Written by Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, Agricultural & Resource Law Program
A few bills related to food preparation and dining in the great outdoors are on the move in the Ohio General Assembly.
One of the bills, Senate Bill 233, would allow those who produce cottage foods to do so in a firebrick oven on a patio connected to the producer’s residence. According to Ohio law, cottage foods are non-hazardous and are produced in a person’s home. Cottage foods can include, but are not necessarily limited to: bakery products, jams, jellies, candy, and fruit butter. If passed, SB 233 would change the current law, which only allows cottage foods to be prepared in an oven or on a stove inside the cottage food producer’s residence. SB 233 would allow producers to use both an inside oven and an outside firebrick oven. The bill is currently being debated in the Senate Health, Human Services & Medicaid Committee.
Two identical bills concerning dogs on restaurant patios are working their way through the two houses of the General Assembly—House Bill 263 and SB 182. The bills would prohibit state agencies and local boards of health from adopting rules banning dogs “in an outdoor dining area of a retail food establishment or food service operation.” Even though the government would not be able to ban dogs in those areas, the bills would allow individual restaurants to decide to keep dogs out of their outdoor areas, with the exception of service dogs. HB 263 is being considered in the House Economic Development, Commerce & Labor Committee. SB 182 is currently being discussed in the Senate Health, Human Services & Medicaid Committee.
Will cottage food producers be able to make tasty treats in firebrick ovens? Will your canine companion generally be allowed to accompany you on restaurant patios throughout Ohio? Stay tuned to the Ag Law Blog for any updates on these bills.
The first hearing for a bill that would limit legal liability for Ohio beekeepers took place this week before the House Economic Development, Commerce and Labor Committee. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk), offered several reasons for the proposal, including that beekeeping has recently grown in popularity along with increased demand for honey products, bees play an important role in pollinating plants and contribute to the agricultural economy, and beekeepers have incurred expenses defending themselves against lawsuits that are typically unsuccessful.
House Bill 392 aims to provide immunity from liability for any personal injury or property damage that occurs in connection with keeping and maintaining bees, bee equipment, queen breeding equipment, apiaries, and appliances, as long as the beekeeper does all of the following:
- Registers the apiary with the Ohio Department of Agriculture, as is currently required by Ohio law;
- Operates according to Ohio Revised Code Chapter 909, which contains provisions for apiaries;
- Implements and complies with the best management practices for beekeeping as established by the Ohio State Beekeepers Association; and
- Complies with local zoning ordinance provisions for apiaries. Note that zoning ordinances for apiaries would likely exist only in incorporated areas, as Ohio’s “agricultural exemption from zoning” prohibits townships and counties from using zoning to regulate agricultural activities like beekeeping in most situations.
A beekeeper would not have immunity from liability resulting from intentional tortious conduct or gross negligence, however.
The second hearing for the bill will take place on December 5, 2017. Information about the proposal is available here.
Written by Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Veal and dairy producers in Ohio will be subject to new livestock care standards in 2018. Producers were first made aware of these changes when the Ohio Livestock Care Standards for veal, dairy and other species were originally adopted in September of 2011 after the passage of State Issue 2, a constitutional amendment that required Ohio to establish standards for the care of livestock. Since the new care standards make significant changes to the management of veal and dairy, producers were given a little more than six years to transition their facilities and practices accordingly. The new standards will be effective on January 1, 2018. Producers with veal calves and dairy cattle are encouraged to understand the regulations and make the required changes to their operations by January 1.
Changes to veal regulations
The regulations for veal address housing for veal calves weighing 750 pounds or less. Currently, veal calves may be tethered or non-tethered in stalls of a minimum of 2 feet x 5.5 feet. Next year, the following housing standards will apply:
- Tethering will be permitted only to prevent naval and cross sucking and as restraint for examinations, treatments and transit, if:
- The tether is long enough to allow the veal calf to stand, groom, eat, lie down comfortably and rest in a natural posture;
- The tether’s length and collar size is checked every other week and adjusted as necessary.
- Individual pens must allow for quality air circulation, provide opportunity for socialization, allow calves to stand without impediment, provide for normal resting postures, grooming, eating and lying down, and must be large enough to allow calves to turn around.
