Record keeping and inspections are inextricably linked through the permit and nutrient management plan (NMP). In large part, only records can show an inspector that the operation is following its NMP and permit.
Physical evidence of compliance or violations may only play a small part in many cases. The NMP is only a plan and describes many issues in general terms; however, records allow the producer to manage very specifically and document that the intent of the NMP has been followed. It is also an opportunity to amend small changes in the NMP that could be the result of unseasonable weather and other unexpected influences. When all is said and done, an operation with well-organized complete records and no physical evidence of discharge should pass with flying colors.
Required records
Record keeping requirements can vary by state; however, it will be very likely that any sort of permitted operation will at a minimum maintain a basic NMP with supporting materials and rudimentary records on how the plan was followed. A CAFO, covered by an NPDES permit (even if administered by a state) has very prescriptive record keeping requirements. The EPA CAFO brochure titled, “What Are the Federal Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements?” (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo_brochure_record.pdf) outlines these requirements; however, the permit should describe them in detail.
General records include:
• manure generation and inventory
• manure and waste water transfers
• manure storage inspections
• storage capacity and levels
• discharges
• mortality management
The remaining records are linked to land application and determination of rates. They include:
• manure and wastewater analysis
• soil tests
• crop yield expectations
• rate calculation method (nutrient budgets)
• actual application locations, date and amounts
• weather conditions
• equipment inspections and calibrations
The LPES curriculum includes an excellent fact sheet on record keeping titled, “What Records Must I Maintain for Land Application?” Several sample record keeping forms may be viewed and downloaded at the UGA AWARE Team site.
Annual report
The records described in the previous paragraph would be reviewed during an inspection. However, many of them will be summarized and reported to EPA or the delegated permitting authority on an annual basis (CAFO reports). The same EPA brochure explains these requirements. Briefly they include:
• animal inventory
• annual manure production
• annual manure export
• acres of land applied to and acres of land included in the NMP
• documentation of any discharges
• a valid NMP for the operation
Other record keeping benefits
Records have many other benefits beyond simply complying with the permit and validating the NMP. Records can assist in making important business decisions that impact the bottom line. New levels of efficiency can be attained by examining such records as yields, soil tests and manure and fertilizer usage. Finally, records offer a reduction in liability for producers. In the event of an accusation of environmental mismanagement, records help defend practices and document responsibility.
Inspections
Historically inspections have primarily been complaint-driven. However, under AFO/CAFO rules all NPDES farms will be inspected by a regulatory agency at a routine interval (typically once a year); depending on the state, smaller AFOs may be included in a routine inspection schedule as well. Regulators are primarily looking for compliance with the permit and associated nutrient management plan, especially proof that discharges have not occurred and that required management practices are documented.
During an inspection, operators should have all relevant paperwork in order and available, including:
• permit
• NMP
• records
• other supporting documents
The operator, planner or consultant should all be able to explain any components of the NMP. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and their cooperating state counterparts are largely concerned with the nine minimum practices for a NMP. These include:
1. Ensure adequate (waste) storage
2. Ensure proper management of mortalities
3. Divert clean water from production area
4. Prevent direct contact (with waters of the state/U.S.)
5. Chemical handling
6. Conservation practices to reduce nutrient loss
7. Protocols for manure and soil testing
8. Protocols for land application of manure and wastewater
9. Record keeping
Inspection preparation
It is very helpful for a producer to conduct or initiate an educational or non-regulatory mock-inspection. This can be done with the confidential help of a third party. In some states, Extension may be able to assist. Additionally, many states may make their inspection protocol available. EPA has published a fact sheet titled: What to Expect when EPA Inspects Your Livestock Operation.
Other tools are available, such as the nationally adapted Farm*A*Syst self-assessment modules. These may not specifically address a permitted operation, but they help address environmental risk and liability based on practices. Conducting modules with farm/ranch staff or your county agent may give insight into areas that need improvement prior to a visit from regulators.
Participating in a USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service program may also offer an opportunity for a general assessment. Once again, this may be helpful in identifying critical areas, though likely will not directly address regulations. If a consultant is employed by the operation, that person may also assist in assessing the operation prior to a regulatory inspection.
Inspection day rights
Producers and inspectors both have rights on inspection day. It is important to understand that inspectors have a job to do, and they represent all citizens from the standpoint that we all need clean water for our communities, households, businesses and farms or ranches.
For routine inspections most agencies will schedule an inspection and inspectors should keep to their schedule. Farmers and ranchers are extremely busy and keep hours longer than most other businesses. Producers should be ready for the inspection at the appointed time when the inspector arrives. It is a producer’s right to ask the inspector to wait a few minutes if he or she needs to wrap up a chore, but they should be ready at the appointed time. In the case of a surprise inspection, which may be occurring because of a pollution report or problem in the watershed, normal preparations may not have taken place. Producers should try to be ready as soon as possible and accommodate the inspector.
Biosecurity is a very important issue and producers have the right to insist on the protocols established for their operation. This may include clean boots and coveralls, denied access to interiors of confinement buildings and use of farm and ranch vehicles only for driving around the operation. Producers should greet the inspector professionally and may ask to see credentials or identification; this is also the time to explain biosecurity rules for the operation.
The producer should also convey that they take the process seriously and request to have a copy of the report left onsite or sent as soon as possible. Producers should also take their own notes during the visit. A well-run operation should not have problems with the inspection process. Minor issues are often easily corrected, but may require a follow-up inspection. Keep in mind that giving explanations during an inspection is fair, but like in dealing with a police officer on the roadside, some issues are better answered with a formal follow-up outside of the actual inspection. Over time producers can develop productive and cooperative relationships with regulatory agencies and their inspectors. ANM
Dedicated to Charles Fulhage, University of Missouri Extension, an excellent agricultural engineer and advocate of environmentally sustainable and profitable agricultural production.
