  |
Summer 2001 Newsletter
|
|
Contents EPA PROPOSES NEW REGULATIONS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS |
EPA
PROPOSES NEW REGULATIONS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS by Jessica Duerr, EIT Agriculture has seen some dramatic changes over the past 30 years. While the number of existing farms is on the decline, farm size continues to expand. The increase in animal concentration ultimately leads to an increase in waste concentration. With more and more non-farming residents moving into agricultural areas and with the environment being a top priority for many citizens, the tolerance for existing agricultural waste practices has declined. Farms have been brought to the forefront of public scrutiny and are being faced with the challenge of dealing with their waste in a manner that is both unoffensive to their neighbors and environmentally friendly. Since the Clean Water Act of 1974, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO=s) have been defined as point sources of pollution and are subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations. A CAFO is a feeding operation that confines animals for more than 45 consecutive days in any 12 month period and fulfills one of the following:
The above facilities are not considered a CAFO if discharge of pollutants only occurs during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event or greater. Farms are expected to apply their waste to the land at rates that will not cause losses to the environment or degrade ground and surface waters. CAFO=s with more than 1,000 Animal Units are required to develop a nutrient management plan that defines acceptable waste application rates for the uptake of nutrients by their crops. They are required to provide sufficient storage for the additional agricultural waste until it can be land applied according to their nutrient management plan. Storage facilities must meet the standards established by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and must be certified as such by an NRCS representative or a licensed professional engineer. In addition to agricultural waste (manure, bedding, milk center wastewater, animal wash water, barnyard waste, spilled feed and silage leachate), open storage facilities must also be capable of holding daily precipitation and runoff and precipitation and runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. In the past, states haven=t stringently enforced CAFO regulations. The changing social structure of many agricultural areas is making it difficult for farms to operate as inconspicuously as they have in the past. Nuisance complaints from neighboring residents and environmental complaints from concerned citizens have put pressure on the EPA to not only enforce the existing regulations, but also develop more stringent waste management requirements for CAFO farms. Many individual states are adding their own requirements in addition to the EPA requirements for CAFO=s. On January 12, 2001, the Federal Register published proposed changes to the existing EPA regulations for CAFO designated farms. Some of the changes include requiring all CAFO=s to develop a Nutrient Management Plan, eliminating the exemption of farms that only discharge during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, changing the way CAFO=s are currently defined, and requiring CAFO=s to maintain records of any waste transferred off of their facility. The proposed regulations can be found in their entirety on the EPA Office of Wastewater Management=s website at www.epa.gov/owm/afo.htm . The EPA is accepting public comment on the proposed regulations until July 30, 2001 via email at CAFOs.comments@epa.gov or by postal service at: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Proposed Rule Town officials, concerned residents and CAFO operators are encouraged to send their comments as soon as possible. The challenge for the government is to establish guidelines for dealing with agricultural waste in a manner that is economically feasible for CAFO operators while providing a safe environment for all citizens. Public comments will help the EPA to prioritize concerns and develop effective solutions for all involved parties. By: Garrett Hacker, E.I.T. As some of you may already know, New York State is in the process of adopting a set of model codes to replace its current fire prevention and building code. The current New York State Building Code has been in effect for nearly 17-years and will soon be replaced by an International set of Codes. The following is a time line showing the stages of code progression: November 10, 1999: International Building Code November 18, 1999 December 15, 1999 May 2000 to February 2001 June and September 2000 August 2000 to July 2001 December 2000 March 14, 2001 Summer 2001 January 1, 2002 THE RUNOFF EFFECT OF TIMBER HARVESTING by: Roy R. Pedersen, P.E. A common question posed to Civil Engineers is "Can my neighbor uphill from my property redirect storm water onto my property?" The answer to this question is no. All communities have laws prohibiting such activities. However, the question is a bit more interesting when it comes to harvesting timber off of lands which are above developed areas. Frequently people on the lower elevation developed areas object to and would like to stop tree cutting that is uphill from them. One reason for this objection is that when trees are removed, runoff from the area increases. Gradually, when vegetation regrows, the runoff then will reduce again. This is different than construction of buildings which cause a permanent runoff increase. The fact is, however, that landowners have the right to cut their timber. They can even clear cut as long as they implement responsible storm water runoff and erosion control measures. Both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and New York Department of Environmental Conservation have regulations to control erosion and sedimentation. There are many erosion and sedimentation control measures that can be implemented to protect the environment downstream of a timber harvesting operation. One of the most common methods is the installation of silt fencing. This fencing is a fabric which filters runoff and prevents silt from being carried into streams. On larger projects, sedimentation basins can be created which muddy waters flow into and settle out, allowing the clear water to flow to streams.When logging roads are constructed, water is carried across these roads in frequently spaced culvert pipes to prevent concentration of too much runoff into one area which could cause erosion and flooding. Another method is to use broad based dips to allow water to flow across the roads in dips which are flat enough to drive across. When areas are disturbed, proper seeding is done to stabilize the soil. Local conservation agencies will provide recommendations for the correct seed mixture for the soil type and slope. With use of these proper techniques, timber can be harvested without causing adverse impact to the environment. ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS
