than 10 microns in size from agricultural operations. Ag. operations were targeted as a major source contributor to the PM 10 emissions inventory; there were local concerns in the San Joaquin Valley, but also in other areas. The dilemma was coming up with enforceable rules to be placed in plans that EPA would be able to approve and that, by de facto, the industry would be required to implement. There was a dearth of research information that would reliably quantify emissions from agricultural sources. Dr. Parnell has given comments on the reliability of emission factors presented by EPA for agricultural tillage operations, which were a primary concern in our region. There was an absolute, complete dearth of information. We could not find any reliable data which could be used that was accepted either by the industry or, we can say, by the regulatory agencies themselves. The issue was, with farm operations, when a regulatory agency is attempting to devise a command and control strategy, the first thing that the farmer will ask, as we asked, was, does it work? Does it actually address the problem? That answer couldn’t be given. When that answer couldn’t be given by the regulatory agency, the credibility of that agency comes into play because there’s a lack of respect for the program in general. We want to establish a cooperative relationship with a regulatory agency. This is the ‘90s. We’re heading into the new millennium. Industry cannot survive unless we all together address these issues in a cooperative manner, and there has to be recognition that decisions made that impact farmers are based on sound science and it’s something that we all can accept.
So, in the early 1990’s, from the agricultural perspective in California, in the San Joaquin Valley, when we were looking at the potential of being regulated by an agency that is currently comprised of individuals who are non-agriculturists, alarms and red flags came up. We see what happens with other industries. Farming industry is completely different. It’s separate from a stationary manufacturing site on which emission controls can be placed. What we were looking at was bringing agricultural interests into this regulatory arena, and one "friend" with whom we had a working relationship throughout decades since the early ‘30s was the old Soil Conservation Service, now the Natural Resource Conservation Service. The relationship with the NRCS led not only our Ag. interest groups but others into their fold. And why was that? Because the NRCS has a reputation for voluntary strategies backed up by sound science. If we review their field technical guidance, we see that all of the recommendations and practices in there are backed up by scientific research. The NRCS works cooperatively with farmers, not in a command and control position, to identify the problem, work with the agricultural interest, and come up with a workable solution. In our opinion, it was a win/win situation. It came down to how can we involve the NRCS with the federal EPA and take advantage of the local contact that the NRCS has with the agricultural interests and regions of the nation.
With that brief background we’ll fast-forward now to the Air Resource Voluntary Program. Our recommendations as presented on August 18 were an accumulation of the efforts of the sub-committee and the task force as a whole. We tried to bring forth this Air Resource Voluntary Program into the realm to be recognized by the regulatory agencies, specifically EPA and the individual states, that with agricultural operations there is a need to have sound research and to identify practices. I would also add that for air quality purposes, we’re not necessarily out there to regulate nuisances, but rather to regulate the particulate matter on which the standard is based, PM 10 and 2.5.
Ergo, this was the genesis for not only my involvement in this, but I believe Manuel’s and others that came from the western United States. Of course, as we delve into the issue we see that it’s much more, has much more expanse to it than our limited exposure and where we were at. The recommendations that we came up with on August 18 were basically a shell, which needs to be refined in order for EPA to approve the program in general and to allow states to have their state implementation plans approved, which, as in our state, an implementation plan is based upon a research program with a time line for the implementation of any proposed control strategies.
I want to emphasize these six points that we raised on August 18. First, there should be a coordinated research effort and development of innovative technology to support conservation management practices (CMP) implementation. This term fits in line with the NRCS’s terminology for what they use for conservation management practices, as opposed to best management practices. In my opinion, we want to get away from the term "best management practices" because BACT—Best Available Control Technology, as it’s referred to within EPA—is different from region to region. The conservation management practices are part of a "holistic" approach to a farm system, which I believe is the manner in which this needs to be addressed. Some activities can be controlled through engineering modifications, and in the San Joaquin Valley and other areas, they have been addressed with cooperative research efforts with equipment manufacturers. A case in point is the almond harvesting equipment manufacturers in the San Joaquin Valley. USDA and EPA should provide adequate funding to support this effort. This is based, in part, on the research committee’s recommendations. In order to get the program initiated on a national level and research performed at the local and regional levels, both the USDA and EPA need to provide adequate funding. And the industry, for the most part, and other participants can provide their support in acquiring this funding, which has happened. The policy should be based on sound science. A research methodology should be followed in whatever discipline, whether it be in the confined animal operations or whether it be in the agricultural tilling operations, if we are going to regulate a specific activity. First and foremost it has to be demonstrated that there is a problem and, second, there has to be a solution to that problem or a strategy which will actually decrease the criteria pollutant that is in question. Voluntary, incentive-based programs that have a positive effect on air quality should be supported and encouraged. Again, identifying the conservation management practices and the support programs that are available through the USDA is a win/win situation for producers to develop alternative practices to employ on their farms, as long as those practices are credible, and in our opinion, they are credible if the practices are derived from the USDA and implemented through the Natural Resource Conservation Service through their outreach activities.