- By the time they are ten weeks old, veal calves must be housed in group pens. The regulations currently require that group pens meet the above standards required for individual pens and also must contain at least two calves with a minimum area of 14 square feet per calf, must separate calves of substantially different sizes and that calves must be monitored daily for naval and cross sucking and be moved to individual pens or provided other intervention for naval or cross sucking.
The veal regulations, including both the current rules and the rules that will become effective January 1, are available here.
Changes to dairy cattle regulations
There is only one change to the dairy care standards. As of January 1, docking the tails of dairy cattle will only be permissible if:
- Performed by a licensed veterinarian; and
- Determined to be medically necessary.
The dairy cattle standards, including the current tail docking rule and the rule that becomes effective January 1, are here.
UPDATE 2: The federal spending bill signed into law on March 23, 2018 contained a provision stating that air emissions from animal waste at a farm are not subject to CERCLA reporting requirements, nor are emissions from the application, handling or storage of registered pesticides.
UPDATE: The court has delayed these new reporting requirements for a second time-- the new date is May 1, 2018. Farm operations of certain sizes are now required to report air emissions of certain hazardous substances that exceed a reportable quantity under CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. This new requirement affects livestock farmers with larger numbers of animals, as they may exceed the reportable quantity for ammonia emissions. We've authored a new Law Bulletin on Continuous Release Reporting of Air Emissions for Livestock Farms to help farms determine whether they must report air emissions and if so, how to complete the reporting process. The new bulletin is available here.
Read more about the new CERCLA air emissions reporting mandate in our earlier post.
Written by Peggy Hall and Ellen Essman
UPDATE 4: Congress has clarified in new legislation enacted on March 23, 2018, that emissions from animal waste on farms are not subject to CERCLA reporting.
UPDATE 3: The U.S. EPA has requested and received an additional reporting delay until May 1, 2018 or after and has advised that the agency will provide a notice of the specific date that farms should begin reporting once the court enters its final order.
UPDATE 2: The court has delayed theese new reporting requirements until January 22, 2018.
UPDATE 1: The EPA and several agricultural groups have requested the court for a delay of the November 15 reporting deadline, but the court has not yet responded to the request. Due to a high call volume, the EPA is now advising that producers should utilize the e-mail option for continuous reporting, rather than calling the NRC line. We explain the reporting requirements in this new Law Bulletin, Continuous Release Reporting of Air Emissions for Livestock Farms.
Beginning November 15, 2017, many livestock, poultry and equine farms must comply with reporting requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) section 103. The law requires entities to report releases of hazardous substances above a certain threshold that occur within a 24-hour period. Farms have historically been exempt from most reporting under CERCLA, but in the spring of 2017 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the rule that allowed reporting exemptions for farms. As long as there is no further action by the Court to push back the effective date, farmers and operators of operations that house beef, dairy, horses, swine and poultry must begin complying with the reporting requirements on November 15, 2017.
Farmers and operators, especially of sizeable animal operations that are likely to have larger air emissions, need to understand the reporting responsibilities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published interim guidance to assist farms with the new compliance obligations. The following summarizes the agency’s guidance.
What substances to report
The EPA specifically names ammonia and hydrogen sulfide as two hazardous substances commonly associated with animal wastes that will require emissions reporting. Each substance has a reportable quantity of 100 pounds. If a farm releases 100 pounds or more of either substance to the air within a 24-hour period, the owner or operator must notify the National Response Center. A complete list of hazardous substances and their corresponding reportable quantities is here.
Note that farmers do not have to report emissions from the application of manure, and fertilizers to crops or the handling, storage and application of pesticides registered under federal law. However, a farmer must report any spills or accidents involving these substances when they exceed the reportable quantity.
How to report
Under CERCLA, farm owners and operators have two compliance options—to report each release or to follow the continuous release reporting process:
- For an individual release that meets or exceeds the reportable quantity for the hazardous substance, an owner or operator must immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) by phone at 1-800-424-8802.
