ments under the CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA).The increase in listed endangered salmon species over the last decade in the Pacific Northwest has led to conflicting interpretations of the two acts. Since 1997, EPA has worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to develop a memorandum of agreement explaining how the three agencies will work together to protect clean water and endangered species (ES&T 1998, 3 (6) 257A)) A draft memorandum proposing a process for resolving disagreements among the agencies over state water quality standards and permits was published in January 1999 {Fed. RegisL 1999 64 (10), 2741-2757), but it has yet to be finalized said Elena Babij a biologist with the FWS. The agreement is controversial because the two services insist that under the CWA, EPA must consult with them when approving state water quality standards and permits, said Gail Achterman, an attorney representing point source dischargers with Stoel Rives in Portland, OR. But it is not clear whether consultation over water quality standards is required of all states or just those that have not been delegated to run their own clean water programs, she said. Concerned about lengthy consultations, point source dischargers are eager to obtain clarity about how CWA and ESA will be integrated, said Peter Ruffier, director of the wastewater division of the city of Eugene, OR. For instance, Eugene's sewage treatment plant applied for a new permit in 1997 when its old one expired, but "no progress is being made in renewing it", he said. "The ESA and the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program have put a gridlock on permits being renewed," Ruffier claimed. A TMDL due in 2003 for the Willamette River into which the plant discharges will dictate what temperature the plant's wastewater must be to protect endangered salmon which thrive in cold water But until Ruffier knows what will be required by the TMDL which sets forth maximum pollution levels he will be unable to do any lone-range nlanning for capital im prnvemenK fn treatment and mol ing of wastewater, he said. Meanwhile, the regional offices of
EPA, the FWS, and the NMFS in the Pacific Northwest developed a draft guidance last August for integrating TMDLs with the ESA's habitat conservation plans, which are required for permits that allow harm to endangered species. The draft guidance "could show the federal offices how to find ways to work together," said Teena Reichgott, nonpoint source coordinator with EPA Region 10. A pilot project for the Simpson Timber Co. in western Washington has proposed a habitat conservation plan for salmon that integrates a TMDL for temperature and sediment.
Proposal to regulate large animal farms still under fire Draft guidance designed to regulate animal feeding operations by handling them as point source dischargers and requiring them to obtain new water permits will burden farmers and spark lawsuits, according to critics from the states and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The draft guidance, published last August (Fed. Regist. 1999, 64 (164)) 46,390), calls for the nation's largest animal feeding operations, about 15,000 to 20,000 in all, to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans as part of a new water quality permit requirement. The guidance, which tells states how to write water permits for animal operations with more than 1000 "animal units", came under fire at an October 28 hearing before the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry. At the hearing representatives from Michigan and Texas criticized the guidance for going well beyond CWA requirements Large "factory farms" pose a number of risks to water quality and health because of the amount of manure and wastewater they generate, said Chuck Fox, EPA assistant administrator for water, at the October hearing. He noted that states report that up to 40% of the nation's waters don't meet water quality goals and that agriculture is the most widespread source of pollution in rivers. At the hearing, Arthur Nash, deputy director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), criticized the guidance because it orders large animal opera-
7 4 A • FEBRUARY 1, 2000/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY/NEWS
tions that do not discharge wastewater to obtain a water quality permit. Under the current law, said Gary Boersen, an environmental engineer with Michigan DEQ, animal operations that do not discharge are not required to obtain water permits. The guidance as written "will divert limited staff resources from higher priority programs," said Nash. Glenda Humiston, deputy undersecretary of agriculture at USDA, also blasted the guidance because it defines best management practices, such as grassy swales around fields, as waste conveyances, a move that will pull over 300,000 small animal operations into the water permit program. This would put a huge financial burden on both small farmers and the USDA, she said. "When you throw small nonpoint sources into a point source program, there are a lot of lawyers ready to fight this one" she concluded. A number of states have programs in place that regulate nonpoint source pollution from animal farms, according to Diane Shea, director of the natural resources group at the National Governors Association. The states that do have programs would like EPA to defer to the state program, she said. "Farms are so different from point sources that we need to be careful before we slap a point source regulatory system on farmland," added Ron Jones, director of the Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research at Tarleton State University. For instance, curbing pollution from nonpoint sources such as farm runoff requires a watershed approach, but the new guidance does not address that, he said. He suggested farmers might bring suits against EPA's authority to regulate manure runoff from fields. Texas has a better system Jones said that focuses on a watershed targets pollution hot spots and backs up activities with peer pressure and fines However, many environmental groups support EPA's approach. The new guidance is legally and scientifically sound, said Kathy Cochran, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund. "Large animal feeding operations are point sources and states have failed to permit them, and the new guidance is a response to that," she said.
