A public comment period for issues related to poultry operations and groundwater originally ran from June 25, 2018 through July 25, 2018. During the comment period, 262 comments were received from 84 individual commenters. As a result, a public information session was held on the Eastern Shore on August 22, 2018 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at Arcadia High School (8210 Lankford Highway, Oak Hall, Virginia 23416); approximately 75 people were in attendance. The public comment period was reopened and ran from August 23, 2018 through August 31, 2018 in which 23 additional comments were received. A summary of the comments received and the DEQ’s response is listed below.
The State Water Control Board will consider this issue on September 20, 2018. The Meeting will be held at the offices in Richmond. More information can be found on the Virginia Regulatory Townhall Website. The SWCB will consider whether or not to issue the conditional consent orders for the 57 (out of 83) poultry facilities in Accomack County. Also, any public hearings granted as result of permit actions will “be held in the county that the specific facility is located.”
Public Comment | DEQ Response |
A public hearing should be held on the Eastern Shore for each permit applicant and Consent Order and not one general hearing/public notice period in Richmond. |
Thank you for your comment. This comment period is only for the Draft Consent Special Order (CSO). The Draft CSO provides only temporary authorization to withdraw groundwater and establishes operational and withdrawal requirements in an enforceable mechanism that protects the resource pending any permit issuance. Additional public comment opportunities will be provided during the permitting process, and the public will have an opportunity to provide comments and/or request a hearing for specific facilities at that time. Any resulting public hearings was held on the Eastern Shore for the convenience of the community. A public information meeting on the consent orders was held August 23, 2018 to provide an opportunity to explain the purpose of the consent orders and the forthcoming permit process. |
The amount of groundwater proposed to be withdrawn exceeds the recharge rate. | Thank you for your comment. The mass balance equation referring to recharge rate described in this comment reflects how the surficial (Columbia) aquifer functions. However, given the physics associated with confined aquifer systems, the recharge rate, while important, is not definitive in determining the sustainability of a withdrawal because of aquifer storage. The Draft CSO provides temporary authorization to withdraw groundwater and establishes operational and withdrawal requirements in an enforceable mechanism that protects the resource pending any permit issuance. Long-term lasting impacts to the groundwater resource are not anticipated for the farms operating under the Draft CSO withdrawal requirements. Prior to any permit issuance, DEQ will complete a technical evaluation, which includes modeling the impact of the withdrawal to ensure it meets the criteria specified in the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and Groundwater Withdrawal regulations (9VAC25-610). The technical evaluation consider the cumulative impact of the proposal withdrawal along with all other know withdrawals to examine water level drawdown over 50 years, identify the area of impact, and examine the potential for saltwater intrusion. |
The public notice does not include the addresses of the farms, how many houses, or how many chickens are being raised. This and makes it impossible to make a meaningful comment. |
Thank you for your comment. This public notice is only for the Draft CSO. The Public Notice included identifiable information for each facility and the volume to be withdrawn. Public notices for any draft Groundwater Withdrawal permit will include the site specific information for the relevant facility. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments and/or request a hearing for specific facilities at that time. |
The operators were suppose to have the completed applications in by December 2017 but now they are not due until October 2018. Why? |
Thank you for your comment. The December 15, 2017 date applied only to the Compliance Assistance Framework, which was an initiative to increase awareness and participation in permitting across all types of groundwater withdrawals. The Draft CSO is a legal agreement addressing only the named facilities, and any requirements or deadlines within are specific to the consent order. |
DEQ has identified 83 CAFOs but the CSO only addresses 57 of them. |
Thank you for your comment. The Draft CSO was only available to facilities that were already operating or expecting to be operating at the time the order was drafted. Not all 83 facilities identified as CAFOs have been constructed or have begun operation. Additionally, some facilities have demonstrated that they will not use more than 300,000 gallons in any month due to the size of their facility and therefore do not require a CSO or permit to operate. Some facilities at or near the permit threshold are included in the order so that metering can be completed to demonstrate whether a permit is required. |
Each application for a groundwater withdrawal permit should be assessed independently and include modeling of the potential impacts. |
Thank you for your comment. For each application, DEQ will complete a technical evaluation which includes modeling the impact of the withdrawal to ensure it meets the criteria of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610). The technical evaluation considers the cumulative effect of the proposed withdrawal along with all other known withdrawals to examine water level drawdown over 50 years, identify the area of impact, and examine the potential for saltwater intrusion. |
Preference must be given to uses for human consumption. | Thank you for your comment. For each application, DEQ will complete a technical evaluation which includes modeling the impact of the withdrawal to ensure it meets the criteria of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610). The technical evaluation considers the cumulative effect of the proposed withdrawal along with all other known withdrawals (including public water supplies) to examine water level drawdown over 50 years, identify the area of impact, and examine the potential for saltwater intrusion. |