- Continuous release reporting allows the owner or operator to file an “initial continuous release notification” to the NRC and the EPA Regional Office for releases that will be continuous and stable in quantity and rate. Essentially, this puts the authorities “continuously” on notice that there will be emissions from the operation within a certain estimated range. If the farm has a statistically significant increase such as a change in the number of animals on the farm or a significant change in the release information, the farm must notify the NRC immediately. Otherwise, the farm must file a one year anniversary report with the EPA Regional Office to verify and update the emissions information and must annually review emissions from the farm. Note that a farm must submit its initial continuous release notification starting on November 15, 2017.
No reporting required under EPCRA
The litigation that led to CERCLA reporting also challenged the farm exemption from reporting for the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). EPRCRA section 304 requires facilities at which a hazardous chemical is produced, used or stored to report releases of reportable quantities from the chemicals. However, EPA explains in a statement issued on October 25, 2017 that the statute excludes substances used in “routine agricultural operations” from the definition of hazardous chemicals. EPCRA doesn’t define “routine agricultural operations,” so EPA states that it interprets the term to include regular and routine operations at farms, animal feeding operations, nurseries, other horticultural operations and aquaculture and a few examples of substances used in routine operations include animal waste stored on a farm and used as fertilizer, paint used for maintaining farm equipment, fuel used to operate machine or heat buildings and chemicals used for growing and breeding fish and plans for aquaculture. As a result of this EPA interpretation, most farms and operations do not have to report emissions under EPCRA. More information on EPA’s interpretation of EPCRA reporting for farms is here.
What should owners and operators of farms with animal wastes do now?
- Review the EPA’s interim guidance on CERCLA and EPCRA Reporting Requirements, available here.
- Determine if the operation may have reportable quantities of air emissions from hazardous substances such as ammonia or hydrogen sulfide. The EPA offers resources to assist farmers in estimating emission quantities, which depend upon the type and number of animals and type of housing and manure storage facilities. These resources are available here.
- A farm that will have reportable emissions that are continuous and stable should file an initial continuous release notification by November 15, 2017. A guide from the EPA for continuous release reporting is here. Make sure to understand future responsibilities under continuous release reporting.
- If not operating under continuous release reporting, immediately notify the National Response Center at National Response Center (NRC) at 1-800-424-8802 for any release of a hazardous substance that meets or exceeds the reportable quantity for that substance in a 24-hour period, other than releases from the normal application or handling of fertilizers or pesticides.
- Learn about conservation measures that can reduce air pollution emissions from agricultural operations in this guide from the EPA.
Note that the EPA is seeking comments and suggestions on the resources the agency is providing or should provide to assist farm owners and operators with meeting the new reporting obligations. Those who wish to comment should do so by November 24, 2017 by sending an e-mail to CERCLA103.firstname.lastname@example.org.
Written by Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
On June 19, 2017, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW) sued the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, over the legality of the current country of origin labeling (COOL) regulations. R-CALF USA and CPoW claim that USDA’s current COOL regulations do not require foreign beef and pork products to be labeled as such, and that in fact, the regulations allow the foreign meat to “be passed off as domestic products.” This, they argue, hurts U.S. cattle and hog producers, as well as U.S. consumers. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, in Spokane. In short, R-CALF USA and CPoW are asking the court to rule that the current COOL regulations are at odds with two federal laws: the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act.
Federal laws relating to Country of Origin Labeling
According to R-CALF USA and CPoW, two laws—the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act—must be taken into account when thinking about COOL. R-CALF USA and CPoW argue that read together, these two laws require imported meat from cattle and hogs to possess country of origin labels.
The Meat Inspection Act, at 21 U.S.C. §620(a), says that imported meat must “be marked and labeled as required by such regulations for imported articles.” “[R]egulations for imported articles” are governed by the Tariff Act. The Tariff Act, in 19 U.S.C. §1304(a), states that “every article of foreign origin (or its container…) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place…in such a manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article.”
In the lawsuit, the parties argue that historically, USDA pork and beef regulations did not follow their understanding of the Meat Inspection and Tariff Acts, discussed above. In other words, the regulations did not require COOL. The 2002 Farm Bill changed that. The parties say that the 2002 Farm bill had the “primary effect of requiring” COOL on meat products from animals imported into the U.S. and subsequently slaughtered after importation.