One item that I wanted to add here, which has been discussed in the past with this group, is that voluntary, incentive-based programs through the NRCS are also administered through the Resource Conservation Districts. RCDs are a very active, grass roots organization throughout the United States and, in the San Joaquin Valley these organizations are becoming more active. In the past, RCDs enjoyed farmer participation. We anticipate that with regulatory activities, that it’s an opportunity for grass roots from the RCDs to become involved and establish working relationship in implementing any control strategies that are developed. Industry leadership of conservation management, development, and implementation should be encouraged. In the opinion of the sub-committee and, I believe, of the Task Force, if I can be so bold as to make this statement, for any regulatory program to be successful, there has to be involvement from the impacted industry or regulated community. I think that around this table, what we have is industry leadership in this effort. There are many individuals here who have taken time through their industry association or through personal time to become involved in this to ensure that we have developed a win/win situation. Voluntary programs must have accountability and backstop provisions to protect air quality. This issue is one in which we need the participation of the federal EPA and, by extension, the state and local regulatory agencies. Voluntary programs must have accountability—i.e., there must be an emissions reduction that can be attributed to the practices and, secondly, if the practices are not instilled, there must be some counter-measure employed as a backstop. Those are, I believe, the charges that we still have to identify, both here in this task force and again outside this task force through the agencies.
One area I want to get into now is that a drawback to the state implementation plans, from the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, has been the statutory time line involved with their submittal and implementation. As we know with the PM 10, for those areas designated as serious non-attainment, which the San Joaquin Valley and other areas are, there was a provision established for an extension for compliance to 2006. In the case of the San Joaquin Valley and, again, in the south coast and other areas, strategies have to be implemented and enforced by 2004 in order to demonstrate two years of compliance before 2006. This is a very, very aggressive program. When we talk about, in some instances, what may be a basic change in agricultural practices, we as a group I believe, need to work towards identifying those practices currently undertaken by agricultural operations which, in and by themselves, with their own merits, improve air quality. Minimum tillage is one, but yet we must be conscious and sensitive to the fact that every practice that is developed cannot immediately be implemented in the field because it takes years to monitor the implications of changing agricultural practices, as opposed to having one practice researched one year and the next year implemented and there are different conditions. So by recognizing farming systems, we can hold out operators as examples for what works and measure the impact of those operations, and lessen the impact on other agricultural operations and operators. I want to go back to the discussion on the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the time frames by perhaps going through the process that the San Joaquin Valley has used. I’d like to take the prerogative as a Task Force Member to ask a participant, a guest here, Mr. Mark Boese from the San Joaquin Air District, if he would give an overview of the San Joaquin Valley SIP activities. Mr. Boese is the Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer and, in essence, is responsible for the development of the state implementation plan for the San Joaquin Valley.
Mark Boese: Thank you. By way of introduction an earlier speaker had talked about Manual’s ox getting gored. Well, I’m the regulator who’s trying to gore his ox. I just wanted to take a couple of quick minutes to run through our process. In the San Joaquin Valley we have some of the worst air quality in the nation. We’re serious non-attainment for PM 10. We’re serious non-attainment for ozone, soon to be bumped up, I would imagine, to severe. So we have a history of developing plans. We’ve been writing plans since the ‘70s. We know how to do it. We know how to do your traditional plan and we know basically what needs to be in the plan for EPA to approve that plan.