CHANGES FOR THE BETTER National surveying standards have been revised three times since the 1962 standards were approved. In 1999 the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) joined the American Land Title Association (ALTA) and the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping in fine tuning those standards for the fourth revision. The 1999 standards were approved in October 1999, and supersede the 1997 standards. The document name is AMinimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys@and took effect January 1, 2000.With the increasingly national aspect of the retail, industrial and service industries the need for some sort of national standards became a priority. The above industries as well as local real estate purchasers demanded land surveys and land tile insurance to protect their investment. The broad difference in levels of accuracy and precision applied to the different typed of surveying services and circumstances in different regions, even different surveyors within a region lead to a formal, printed standard produced by ALTA/ACSM. The ALTA/ACSM land title survey is based on a title report or commitment produced by a title insurance company. This commitment lists the current legal description, exceptions and easements related to the property. The surveyor relies on this information as the legal basis for his survey. The scope of work for the surveyor is defined by the standards and Table >A=. Table >A= must be filled out by the client with the optional items desired checked, plus any specific requirements by the lender or buyer, not specifically listed. A very specific surveyor=s certificate is also to be placed on the survey.Who needs to know and understand these standards? Land Surveyors and Land Title Attorneys of course, but also those involved in the fields related to real estate transfer and improvements, such as Real Estate Attorneys, Real Estate Agents, Developers, Contractors and Architects. What has changed? Classes of Surveys Discarded Most significantly, the concept of various AClasses@ of ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys has been eliminated. This results in a number of related changes throughout the document and in the accompanying Accuracy Standards. Due to the nature of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey and its pivotal role in the commercial real estate conveyance, the idea of standards which allow low accuracy measurements in certain situations has been deemed unacceptable. In addition, as any surveyor knows, an Urban Survey is typically ordered virtually 100% of the time regardless of the anticipated use of the property. Changes to the Content Standards Paragraph 1: The wording of the third sentence addresses the elimination of classes of surveys. Paragraph 3: The new wording addresses the elimination of classes of surveys, revises the name of the Accuracy Standards document, and adds NSPS as a party to those Accuracy Standards. Paragraph 5d: New wording eliminates the need to research individual deeds for lots in an adjoining platted subdivision. Paragraph 5d: New wording clarifies that questions of contiguity, gores and overlaps are related to both the interior lines of multi-parceled properties being surveyed and to the adjoiners to the surveyed parcel(s). The new clause also acknowledges that additional survey field work required to make such a determination for adjoiners, but which would not otherwise be required for execution of the survey, is not required. Paragraph 5i: New wording clarifies that notations regarding encroachments do not represent a legal opinion on the part of the Surveyor. Paragraph 5i: The new wording clarifies that the Surveyor is not responsible for showing encroachments on easements or into setbacks for which documented information has not otherwise been provided. Paragraph 8 (Certification): The new certificate makes allowances for the elimination of classes of surveys and also accommodates the new Accuracy Standards (see below). Table A Item 7b: The selections for building floor areas have been revised and clarified.Item 7c: The new wording clarifies that the height of building requested is a measured height (not, for example, the number of floors) and instructs the surveyor to indicate where such a measurement was made if not otherwise directed by the client. Item 11: New wording bifurcates the previous check-off for utilities, thus giving clients a choice between observed evidence of utilities and a more thorough utility investigation. Item 13: The previous vague ASignificant observations not otherwise disclosed@ has been eliminated and replaced with an option to show the names of adjoining owners of platted lands (see changes to Paragraph 5d above).New Accuracy Standards The 1999 standards give Surveyors new freedom in applying their knowledge, procedures, equipment and personnel in a manner that best addressed the survey at hand. In exchange, however, Surveyors will have to analyze their measurements so they can Aassure that the Positional Uncertainties resulting from the survey measurements made on the survey do not exceed the allowable Positional Tolerance@. A statement to that effect is required in the new certification. Only if the size or configuration of the property to be surveyed or the relief, vegetation, or improvements on the property will result in survey measurements for which the Positional Uncertainty will exceed the allowable Positional Tolerance, may the surveyor opt out of confirming the Positional Uncertainty of the measurements. In such a case, which is expected to be a fairly rare occurrence, the Surveyor must alternatively apply the AMinimum Angle, Distance and Closure Requirements for Survey Measurements Which Control Land Boundaries for ALTA-ACSM Land Title Surveys@ to the measurements made on the survey or employ, in his or her judgement, proper field procedures, instrumentation and adequate survey personnel in order to achieve comparable results.The former Table of AMinimum Angle, Distance and Closure Requirements for Survey Measurements Which Control Land Boundaries for ALTA-ACSM Land Title Surveys@ which burdened surveyors with very specific measurement procedures and equipment, much of which is not out-of-date, has been eliminated except for the Urban portion which is to be applied only in the rare cases described above.The result of these changes to the Accuracy Standards is that instead of being told expressly how to make their measurements, surveyors are now allowed to apply their specialized knowledge, equipment and personnel in order to achieve a certain standard. For your review and information a copy of the Minimum Standard Detail Requirements and Accuracy Standards for ALTA-ACSM Land Title Surveys can be found by clicking HERE. |