Following the Farm Bill’s lead, USDA changed its regulations concerning meat imported into the U.S. from other countries, including meat from hogs and cattle. The regulation, found in 7 C.F.R. § 65.300, was finalized in 2009. It stated that meat “derived from an animal that was slaughtered in another country shall retain [its] origin, as declared to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the time the product entered the United States, through retail sale,” or sale to the end consumer. Therefore, COOL was required on meat imported into the U.S. The regulation also allowed for the “origin declaration” on labels to “include more specific location information related to production steps.” This meant that the labels for beef and pork could include where the animals were born, raised, and slaughtered.
World Trade Organization decision and change to regulations
After the new COOL regulations went into place, they were challenged by Canada and Mexico. The World Trade Organization (WTO) ultimately sided with Canada and Mexico. WTO’s reasoning for this decision is outlined in a Congressional Research Service Report on the dispute, and was based on their finding that “COOL treats imported livestock less favorably than U.S. livestock.”
Following the WTO decision, Congress determined that beef and pork—both alive and slaughtered—no longer required COOL. Similarly, USDA removed meat from cattle and hogs from its COOL regulations. These actions, the parties argue, went too far. R-CALF USA and CPoW argue that the WTO decision only involved cattle and hogs that were imported live, as opposed to imported meat.
It is important to note that a number of other foods are still required to have COOL, including lamb, goat, chicken, farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts, and ginseng. More information on COOL can be found here.
R-CALF USA and CPoW’s argument
Ultimately, the parties argue that USDA went too far when they removed all meat from cattle and hogs from their COOL labeling requirements. They argue that the WTO decision focused on live hogs and cattle, as opposed to meat from those animals, and that WTO never “call[ed] into question the marks and labels required by the Tariff Act” for meat. Thus, they argue that USDA regulations should continue to follow the Meat Inspection and Tariff Acts, as they did following the 2002 Farm Bill.
R-CALF and CPoW claim that as a result of USDA’s far-reaching retraction of COOL regulations, “beef and pork from animals in other countries” is permitted to have the “same labels as domestic meat.” They claim that now, “imported beef and pork can even be labeled a ‘Product of the U.S.A.’” As a consequence of this type of labeling, the parties claim that both U.S. consumers and producers are harmed.
R-CALF and CPoW’s lawsuit heavily relies on the authority of the Tariff Act and the Meat Inspection Act. Their argument, in its most basic form, is that the two laws require COOL for beef and pork, and that the WTO decision did not ever call those two laws into question. Therefore, they feel that the change in regulations went further than was necessary to comply with the WTO decision.
The defendants named, USDA and Secretary Sonny Perdue, have not yet filed their response to the lawsuit.
R-CALF USA and CPoW’s lawsuit can be read here.
Congress has enacted legislation to address security threats to the country’s food and agricultural systems. The “Securing our Agriculture and Food Act” enrolled on June 22, 2017, authorizes the government to coordinate efforts to defend U.S. food, agriculture, and veterinary systems against terrorism and other high-consequence events to create risks to homeland security. The bill has been forwarded to President Trump for approval.
The bi-partisan bill, sponsored by Rep. Young (R-Iowa) with co-sponsors Rep. Payne (D-NJ) and Rep. Donovan (R-NY), amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002. House Bill 1238 requires the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate an agriculture and food security program with federal departments and agencies that includes:
- Managing DHS responsibilities established by President George W. Bush in his 2004 Presidential Directive 9, which created a national policy for defending food and agricultural systems against terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.
- Overseeing and integrating DHS activities related to veterinary public health, food dense, and agricultural security.
- Leading policy initiatives relating to domestic preparedness for and response to agricultural terrorism.
- Coordinating activities on food and agriculture security and screening procedures for domestic and imported products with other departments, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Rep. Young drafted the bill following Iowa’s 2015 avian influenza outbreak, which resulted in the loss of millions of chickens and turkeys in his home state. According to Rep. Young, the event raised concerns about the federal government’s ability to quickly react to animal disease outbreaks and whether the nation would be able to respond capably to agro-terrorism threats.
“We don’t always think of a terrorist attack as a deliberate, mass food contamination, or the danger a major disease outbreak could pose,” stated Sen. McCaskill (D-MO), when the bill was introduced in the Senate Agriculture Committee. “Congress needs to think forward about the wide array of threats we face and take action before there’s a tragedy, not afterwards.”
