envirohorse@yahoo.com online www.californiastatehorsemen.com/envirohorse
May 1, 2001
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Proposed Rule
USEPA Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20460
Re: Horses and Proposed Regulation for CAFOs and NPDES
Gentlepeople,
We understand that it is the intention of the USDA/EPA to clarify and improve implementation of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO see EPA 833-F-00-016) requirements in order to provide better environmental protection, primarily by including some of the larger food production Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) under the umbrella of CAFOs. Changes are also proposed in the two regulatory programs enforcing CAFOs that pertain to livestock and poultry operations: the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG). Comment is requested on either a two-tier or three-tier definition of CAFO.
The focal point of this extensive effort of new regulation has been the food production livestock and poultry industries, including cattle, veal, heifer, dairy, hog, broiler, egg layer, and turkey sectors. For these animals, the decision to move away from Animal Unit (AU) discussion in favor of simple body weight was appropriately made. However, where horses are concerned, an antiquated and unjustified 2AU continues to be applied in the proposed documents. Since the USDA/EPA admittedly have no science or data to support this, the 2AU classification for horses should be considered erroneous, unwarranted and discriminatory, and corrections made in all references to consider horses according to their body weight as well.
The Council for Agricultural and Science Technology (CAST) (Integrated Animal Waste Management, Task Force Report No. 128 November 1996) estimates livestock volume in units as follows:
| Cows | 104 million |
| Swine | 60 million |
| Poultry | 7790 billion |
The mere 6.9 million horses thought to populate the United States (American Horse Council 1996) pales in comparison with some of these food production animal numbers.
The USDA has long defined horses as agricultural and recreational and denied horses funding that the food production animal and poultry industries have received to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) because horses did not meet the "food or fiber" test.
We ask that the USDA/EPA
Clarify the proposal to prevent agricultural and recreational animals, companion animals and pets from being interpreted as CAFOs.
Adopt the 3-tier structure proposed
Background
EnviroHorse spent two months with no success trying to find references explaining the 2AU classification for horses. We finally employed a professional research librarian to find references explaining why horse excrement was twice as bad as other 1000-pound body weight livestock for water endpoints. The only references found were generic, pointing back to the EPA. From other sources we learned that "…a horse was considered to generate twice as much manure as a cow, from the days when most farm equine were large draft horses." Baltimore Sun story February 17, 2000 by Anne Haddad.
EnviroHorse interviewed Greg Beatty (Feb. 2001) of the USEPA who confirmed that there is neither data nor science to support regulation of horses as 2AU for water endpoints, and he welcomed information on the subject. This information was confirmed again at an American Horse Council meeting held recently in Washington D.C. at which Karen Metchins, team leader for CAFO revision process at the EPA, presented the proposed CAFO standards. Her comments indicated that the horse industry was not seriously considered in the initial drafting of the proposal and reiterated that her team would welcome recommendations regarding the appropriate classification for horses.
EnviroHorse has attended presentations by the Interagency Confined Animal Coordinating Group (ICACG) for California and has been told that neither data nor science exist to support the 2AU designation for horses. The California ICACG recommendation to the EPA will likely be that all animals be regulated on body weight alone, irrespective of breed.
Physical/Chemical Content of Horse Manure and Its Compost
Section 9.5.3 Elimination of the Term "Animal Units" (from Dev. Doc for the Prop. Revs. To the NPDES Reg and the ELGs for CAFOs (EPA-821-R-01-003 Jan. 2001) Pg 9-47) states that the EPA has decided "to move away from the concept of animal units because of the inconsistent use of this concept across a number of federal programs, resulting in confusion…" Yet, the EPA continued application of the old 2AU standard for horses in both the proposed CAFO and NPDES regulation. Surely, this was an oversight that can and should be readily corrected with reference to horses.
The EPA admits that is has neither data nor science to support regulation of horses as 2AU. Data on the composition of and pathogens in horse manure demonstrates that horses are no worse than other animals with 1000 pound body weight, and in many instances are actually preferable. We urge the USDA/EPA to change all pertinent references so that all animals are evaluated only on body weight. If this information is not sufficient to enable the EPA to regulate horses by body weight alone, then we request copies and an analysis of the data/science that the EPA will use to support its current proposal to regulate horses as 2AU.
ACTION ITEM: Please see Appendix A.
Pathogenic Content of Horse Manure and Its Compost
From a human health risk perspective, horse manure may be unique among animals. Recent studies documented in the papers provided in Appendix B indicate that manure from adult horses does not significantly contain the following water borne pathogens of greatest concern in human disease:
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
E. coli 0157:H7
Salmonella
Viruses common to omnivores
Published research from UC Davis Tulare, replicated by the University of Colorado, is available for Cryptosporidium and Giardia. In addition, Dr. Rob Atwill of UC Davis Tulare has just completed field and laboratory studies of 500 samples of both fresh and composted horse manure in Northern California in the winter 2000-2001 on the pathogenic strain of E. coli and Salmonella. Research results will be published shortly.