The PM 10 plan that our Board approved in June of 1997 was submitted it to the state, who approved it and then passed it on to EPA. This is a different sort of plan. When it relates to stationary sources, we knew how to put down the rules that we had adopted for stationary sources and those rules that we plan to adopt for stationary sources to reduce their contributions of PM 10. When it came to Ag, it was like, geez, what do we do here? Here’s a group of stakeholders out there that we haven’t previously regulated, other than through Ag. burning, but we haven’t required permits for farms. We haven’t had really much interface with them. So we sat down with them early on to try to figure out what to do, and as Dennis mentioned looking at the research, we didn’t feel very confident in developing a plan as far as rules and regulations, in the traditional sense, that EPA would be looking for in a plan. So our plan contains a schedule and this schedule has to do with research, first research to identify what Ag. sources out there contribute to our PM 10 problem, and then research to identify how we can reduce those emissions from those particular sources, whether it’s equipment changes or farming practices, or whatever. So that is the essence of our plan as it relates to Ag. and we turned that plan in and I know we put EPA in sort of a predicament here, because here, again, they’re looking at a non-traditional plan as it relates to Ag. I think that’s where the importance of this task force has come in; you have developed guidelines for a voluntary program. And I think that’s going to make it easier for the EPA to take a serious look at our plan. The other thing on your agenda, I believe, is to develop backstops. If, in fact, these voluntary programs don’t work, what regulatory rules and regulations would fall into place that would make these happen. I think EPA, rightly so, is probably saying those might need to be part of that plan before we can move forward. So, I’d just like to take the opportunity to thank the work that you’ve done so far and the additional work that is to take place on the backstops.
DT: Dennis Tristao: We have another guest here, Jeff Schmidt, who is a representative of the NRCS out of Arizona. The NRCS and the State of Arizona have also developed a program that they are using to address the serious attainment status in their area. Jeff, would you mind making an overview of what the NRCS is working on in that area?
Jeff Schmidt: Sure. Again, my name is Jeff Schmidt, and if I stutter it’s because I’m really excited about this topic because it’s been going on for a number of years. Approximately two and a half years ago, the Area Association of Governments in Maricopa County and the State Environmental Department of Quality and the Mag Area Association of Governments came up with an estimate that agriculture was producing approximately 64% of the dust that was being measured in monitors, based on their models and pie charts and so on. And we asked the question in NRCS, how and where did you come up with that information? And they said, well, it’s pretty easy: you just take the land area out there and that directly relates to PM 10 generation. We suggested that there might be a little bit more to it than that, and after working with them for three years, they concede that it’s more like maybe nine or ten percent contribution. So we’ve made a lot of progress in the last three years. Initially, what the State Department said is, help us, the State Department, figure out ways for farmers to reduce their own dust. Give us ideas on what they can do. And we said we don’t operate that way in the agency. What we would like to do and what we recommend, and the only thing that we will be party to, is if we approach it from a voluntary standpoint. Let’s bring the Ag. community together as stakeholders and let them try to solve their own problem before being regulated. The state did agree to that and, at that time, the state went from a state implementation plan to a federal implementation plan. What’s happened with this process, in essence, is that the EPA has "unFIP'd us," which means now we’re not required to have a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), but rather gone back to the state implementation plan. That means good things, at least for the regulators in our state.
Last spring, the Governor, through work with the Farm Bureau and several other Ag. commodity groups, developed a senate bill in the state which asked a task force to develop best management practices that agriculture could use to reduce fugitive dust in the non-attainment area. And that committee has put together what’s called an ad hoc technical committee, which I chair, with about ten other stakeholders from university institutions and other groups, trying to develop what we’re now calling "management practices." The word "best," as Mr. Tristao had mentioned, is really not setting well and is really not indicative of what’s going on. So, we identified from across the country approximately 64 management practices that could be used to reduce dust. Once we looked at those for about four months, we realized that many of those practices were really the same thing, we were just calling them different names. Currently we’re operating with 30 different types of practices that we think could at least reduce dust in Maricopa County, in Arizona. Right now we’re continuing with those definitions, trying to get more input and, also, fleshing out those definitions of what does it really mean and how can farmers implement those.
PB: Phyllis Breeze: I just have one quick question for Jeff. Did any exemptions for agriculture exist in Arizona State Statute prior to heading down your path?