The “Securing our Agriculture and Food Act,” H.B. 1238, is available here.
Written by: Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
While livestock producers in Ohio have been subject to standards for the care of livestock since 2011, animal welfare remains a topic of debate around the country. Most recently, attention turned to the care of livestock raised under the National Organic Program and animals raised in confinement in Massachusetts. In this post, we examine the proposed federal organic standards and a livestock care ballot initiative passed in Massachusetts. The discussion provides an opportunity to take a look at the status of Ohio's livestock care standards.
Federal Organic Standards
On January 19, 2017, the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) promulgated a final rule for the National Organic Program (NOP). The rule concerns practices for organic livestock and poultry. Namely, the rule “clarifies how producers and handlers participating in the NOP must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing.” These treatment standards are applicable at numerous times throughout the lives of livestock, including when the animals are transported or slaughtered. Additionally, the rule spells out the amount and type of indoor and outdoor space organic poultry must have under NOP. The rule also describes the timing and methods for physically altering livestock and poultry under NOP. The rule allows “[p]hysical alterations…only…for an animal’s welfare, identification, or safety.” For example, the rule limits the use of teeth clipping and tail docking in pigs, and prohibits the de-beaking of chickens or face branding of cattle. Many other banned and limited alterations are spelled out in the rule, as well as provisions that require active monitoring of animal health and treatment of injuries, sicknesses, and diseases. The rule was originally supposed to become effective on March 20, 2017. The Trump Administration, however, has since instituted a regulatory freeze in order to review recently made regulations. In response to the regulatory freeze, AMS pushed back the effective date to May 19, 2017. Barring any decisions by the new administration to the contrary, the rule should become effective on that date. More information concerning this final rule is available here.
Massachusetts voters approve livestock confinement ballot initiative
Some states have taken it upon themselves to address various aspects of animal welfare. This past Election Day, Massachusetts passed Question 3, a ballot initiative concerning confinement of livestock. Question 3, also called the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, applies to farm owners and operators who raise breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens within the state, and also to business owners and operators who sell products from such livestock within the state. When the Act becomes effective on January 1, 2022, this will mean that any farmers or businesses selling their pork, veal, or eggs in Massachusetts, even if they are not physically located within the state, would have to comply with the state’s confinement rules. The law prohibits the aforementioned livestock being “confined in a cruel manner,” meaning that the animals cannot be “confined so as to prevent [them] from lying down, standing up, fully extending [their] limbs, or turning around freely.” There are certain exceptions to this rule, including during transport, at fairs, during a veterinary examination, etc. When the Act goes into effect, violators will face a $1,000 civil fine per violation, and/or an injunction
Ohio Livestock Care Standards
As many will remember, Ohio has its own laws and regulations concerning livestock welfare. Voters passed an amendment to the Ohio Constitution in 2009. The amendment created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, which was tasked with creating the actual “care standards” for livestock animals in the state. The first of these “livestock care standards,” or rules, became effective on September 29, 2011. Standards exist for different types of livestock and cover everything from acceptable euthanasia practices for each species, to the provision of food and water, to acceptable methods of transportation. The board continues to meet regularly to review the care standards.
The regulations on livestock care include an investigation process initiated by complaints on potential violations of the standards. Since the standards became effective, the Ohio Department of Agriculture has received a number of complaints and works with operators to bring them into compliance if the agency finds a violation. According to Farm and Dairy, there were 51 such investigations in 2012, 29 in 2013, and 23 in 2014. In 2015, there were 33 investigations—23 of which resulted in no violations of the standards. Producers can learn more about the livestock care standards at http://www.agri.ohio.gov/LivestockCareStandards.
Update: The final rule concerning the listing of the rusty patched bumble bee as endangered was originally slated to go into effect on February 10, 2017, as is described below. On February 9, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a notice in the Federal Register explaining that they would abide by the Trump Administration’s 60-day regulatory freeze and delay the effective date until March 21, 2017. The Federal Register entry is available here.
Will the bee's ESA listing stand, and how might it affect agriculture?