The facilities should use the Columbia aquifer. | Thank you for your comment. As part of a groundwater withdrawal permit application, the Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610) require the applicant to complete an alternatives analysis to evaluate all available sources of supply. DEQ’s site specific review of alternative sources for each facility is one component of reviewing each permit application, and the lowest quality water that can be applied to the beneficial use must be addressed as part of that review. During the permit review process, aquifer suitability is examined and many different combinations may be possible to meet the water need. The surficial (Columbia) aquifer has variable quality and is at higher risk of surface contamination, so it may not be an appropriate source for each facility. |
What are the alternatives to using one aquifer over another or if groundwater needs to be used at all? | Thank you for your comment. As part of a groundwater withdrawal permit application, the Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610) require the applicant to complete an alternatives analysis to evaluate all available sources of supply. DEQ’s site specific review of alternative sources for each facility is one component of reviewing each permit application, and the lowest quality water that can be applied to the beneficial use must be addressed as part of that review. During the permit review process, aquifer suitability is examined and many different combinations may be possible to meet the water need. The surficial (Columbia) aquifer has variable quality and is at higher risk of surface contamination, so it may not be an appropriate source for each facility. The Yorktown-Eastover aquifer has relatively good water quality in the Upper and Middle aquifers, while higher chlorides are found in the Lower aquifer. The Lower aquifer may not be suitable for each facility. Many farms are not located near a municipal water supply, which also rely on groundwater, and fresh surface water supplies are very limited on the Eastern Shore. |
My well went dry or has poor quality water (high salinity) as a result of the chicken farmers. | Thank you for your comment. The Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610) provide for mitigation of impacts from a permitted withdrawal that is shown through the technical evaluation to result in a lowering of the water level in the aquifer (drawdown) of a foot or more outside the property boundaries. Any draft Groundwater Withdrawal permit will include a Mitigation Plan that outlines the process the operator of the facility will use to evaluate and resolve alleged impacts from their groundwater use on existing withdrawals within the modeled area of impact. |
CSO/public comment should be suspended until more information is known about the impact to the resource. |
Thank you for your comment. This public notice is only for the Draft CSO. The Draft CSO only provides temporary authorization to withdraw groundwater and establishes operational and withdrawal requirements in an enforceable mechanism that protects the resource pending any permit issuance. Long-term lasting impacts to the groundwater resource are not anticipated for the farms operating under the Draft CSO withdrawal requirements. Prior to any permit issuance, DEQ will complete a technical evaluation, which includes modeling the impact of the withdrawal to ensure it meets the criteria specified in the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and Groundwater Withdrawal regulations (9VAC25-610). The technical evaluation consider the cumulative impact of the proposal withdrawal along with all other know withdrawals to examine water level drawdown over 50 years, identify the area of impact, and examine the potential for saltwater intrusion. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments and/or request a hearing for specific facilities at that time. |
Groundwater modeling must be completed before a withdrawal is permitted. |
Thank you for your comment. For each application, DEQ will complete a technical evaluation using a groundwater flow model that simulates the impact of the withdrawal to ensure it meets the criteria specified in the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610). The technical evaluation considers the cumulative effect of the proposed withdrawal along with all other known withdrawals to examine water level drawdown over 50 years, identify the area of impact, and examine the potential for saltwater intrusion. |
Northampton’s water supplies in the Yorktown aquifer will be depleted no matter how much water is taken out of our aquifer to the north. |
Thank you for your comment. For each application, DEQ will complete a technical evaluation which includes modeling the impact of the withdrawal to ensure it meets the criteria specified in the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610). The modeling will identify impacts to the aquifer as a whole to ensure that the water level specified by the Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610) is met. The Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and the Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610) do not provide for an evaluation based on political boundaries. |
Why are there no penalties? Or stipulated penalties? | Thank you for your comment. The Department’s enforcement mission is to apply a consistent response that returns a responsible party to compliance in an expeditious and equitable manner. Using the resources available, DEQ has initiated a number of compliance/enforcement sector initiatives to address various impacts to the groundwater resource over the last several years. Given the large number of parties identified as part of this sector initiative, this Draft CSO is the most expeditious and equitable means to protect the resource. Once made aware of their noncompliance, the parties involved have made good faith efforts to comply with all of DEQ’s requests. As a result civil charges are not being recommended at this time. The Ground Water Management Act of 1992 under § 62.1-270 provides specific authority for the assessment of civil charges, but stipulated penalties are not currently authorized. |
Data used in regards to the eastern shore aquifer and the impacts of these withdrawals should be released to the public. | Thank you for your comment. All data used in the evaluation of groundwater withdrawal permit applications, including the results of the technical evaluation, are available to the public upon request. |
Sedimentation runoff, excess chicken manure from these farms will harm the Chesapeake Bay, and they should be required to have ammonia filters. |
Thank you for your comment. However, this concern is associated with stormwater and air quality, which are outside the regulatory purview of this permitting action and addressed by other programs within DEQ. |