Jeff Schmidt: The only thing that we have is the Right to Farm law, and I don’t know if that’s what you consider an exemption, but that, even now, is being looked at by environmental groups to determine if it really pertains to the nuisance law, and so forth. What really triggers much of what’s going on in Arizona has been lawsuits, and exemptions don’t really seem to matter. It’s very busy work handling regulation, lawsuits, input, and so forth.
MC: Manuel Cunha: Jeff, you referred to dust. Are you referring to the State of Arizona Department of Agriculture, or the State Legislature adopted a PM 10 regulation, or did the State of Arizona adopt a regulation on dust that they don’t allow dust to go across property lines or allow dust to go anywhere, or are you referring to PM 10?
Jeff Schmidt: PM 10.
MC: Manuel Cunha: OK. And the legislature adopted a permit to farm, is that correct?
Jeff Schmidt: A general permit, yes.
MC: Manuel Cunha: OK. I just wanted to make that clear.
JT: Jim Trotter: I was curious about your comment on the permit to farm in your state. In Iowa recently the permit to farm was struck down by their Supreme Court, and it went to the U.S. Supreme Court and and was denied. Whatever happened there, Gary?
GM: Gary Margheim: Denied.
JT: Jim Trotter: So, the farmers out there lost their protection from neighbor lawsuits and such with dust and odor going across property lines and so forth . Do you think there will be any problem in your state in that regard?
Jeff Schmidt: I can’t answer that question. I don’t really know. And just a clarification. There is not a permit in Arizona for right to farm. I misspoke or misunderstood your question. What they’re working on with the Governor’s Senate bill is a general permit for use of best management practices.
Ross Rodgers: My name is Ross Rodgers and I’m the staff person for the Governor’s Agricultural Best Management Practices Committee. Basically, the law for nuisance dust was never removed from the books. It is still on there that when farmers are using agricultural practices that are needed to produce their crop and when those practices produce nuisance dust, that is not illegal and cannot be made illegal. However, with Senate Bill 1427 that Jeff spoke about earlier, the Committee has to determine best management practices; that is, I think, what Mr. Cunha is discussing as a general permit. The committee’s job is to develop some type of implementation that will reduce PM 10 with tillage practices, harvesting methods, and non-crop land farm roads. A lot of discussion is going on about what non-crop land is now. Is that range land? Is that feedlots? So, the bill fairly open. It does not say that there is actually a general permit on the Statute itself. That’s the committee’s job to determine what they want to do.
MC: Manuel Cunha: The question to you, sir, is, are your best management practices—and you’ve mentioned 30 of these—based upon the sound science that applies to your area, upon research that has been dedicated to conditions in Maricopa County, which is a heavy clay soil, as I believe, and quite different. Also, the rural communities have been taken over by a great deal of urbanization. Have your 30 control measures that you’re recommending for these farmers to take been based on science that pertains to the conditions in your area, or have you taken science from Kansas or something else that you think might work there and that’s one of your best management practices?
Ross Rodgers: The research is very tough to come by. I’ve searched everywhere, and I’m definitely a rookie at this, but it is very tough. And maybe Jeff, as the soil scientist, can address what exactly has been done for specific areas. Because I know, even within the non-attainment area, the soil changes from west valley to east valley in Maricopa County.
Jeff Schmidt: Easy answer: no. It’s not based on good research science because a lot of it doesn’t exist on some of the practices that we’re proposing. What we will propose with some of the management practices in addition to that is these are the practices that we think can help reduce dust. But we need further research on them. And I would say, Mr. Cunha, that probably no matter how many conservation practices there are in the end, a great majority will need further research.
PW: Phil Wakelyn: You say the best management practices are not based on sound science at the present time, but they will be required, even though they’re not based on sound science, as part of a best management practice, which, even though you may use semantics and say that’s not a permit to farm, it is, in fact, a permit to farm because you’re requiring best management practices that haven’t been established on sound science. And what we’re trying to do as a committee, and I think as Dennis laid out, is that with the dearth of information in these areas, we need to develop information so that you can come up with a sound plan, because just requiring a farmer to do all of these things may have no impact at all on controlling the dust that you want to control, and you have to demonstrate that first. I think that’s what the task force is trying to do: come up with guidelines that will allow you to develop a sound plan before you actually require farmers to do things that you don’t know have any impact at all. There has to be some sort of scientific basis for it.