Written by: Ellen Essman, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
On January 11, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a final rule designating the rusty patched bumble bee (scientific name Bombus affinis) as an endangered species, the first bee in the continental U.S. to receive this status. The rule was originally slated to go into effect on February 10, 2017. If the rule is allowed to stand, it will have a number of implications for federal agencies, farmers, and other private entities.
The final rule, found in the Federal Register at 50 CFR Part 17, includes a lengthy description of the rusty patched bumble bee. The bees have black heads, and the worker bees, as well as the male bees, have a “rusty reddish patch centrally located on the abdomen,” giving them their common name. Necessities for the species include “areas that support sufficient food (nectar and pollen from diverse and abundant flowers), undisturbed nesting sites in proximity to floral resources, and overwintering sights for hibernating queens.” Additionally, the bees prefer temperate areas. The rusty patched bumble bee was found in 31 states and provinces in the 1990s. From the year 2000 and on, the bumble bee has only been found in a diminished range of 14 states and provinces. The bumble bee has been found in Ohio since 2000, but following the overall trend, at much lower rates.
Possible reversal of the rule
Since the publishing of the final rule, the Trump Administration has instituted a regulatory freeze on administrative agencies which could push back effective dates for those regulations that have not yet gone into effect by at least 60 days. In the meantime, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) may also affect the final rule. The CRA gives Congress 60 legislative days from either the date a rule is published in the Federal Register, or the date Congress receives a report on the rule, to pass a joint resolution disapproving the rule. A signature by the President is the final step required to invalidate the rule. What is more, an agency cannot submit a rule after these steps are taken that is “substantially in the same form” as the overturned rule. Historically, the CRA has not been frequently used, as success is typically only possible when a number of events align:
- There is a new presidential administration;
- Congress and the President are members of the same party;
- The previous President was a member of the opposing party; and
- The timing of rule publication or rule reporting and Congressional calendars allow for a joint resolution within the 60-day limit.
The text of the CRA is available here. With the regulatory freeze and the possible use of the CRA, it is not clear when or even if the new rule will actually go into effect.
Importance of the rusty patched bumble bee
The rusty patched bumble bee is a pollinator species, meaning they, along with other pollinators, assist with the reproduction of flowers, crops, and grasses. According to a FWS fact sheet, in the United States, the rusty patched bumble bee and other insects’ pollination is worth $3 billion annually.
The Endangered Species Act
What exactly is the process for listing a species as “endangered?” The Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) definition of an endangered species is: “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Accordingly, the ESA allows the FWS to designate species as endangered or threatened as long as one (or more) of five factors apply:
- (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range;
- (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
- (C) Disease or predation;
- (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
- (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 16 USC 1533.
In the case of the rusty patched bumble bee, the FWS found that factors (A), (C), and (E) applied. For factor (A), which concerns loss of habitat and range, the FWS cited past encroachment by residential, commercial, and agricultural development. Additionally, agriculture has contributed to the replacement of plant diversity with monocultures, which has resulted in loss of food for the bees. What is more, the range of the rusty patched bumble bee has faced an 87% reduction, as well as an 88% drop in the number of recognized populations.
Concerning factor (C), FWS pointed to a number of diseases and parasites that have afflicted the rusty patched bumble bee. Finally, for factor (E), the FWS identified more numerous hot and dry periods, pesticide and herbicide use, and reproductive issues that have contributed to the reduction of the species. Due to its findings and the factors discussed, the FWS determined that the rusty patched bumble bee is “in danger of extinction throughout its range,” and therefore designated it as endangered.
Significance of ESA listing
After a species is labeled “endangered,” what happens next? In order to facilitate recovery of a species, the ESA also calls for, to the “maximum extent prudent and determinable,” a critical habitat designation to be made for the species. The term “critical habitat” does not apply to everywhere the species is found. Instead, “critical habitat” can be certain places both inside and outside the overall “geographical area occupied by the species” that are found to be “essential” to its preservation. In the case of the rusty patched bumble bee, the FWS has not yet determined its critical habitat.
Implications for agriculture
Under the ESA, federal agencies and private entities have different responsibilities. Federal agencies generally must make sure that any action they are involved in will not do harm to an endangered species or its critical habitat. For the most part, private entities are not affected by critical habitat unless financial aid or approval is sought from a federal agency.