EnviroHorse continues to search publications on this subject, but believes that Nancy Deuel's observation remains accurate today: "No major human disease has ever been accurately attributed to the intimate contact human beings have had with horses for thousands of years" . "Land Use and Zoning Issues Affecting the Horse Industry". Jour. Equine Vet. Sci. 1989. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.51-55.
ACTION ITEM: Please review data in Appendix B. We believe that this information could be useful in justifying regulation of horses according to body weight rather than AUs. It further could be used to exempt or redefine horses as agricultural and recreational animals rather than have them continue as an uncomfortable appendage to food production animals. See discussion below.
Thresholds and Special Consideration for Equines to Avoid Unintended Consequences of the Proposed CAFO & NPDES
Under the proposed regulation, the EPA intends to consider any AFO potentially subject to NPDES regulations as a CAFO (EPA 821 ibid. 9-45). The EPA is proposing significant changes to NPDES Regulations. (EPA 821 ibid. 9.5 pp 9-44/70). The EPA is not proposing to revise the effluent guidelines requirement or the applicability for subcategory A (horses) unless the two-tier structure is adopted in which case only thresholds will be lowered. (EPA 821 ibid. 2.2.1 pp2-5/6, 9-56)
"The economic analysis for the (proposed) NPDES rule does not cover animal types other than beef, dairy, swine and poultry. EPA chose to analyze those animal types that produce the greatest amount of manure and wastewater in the aggregate while in confinement. EPA believes that most horses, sheep, and lamb operations are not confined and therefore will not be subject to permitting, thus, the Agency expects the impacts in these sectors to be minimal."
While the majority of horses may still be at pasture or on rangeland, the assumption that most horses are not confined may not be accurate. "Over 40% of the horses in the US today (1989) are recreational horses housed on residential lots." (Deuel. Ibid. from American Horse Council data of the time). With increasing suburbanization and rezoning that has occurred since then, this percentage may be low. Whatever the percent, agricultural and recreational horses are increasingly being confined in smaller areas and commercial stables in the urban/suburban parts of the country, and thus meeting the definition of AFO (fed in confinement >45 da/in 12 mo), and potentially that of CAFO. It is these horses that we are particularly concerned about in this proposed regulation. Further, RCDs are recommending that in the future horses be confined in smaller areas, with smaller rotated pastures to address soil conservation endpoints.
EnviroHorse agrees with the EPA statement that horses are only a minor player in the manure production arena compared to food production animals and poultry. Pages 10 and 16 of the National Strategy clearly indicates that "the vast majority of AFOs" can be addressed through voluntary and incentive-based efforts (www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm). We agree that this is the appropriate manner with which to regulate horses.
For years, the USDA has classified horses as agricultural if employed in farm labor, or otherwise recreational. This classification has prevented horse keepers from receiving funds for which food production animals and poultry have qualified (L.Shanks USDA RCD pers.comm. Feb. 2001).
California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 6, known as the Slaughter Bill. It prohibits the slaughter or export for slaughter of horses, and places criminal penalties on those who sell horsemeat. There are only four horse abattoirs left in the entire country. There is very little demand in the US for horsemeat, except in pet/zoo food. It is time to recognize that the horse is no longer in the same category as food production animals and poultry. We ask that the EPA consider formalizing the definition of the horse as an agricultural and recreational animal, where appropriate.
We are concerned about information conveyed at the ICACG meeting that the proposed regulation could be interpreted in California that every backyard 4H livestock project with one animal alone could be considered an AFO, thus a CAFO, subject to NPDES regulation. This should be of grave concern to the EPA because of the unintended consequences of potentially making every agricultural and recreational animal, companion animal or pet in a yard a point-source of pollution, subject to permitting and reporting. A distinction needs to be made between food production animals and poultry in feedlots vs. agricultural and recreational animals kept in stables, kennels, catteries, pens, etc., which fall under the CAFO threshold numbers.
Horses kept on pasture/rangeland must often be supplemented with feed during the winter when the natural forage is present but covered with snow. If the winter is severe and prolonged, greater than 45 days of supplemental feeding may be required to see them through the winter. Pasture/rangeland animals could easily become AFOs then CAFOs, requiring NPDES permits due to snow. Similarly, particularly in the arid West, drought feeding at pasture/rangeland could be required greater than 45 days annually. Special considerations and exemptions are needed for at least these two cyclical naturally occurring conditions, and perhaps others. Not enough input has been obtained from horse councils, breeders, ranchers, etc., to develop a reasonable regulation for horses in this regard. Distinguishing horses as agricultural and recreational animals and thereby defining them out of this regulation would resolve this.