What is being done to address the bacterial levels in the groundwater as a result of these farms? | Thank you for your comment. DEQ is not aware of any documented cases of bacterial groundwater contamination linked to permitted poultry production in Virginia. Notwithstanding, DEQ and Virginia Department of Health (VDH) water well construction guidelines require grouting of all water wells to prevent the contamination of confined aquifers from activities occurring on the land surface. In addition, the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit or Virginia Pollution Abatement (VPA) permit covering each facility requires the poultry feeding operation to be designed and operated to prevent discharges of pollutants (e.g., bacteria) to state waters, which includes groundwater. Both VPDES and VPA permits contain a number of provisions designed to be protective of groundwater quality, some of which include: storage of poultry waste in a manner that prevents contact with groundwater; additional storage restrictions if stored outside for greater than 14 days; prohibition of burial of routine mortalities; and compliance with a nutrient management plan when poultry waste is land applied, including restrictions on timing, application rate, and setbacks from water wells. |
Allowing this water use to continue in disregard of the regulations is malfeasance on the part of DEQ. | Thank you for your comment. The Draft CSO provides only temporary authorization to withdraw groundwater and establishes operational and withdrawal requirements in an enforceable mechanism that protects the resource pending any permit issuance. |
The CSO is a mass permitting action which DEQ said it would not do. | Thank you for your comment. A CSO is an enforcement action, not a permitting action, and only provides temporary authorization to operate. Any draft groundwater withdrawal permit will be for a specific facility and include site specific information for the relevant facility. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments and/or request a hearing for specific facilities at that time. Permit applications for each poultry facility will be reviewed on their own individual set of facts, and for each application, DEQ will complete a technical evaluation which includes modeling the impact of the withdrawal to ensure it meets the criteria specified in the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 and Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations (9VAC-25-610). |
CAFOs should not be allowed on the Eastern Shore. | Thank you for your comment. However, this concern is outside the regulatory purview of this permitting action. |
Water withdrawal must be regulated from each well and considered in aggregate and not allow people to put in multiple wells to avoid regulations. |
Thank you for your comment. The 300,000 gallons in any one month requirement for a Groundwater Withdrawal Permit is based on the cumulative withdrawal of all wells associated with a facility. |
How is the volume of water for each operator being determined? | Thank you for your comment. The amount groundwater needed for each facility was based on a combination of metered data and estimations of water need. All estimation methodologies were either provided by DEQ or verified by DEQ using the best available technical literature on the subject. Additional metered data will be used to finalize the permitted amounts. |
We support this CSO as it will allow farmers to continue operating pending permit application review and scientific analysis. |
Thank you for your comment. DEQ appreciates your involvement in the public comment process. |
Policies and procedures of county government offices should be scrutinized and monitored to prevent these houses being built and operated prior to permit issuance. |
Thank you for your comment. DEQ routinely looks for ways to improve intergovernmental coordination regarding regulatory requirements. However, the policies and procedures of county government are outside the regulatory purview of this enforcement action. |
The CSO should describe the history of the GWMA of 1992 to provide context of the issue at hand. | Thank you for your comment. The consent order has as its limited purpose to identify the facts necessary to substantiate a violation. Legislative/historical information regarding the statute in question would not be appropriate. Information on the history of the Ground Water Management Act of 1992 is available upon request. |
DEQ should implement internal measures as well as work with local government to ensure that this type of statewide issue does not happen again. |
Thank you for your comment. DEQ is always working to increase participation in permitting programs through a variety of means. |
The poultry industry is committed to sustainability and employing conservation measure to protect the aquifer. | Thank you for your comment. DEQ appreciates your involvement in the public comment process. |
We commend DEQ for establishing an orderly and realistic process for bringing farmers into compliance without the devastating economic effects. |
Thank you for your comment. DEQ appreciates your involvement in the public comment process. |
Making farms shut down prior to permit issuance would put them into bankruptcy. |
Thank you for your comment. The consent order provides a means for unpermitted facilities to continue operation while remaining in compliance as they work through the permitting process. |
Please hold the September SWCB meeting on the Eastern Shore. | Thank you for your comment. The September State Water Control Board (SWCB) will be held on Thursday, Sept 20, 2018, at the Pocahontas Building, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Unfortunately, the location for this meeting cannot be changed. However, any public hearings granted as a result of permit actions for poultry facilities will be held in the county that the specific facility is located. |
Please create a website to track the progress of each permit application throughout the process. | Thank you for your comment. Public notices for draft water withdrawal permits can be found at the following web site: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterWithdrawalPermittingandCompliance/CurrentPublicNotices/DraftWaterWithdrawalPermits.aspx. In addition, members of the public may request status updates for those facilities that they are interested in at any time. Such requests can be sent to Withdrawal.Permitting@deq.virginia.gov. |
The chicken growers are doing their best to meet the regulatory requirements, provide for animal welfare, and protect the environment. |
Thank you for your comment. DEQ appreciates your involvement in the public comment process. |
Leave a Reply