Even though critical habitat concerns do not explicitly apply to private entities, the ESA does contain provisions that prohibit the importing, exporting, possession, sale, delivery, transport, shipping, receiving, or carrying of an endangered species in the United States or in foreign commerce. What is more, the ESA prohibits the “taking” of endangered species within the United States or in the ocean. “Take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect,” an endangered species, or to attempt to do so (emphasis added). It is important to note that “harm” is defined as “an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife…includ[ing] significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering.” Thus, even though the designation of an endangered species and its critical habitat does not explicitly affect private entities, the definitions of “take” and “harm,” when read together, implicitly prohibit actions that are damaging to the species or its habitat. The FWS rule defining “harm” can be found here. The government can assess penalties against those who violate these provisions.
Farmers and other private entities should be aware of the designation of a species as endangered. In the case of the rusty patched bumble bee, if the rule is allowed to stand, private landowners, including farmers, would not be allowed to “take” or “harm” the bee or destroy its critical habitat. Given the important role pollinators like the rusty patched bumble bee play in making agriculture possible, we can assume that agriculture will want to protect the species. But due to the nature of this species, it will be difficult to ascertain when a farmer’s actions do “take” or “harm” a rusty patched bumble bee. The nature of the species and the future status of the rule create much uncertainty on how agriculture will address the rusty patched bumble bee going forward.
Written by: Ellen Essman and Chris Hogan, Law Fellows, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Below is the second of our two-part series regarding bills related to agriculture that failed to pass during Ohio’s 2015-2016 legislative session.
Requirements for Humane Society Agents and House Bill 45
House Bill 45 was introduced February 10, 2015 and would have amended existing law to impose additional requirements upon those people hoping to be appointed as humane society agents. A number of changes and additions would have been implemented through the passage of HB 45. The bulk of the proposed legislation concerned training for humane society agents and filing evidence of completing that training with the county recorder. HB 45 would have required county recorders to record “[p]roof of successful completion of training by humane society agents,” as well as “notices of revocation of agents’ appointment” in the official records (emphasis added). According to the bill, proof of completion of training would have had to been signed by the CEO of the organization that provided training, the chief officer of the county humane society, and either the mayor or probate judge in the county.
House Bill 45 was referred to the Local Government Committee on February 11, 2015. No further action was taken, rendering the proposed legislation dead when the 131st General Assembly ended.
Tethering Animals and House Bill 94
House Bill 94 was introduced March 2, 2015 and would have enacted language that would have made it illegal to negligently tether an animal outside in certain situations. The bill would have imposed time limits on tethering and a prohibition on tethering animals in certain weather conditions. Furthermore, a prohibition on tethering would have been imposed if the tethers were unsafe, under a certain length, allowed the animal to touch fences or cross property lines, or were inappropriate for the animal’s size. HB 94 also would have prohibited tethering if the surrounding area was unsanitary, or if the owner of the premises was not present. Finally, the bill would have amended the current law to include punishment for violating the proposed tethering language. The bill, however, was referred to the House Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and afterwards, no action was taken on it.
Animal Abusers and House Bill 177
House Bill 177 was introduced on April 28, 2015. HB 177 would have required people who either were “convicted of or pleaded guilty to” a number of animal abuse violations to submit certain information, along with a fee, to the Attorney General within 30 days of “being convicted or pleading guilty.” HB 177 also tasked the Attorney General with creating and keeping a registry of animal abuse violators.
Law enforcement officers, humane society agents, and dog wardens would have been responsible for notifying the Attorney General of animal abuse violations. Animal shelters would have been prohibited from allowing a person on the registry from adopting a dog, cat, or any animal kept in a home.
The bill was referred to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on May 5, 2015, where no further action was taken.
To read HB 177, visit this page.
Sale of Dogs and House Bill 573
House Bill 573 was introduced on May 17, 2016. This bill focused on the sale of dogs both from pet stores and from other entities. The bill would have added or changed a number of definitions in the Ohio Revised Code. Most notably, the law would have made it illegal for a pet store to “negligently…offer for sale” or otherwise “transfer” a dog unless it came from an animal rescue, an animal shelter, a humane society, a dog retailer, or a qualified breeder, all of which were defined elsewhere in the bill.