Ross Rodgers: I really appreciate your comments. I think that the process is still very open at this time. None of the best management practices has been even approved by the committee yet. All of them are still in draft form. We’re really looking to see what the committee wants out of this. It was their job, as appointed by the governor, to come up with what they feel is best. Five of the ten members are farmers. It’s going to be their duty to say what they want and what they feel is best for Maricopa County. I don’t want to leave the impression that Jeff or NRCS are saying they can use only these thirty management practices because they haven’t. They’ve just really been trying to gather as much information as possible, which is tough at this time.
MC: Manuel Cunha: Mr. Rodgers, is it possible to get to Mr. George Bluhm a copy of your draft proposals that you’re looking at so we as a task force will have an opportunity to look at and see where you folks are coming from? We may also give some assistance to your committee on some of the things that many of the states have done work on, and that would also, I think, work with EPA.
Ross Rodgers: Yes, sir. I think the Governor’s Committee in Arizona is really looking for input, so we would try to make whatever we can available to try and get as much expertise as we can. Definitely.
DT: Dennis Tristao: If there are no further questions, what I’d like to lead into for concluding remarks here is that one of the issues that agriculture has to face every day, within each of our respective industries, is that of perception. The worst thing that could happen to this industry, in my opinion, is that we are regulated with penalty provisions as backstop based on perception and not on sound science. Wouldn’t it be a travesty of justice if a farmer were fined for emitting dust from performing a tillage practice on a windy day and sentenced to some sort of fine or penalty action, when his activity in reality was having no impact whatsoever upon the air quality within his generalized region. That’s one of the fundamental aspects that I believe we as a task force are charged to address. There are individual rights vs. the public health, and any provisions that call for penalties have to be based on sound science, not on perception. The terms "dust" and "PM 10" often get used interchangeably. In California we’ve had a tremendous issue with distinguishing that fact. That it’s not dust we’re trying to regulate, but rather the fine particulate matter, both coarse and fine fraction. And, finally, I’d like to throw out to this group that there are voluntary programs out there that are well intended that have funding that perhaps the Ag. industry could utilize. One of those that I’ve run across recently has been the Ag. Star Program, where control of greenhouse gases, methane, is a co-generation component of that which is being proposed for confined animal operations. I don’t propose to be an expert in that field by any means, but it’s programs like that, where there is an economic incentive backed in part by assistance from the regulating agency or advising agency, that help put these activities into place without the financial burden being completely put upon the farm operator, who yesterday was doing what was completely legal, but yet today is suddenly faced with what, in many cases, could be a drastic change in operations that could impact him financially. That concludes my presentation today.
EB: Emmett Barker: Regarding your point of the unhappy situation if a farmer found himself being exposed to fines for a cultural or farming practice: I was under the impression that the South Coast Air Basin already had regulations that had all of those elements in it. I don’t know if anyone has been fined yet or not, particularly on that, but don’t they have regulations that if the plume from your feed grinding operation exceeds 12 feet in the air you have to stop, or if the amount of dust crossing a boundary from tillage operationexceeds certain amounts? You have to do this or you can be fined. What is the status there? Aren’t we already there in that area?
DT: Dennis Tristao: I can’t claim to be an expert on the regulatory activities in the south coast, but I can give you a farmer’s perspective of what was applied in that region, which again, is a genesis for the effort to obtain research funding. They had the no tillage provision of their Rule 403 PM 10, which stated that on days when the wind speed exceeded 20 miles per hour, you could not perform a tillage operation. This was in the Coachella Region. In my opinion, there was no research data that backed up the assumptions made from that, other than there was windblown dust, dust occurring during those times, and that it was felt that that was impacting the ambient air quality. Now, that being said, I’m guilty of presenting a bias to this group.
MC: Manuel Cunha: The south coast has definitely changed some of their plans and strategies to go with an enforcement direction and a permit to farm concept has been taken off the agenda. And they have met now with their Ag. Groups and farmers to help through the NRCS voluntary program approach. If we do the voluntary program approach in the south coast, what are the backstops if a farmer is found to be in violation? The thing going across the road is still a discussion of what really goes across the road, and that is still an item of importance to the farmers. But they have changed their first plan of attack which was to make them do all of these things. Now they’ve found out, they need the science. So there’s been a bit of a change of direction, basically because of what this task force has been doing over the last year and a half.