Most horse keeping facilities will easily fall below the CAFO regulatory limit proposed of 500 if body weight rather than AUs are applied to regulation and the three-tier structure is adopted. Most horse keeping facilities are small. According to Dr. Deanne Meyer, UC Davis Manure Management Specialist, it is difficult to do scientific studies on horses (and part of the reason so few such studies exist) because they are usually kept in groups under 50 in number (pers. comm. 1997) making robust data collection difficult. The proposed regulation, if applied to horses as drafted, will lead to unintended consequences that can be avoided by a more prudent approach exempting or defining horses as agricultural and recreational, and not including them with food production animals and poultry.
The State of California currently has NO CAFOs, and consequently no procedures for dealing with them. The number of affected facilities under the proposed regulation for horses alone could be in the thousands. Add in the food production animals and poultry, and you have a real problem to deal with. This proposal could have dire unintended consequences if passed as written. The State of California will have problems developing even General Permits to include the expanded definition of facilities due to the need to comply with CEQA regulations.
ACTION ITEM:
Horses are not essentially food production animals. For horses, there must be some reasonable threshold or definition that distinguishes them from food production feedlot animals that does not trigger AFO/CAFO/NPDES enforcement. Horses are agricultural and recreational by the government's own definition. We urge the USDA/EPA to distinguish between feedlot and agricultural and recreational animals, companion animals and pets in the final regulation. Regulation of horses should be voluntary, incentive-based and supported by educational efforts if funding for BMPs continues to be unavailable.
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning (CNMPs)
This proposal is a morass (Webster's: something that traps, confuses or impedes). For animals beneath CAFO thresholds, including all AFOs, the USDA/EPA seeks VOLUNTARY manure management plans, done by certified experts (who don't exist), who will not be liable for bad advice given, yet you must BUY this service presumably at some cost. How will this facilitate voluntary compliance? Again, what is the threshold number of animals that it is reasonable to expect people to have to pay for this service?
CNMPs related to this regulation are supposed to be voluntary, incentive-based programs with government funding available to help people implement BMPs to achieve them. Yet what funds have been available to horse keepers in the past? Few. With the magnitude of the manure problem at animal food production facilities, what is the likelihood of funds being available to horse keepers in the future? Probably, slim to none. If horses are NOT the problem, as the EPA itself suggests, and if there continues to be no substantial financial assistance for horse keeping BMPs, the EPA should exempt agricultural and recreational horses from CNMPs, PNPs and other proposed requirements. States and local jurisdictions will not have the ability to put these types of programs together and administer them effectively if agricultural and recreational horse keeping is thrown into the equation with other food production animals and poultry. NRCS will not have the resources to certify every CAFO in California that will be created by this regulation, let alone the AFOs. Who will certify? Will there be states-rights issues? Which Department in state will certify? Will there be right-to-work, and/or health and safety issues?
Conclusion and Request
Obviously, we all must do our best to prevent non-point source pollution. We understand that horse manure must be managed so that it neither become a nuisance to neighbors, nor impairs our water bodies. Horse manure is such a valuable resource that it seems a shame that more effort is not put into recycling it.
According to the American Horse Council in 1996, keeping horses in an area brings a four-fold economic return to the local community. If unnecessary regulation is promulgated, the EPA will drive horses and their positive collateral impact from our communities.
Thank you for consideration of this viewpoint and these documents.
Regards from
Adda Quinn
EnviroHorse Board of Directors
Disclaimer
EnviroHorse has prepared these materials for information purposes
only and are not legal advice. Subscribers and online readers should not act
upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Every attempt has been made to assure that the information contained in this publication is accurate. EnviroHorse assumes no responsibility and disclaims any liability for any injury or damage resulting from the use or effect of any product or information specified in this publication.
Enclosures:
Attachment A Composition and Decomposition of Horse Manure
1. ASAE Animal Waste Characteristics
2. Ag. Waste Mgmt Field Handbook (AWMFH) for horse, dairy and beef
3. Penn. DEP Table 2, Characteristics of Selected Raw Materials
4. Ohio State Annual Raw-Manure Production Table http://ohioline.ag.ohio-state.edu/604/b604_15.html
5. Manure Characteristics http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/!epados/farmstead/manure/src/species3.htm
6. Terrene Institute. USEPA R6 Feb 1994, Pollution Control for Horse Stables and Backyard Livestock. Table 1 Average waste production rates.
7. Nutrient Values of Manure http://agsyst.wsu.edu/manure1.html
8. Nutrient value of fresh livestock manure http://gardening.wsu.edu/stewardship/compost/manure/manure3.htm
9. EnviroHorse: Horse Manure Aging and Nutrient Content
10. EnviroHorse: Composition and Decomposition of Horse Manure
Attachment B www.californiastatehorsemen.com/envirohorse.htm
1. EnviroHorse: Does Horse Manure Pose a Significant Risk to Human?
2. EnviroHorse: Horse Wastes and Composting: Pathogens and Weed Seeds