Additionally, according to HB 573, both dog retailers and pet stores would have been forbidden from selling or otherwise transferring a dog under a number of conditions. Under the bill, they could not have sold dogs less than eight weeks old, dogs that had not been inspected by a veterinarian, and dogs without a microchip, among other conditions. However, none of these requirements would have been applicable to a dog sold or otherwise “transferred from the premises where the dog was bred and reared.” Finally, the bill included language stating that it would preempt local laws regulating the sale of dogs. House Bill 573 was referred to the Finance Committee on May 23, 2016 and no further action was taken.
Invasive Species and House Bill 396
House Bill 396 was introduced on November 16, 2015. This bill dealt with restricting and prohibiting certain species in Ohio. HB 396 would have added a number of definitions to the Ohio Revised Code, including a lengthy list of “prohibited species.” Species of birds, crayfish, fish, insects, and mollusks were included in the list. Additionally, “restricted species” was defined as including the quagga mussel, the zebra mussel, and their eggs. In addition, HB 396 would have given the Chief of the Division of Wildlife, with advice from Ohio Director of Agriculture, the power to designate other restricted and prohibited species subject to a number of considerations. One of these considerations would have been whether or not the species could cause severe harm to agricultural resources. The bill would have made it illegal to possess, introduce, sell, or offer to sell restricted and prohibited species.
The bill was referred to the Agricultural and Rural Development Committee on January 20, 2016 and ultimately did not leave the Committee.
Deer Rehabilitation and House Bill 267
House Bill 267 was introduced on June 22, 2015 and would have changed the Ohio Revised Code to allow licenses to run deer sanctuaries, permits to rehabilitate deer, and training for law enforcement. During the training, law enforcement officers were supposed to learn how to determine whether they needed to humanely euthanize injured deer or transfer them to someone permitted to rehabilitate the deer.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on October 1, 2015, and was ultimately stranded there.
Labeling Nursery Stock and House Bill 566
House Bill 566 was introduced on May 12, 2016 and would have made it illegal for a person to “recklessly label or advertise nursery stock as beneficial to pollinators” if the nursery stock had been “treated with a systemic insecticide.” It would also have been illegal for a person to “recklessly label” stock as beneficial if the stock included the U.S. EPA warnings of “pollinator protection box[es]” and “pollinator, bee, or honey bee precautionary statement[s] in the environmental hazard section of an insecticide product label” on its packaging.
The bill was referred to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on November 11, 2016 and never made it any further.
Adjusting Current Agricultural Use Value formulas: Senate Bill 246 and House Bill 398
During the 131st General Assembly, the Senate considered Senate Bill 246. SB 246 addressed how current agricultural use value, otherwise known as CAUV, is calculated. CAUV permits land to be valued at its agricultural value rather than the land’s market or “highest and best use” value. SB 246 was a companion bill. That means that a version of the bill was introduced in both the Ohio House and the Ohio Senate. The companion house bill to SB 246 was House Bill 398.
Both bills were intended to alter the current formula used to calculate CAUV values across Ohio. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the changes proposed by the bill would “have a uniformly downward effect on the taxable value of CAUV farmland.” Thus, the likely effect would have been a lower tax bill for farmers who are taxed on a CAUV basis.
The Senate referred its bill, SB 246, to the Senate Ways and Means Committee on December 9, 2015 and HB 398 was referred to the House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee on January 20, 2016. Neither committee acted on its bill. Therefore, neither bill was passed into law during the 131st General Assembly.
To read SB 246, visit this page. The Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s analysis of SB 246 is available here. To read HB 398, visit this page. The Ohio Legislative Service Commission’s analysis of HB 398 is available here.
Nonrefundable Tax Credits for Rural Businesses and Senate Bill 209
The 131st General Assembly considered a nonrefundable tax credit for insurance companies that invest in certain rural business growth funds. According to the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, qualifying rural business growth funds include special purpose rural businesses that contribute capital to certain kinds of businesses with substantial operations in rural areas of Ohio.
SB 209 passed in the Ohio Senate. But, the bill did not pass the Ohio House. Therefore, the bill was not passed into law during the 131st General Assembly.