AS: Annette Sharp: I just wanted to make sure that you’re aware that there’s some assistance out there for small business owners that’s funded by each state department air quality program called small business assistance program. I cannot speak for how it operates in every state, but in Louisiana we have engineers who were hired in our small business assistance program. They are not enforcement people. They are your personal consultants, if you will. These folks in our state write permits for small business people. They help them fill out emission reports. If there is a problem where you don’t understand a particular regulation or you want to make sure you’re involved in the talks that go on, you get in touch with the small business assistance people. And, secondly, as a person that writes state implementation plans, I hear routinely from the refinery industry and I hear routinely from our chemical industry. I never hear from anybody else. And so, I’m just suggesting that you also get in touch with the individuals who are writing your state implementation plan and say, "We’re out here, we want to be involved in your process, let us know." We have mailing lists of people to whom we try to send copies of our SIPs, and to whom we make sure are at the table when we’re making regulations. So, I just ask you to please take advantage of what’s out there for you.
DT: Dennis Tristao: I know I did conclude my remarks, but one item that I feel is necessary for this group is that, remember, the impacted individuals, in these areas that are in serious non-attainment are farmers. Farmers, historically, have not been receptive to calls that we’re from the government and we’re here to help you. And I use that term. And I apologize to the group for being flippant, but the point in question is, for the agricultural industry to accept any type of change in their method of operation, it has to be demonstrated to them that it is profitable, that it will work, and that there is an effect from it that’s beneficial overall. The citizen who has the farm, who we’re asking if it comes to that point to implement a practice, is the one who has his livelihood at stake, as we sit here around the table. I work for a farming operation and my livelihood depends on the profitability of that and sustainability of that operation. But we have to remember that what we decide here ultimately impacts the livelihood of these individuals. It’s not as if we can go back to our office and work on the next project. The individuals that we’re representing here in farming have to live with the decisions that are made with the regulatory agencies. And one of the examples that I constantly fear is that while we make good intentioned decisions or recommendations, there can be a loss in the spirit behind the provision when it gets down to the field level, whether it be with the enforcement officer or other implementing individual or agency. That’s why there was acceptance of NRCS because if a practice is brought down to the field level, there is a cooperative atmosphere where you’re working with an agriculturist, as opposed to an individual who is three generations removed from the farm who grew up in some urban area that doesn’t have any understanding of what you’re working with in Ag. That’s a personal viewpoint, but I share that so that we keep our focus on the issue at hand, which right now is particularly in those areas in serious non-attainment that are being forced by statutory timelines to develop practices that will alter their farming operation in order to meet attainment. It’s statutory in nature. Most of the serious non-attainment areas are "behind the eight ball" already. That’s why there’s such an emphasis on research occurring now to address those areas where the precedent is being set. That includes Arizona, California, Nevada, and Washington. Before I conclude, I particularly wanted to give credit to Dr. Saxton and his program in Washington State where they were able to utilize the conservation reserve program to alleviate the windblown particulate matter issue in that area. I think that’s an excellent use of an existing government program.
EB: Emmett Barker: I wonder if somebody from your organization, or maybe Sally’s side of things could provide a little additional information. We talk about our desires to be the voluntary approach and hear the outlines of the things we could do and this committee could do. But I believe there is some valley dairyman sitting in jail right now who violated the Clean Water Act out there. Now what does it take to get a voluntary program?
EB: Emmett Barker: One moment away from the air side of it to the water side of it and you had that experience in California. Is that a fair… to kind of flesh out this whole thing, what we’re talking about, the end consequences of this as an alternative to volunteering?
PR: Chairman Reed: Yes sir, it is fair. But, I would suggest that we put that on the agenda for another day to give us an opportunity to adequately prepare so that we can talk about it. Sally, would you concur with that? Okay. Do we have your permission Emmett? Okay.
CP: Calvin Parnell: I want to commend Dennis on this concept of voluntary program as a systems approach, or some people call a holistic approach, because what Dennis described is the real world. Individual farmers are not going to come to you or to the Small Business Assistance Program for assistance, but potentially will go to the NRCS people to interact with them. Chief Reed and George Bluhm and others have set up a program, in which I participated last fall, to try to bring the knowledge base of the NRCS engineers to a level where they can provide assistance to farmers throughout the U.S., and this opportunity may then provide that link you’re talking about. Or maybe the NRCS person will come in and work with your agency on a shift.
One other point I want to make for those around the table not accustomed to it: all this discussion about dust and good science is referring to emission factors. They take those emission factors, such as so much PM 10 per unit area, and multiply by the total area of the entire state. Therefore, if they are off by 25% or maybe 50% (though I think they’re off by maybe 200 or 300%), and you multiply that times a million acres, you end up with a very large number. During a SIP, you have to do that. You have no choice. The fact is, I’m working with the TNRCC (Texas Natural Resource ? Commission) right now to try to come up with some emissions inventory in the state of Texas. Even today, I’m using some of Bob Flocchini’s numbers because he’s got the best data since he’s done some research on it, but it’s difficult to get good numbers. I applaud you, Jeff from Arizona for doing an excellent job of pointing that out.
PW: Phil Wakelyn: What Calvin’s referring to is that when people say, "We’ll just use the best available science," but there is no science, then they make default assumptions. The default assumption comes out with agriculture being 35 to 50%, when in fact you get some data and you find out it’s 5 or 10%. That’s exactly why we keep stressing that research, research, research is what we need to answer some of these questions and take a proper approach. And we need NRCS then to take this research and implement it to help the farmer. And, that’s exactly why most of us are here, I hope.
PR: Chairman Reed: Let me just add to the record that the science that supports our field office technical guide really came out of research from the Land Grant Institutions and ARS.
LE: Larry Erickson: I’ve been working in other areas with EPA, and over the last 10 or 15 years, I’ve seen a significant move where EPA has come to the realization that pollution prevention, waste minimization, total quality management, and environmental audits that help people to improve their operations are quite effective in terms of developing environmental progress. This concept of working with farmers in a voluntary way makes a lot of sense, and I certainly think that we should try to make it work. I fully agree with the need to have good science as the base for this, but we need also a very valuable and important technology transfer program. The average farmer doesn’t read the research journals and doesn’t go on the Internet to get all of the information. They don’t have time to do all of that, so as we develop the science, we need an effective technology transfer program to get the information out to the people who will make use of it as well.
MC: Manuel Cunha: Some of you may have this, the September 4, 1998, document that was done on February 27, 1998, to deal with the research objective that went forward to Secretary Glickman, and which focused specifically on the three areas that we were focusing on. The first and most important thing that I think Dennis brought up was that in 1997, when this task force met, we decided most important priority was to deal with those states that were under non-attainment, a serious non-attainment status and those that were going from moderate to serious non-attainment because they had strict deadline dates that were in the Clean Air Act of ’90. We decided one of our number one research priorities was to deal with PM 10 and 2.5 in that relationship. The second most important thing back then was the new NAAQS standards, and specifically PM 2.5 itself. What they came out with that we commented on and presented that to the Secretary; what we felt needed to be said in that type of standard. And our concerns that we had on what we’ve seen out there in research. The third priority was to deal with the animal waste odor issue, which has a combination in itself of animal wastewater, air, related to the ammonia.
Those of you who are new task force members and those of you who work for air agencies, and those of you who are farmers, what you’ve put on your plate, one, two, three, are astronomical projects requiring a huge amount of work and cost. But those three items, to me, are the most important things before us on the research needs. I understand about the other areas that we talked about, like the regional haze. But we’ve got some extension on that. We’ve got the greenhouse gases. But right now, we do have a mandate under the Federal Clean Air Act of ’90, and there are four states under siege with being serious non-attainment. With the new NAAQS standards and the monitors that Sally talked about, we have to be a part of that. But to do this, it’s going to take funding. That’s what you folks recommended last year in this report, $20 million from USDA and $20 million from EPA. Now, we do know what’s in the budget, and we saw $2 million in the budget for the year 2000. So, we have that money that has been put in through the President’s budget. However, we do not have all of those institutions across the country geared up to even do the research. We probably have four or five institutions that are really tuned to do PM 10 and 2.5 research, and to take and do the research because there’s a big difference. For a stationary source, you hook the monitor on the stack, and no matter if