350R96008 38 1996 NEPIS online LM 20070123 hardcopy single page tiff wwpd livestock states water quality pollution waste region state programs e1hwf6 report information nonpoint source epa projects efforts data resources United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Inspector General. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Inspector General, United States.--Environmental Protection Agency Water--Pollution \ Office of Inspector General Audit Report REGION 7's EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WATER POLLUTION FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 September 30,1996 Photograph Courtesty of Oklahoma Department Of Agriculture image: ------- Inspector General Division Conducting the Audit: Central Audit Division Kansas City, Kansas Region Covered: Region 7 Program Office Involved: Division of Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides image: ------- 00 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL DIVISION 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 September 30,1996 (913) 551-7878 FAX: (913) 551-7837 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: I ^FROM: TO: Region 7s Efforts to Address Water Pollution From Livestock Waste E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 Bennie S. Salem Divisional Inspector General for Audit Dennis Grams Regional Administrator Attached is our report entitled Region 7's Efforts to Address Water Pollution from Livestock Waste. We found that the Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division provided resources to support the state programs but needed a more structured overall strategy to measure states* success in reducing livestock waste pollution. The report contains recommendations to develop an approach to measure the effectiveness of the controls over livestock waste pollution. We summarized comments on the draft report and included the complete Region 7 response as Appendix I. We hope our recommendations will assist you in building a successful partnership with the states to address livestock waste pollution. ACTION REQUIRED In accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Order 2750, you, as the action official, are required to provide us a written response to this report within 90 days of the final report date. For corrective actions planned but not completed by the response date, reference to specific milestone dates will assist us in deciding whether to close this report. This audit report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has identified and corrective actions OIG recommends. This audit report represents the opinion of OIG. Final determination on matters in this audit report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the findings represented in this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. RECYCLED image: ------- We have no objection to the release of this report to any member of the public. This report contains no confidential business or proprietary information that cannot be released to the public. Should you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at 551-7831 or Charles Watts at 551-7832. Attachment image: ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported in the EPA National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress that agriculture, including livestock waste, was the leading source of pollution in the Nation's surveyed rivers and streams. The livestock industry had expanded, and the practice of consolidating large numbers of animals in facilities concentrated tons of livestock waste and increased the potential for degrading water quality. Our audit objectives were to determine whether Region 7 adequately worked with the states to control water pollution from livestock waste and identified the extent of pollution from livestock waste to target resources. BACKGROUND Livestock is a major industry in Region 7 and is a source of pollution in the Nation's surveyed rivers and streams. Pollution from livestock waste can be classified as either point source or nonpoint source. EPA livestock waste controls focused on point sources of pollution by requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for large animal feeding facilities that may discharge to U.S. waters under certain conditions. EPA categorized pollution from smaller, unpermitted facilities and from diffused sources as nonpoint source pollution. Region 7 provides grants under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 to fund selected demonstration projects to help address nonpoint source pollution. CWA does not require states or EPA to establish enforcement programs to control nonpoint source pollution. Thus, nonpoint source pollution control remains largely voluntary. Livestock waste can threaten human health when people contract diseases from microorganisms in livestock waste through direct contact with contaminated water, consumption of contaminated drinking water, or consumption of contaminated shellfish. Livestock wastes can also change water habitats through excess nutrients that encourage algae blooms and the spread of diseases to wildlife. E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- RESULTS IN BRIEF RECOMMENDATIONS The Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division (WWPD) could have been more proactive in developing a structured overall strategy to measure states' success in reducing livestock waste pollution. WWPD provided resources to support the state programs, but because these programs are either formally delegated or statutorily designated to the states, the states have primary responsibility to manage and operate these programs. Although WWPD indicated it does negotiate with and provide input to the states, WWPD questioned its authority to direct what the states select as their priorities for their delegated and voluntary programs. However, WWPD did not evaluate the environmental outcomes of state programs to measure the effectiveness of program controls. WWPD could have provided better customer service to the states by using available tools, such as water quality data, to help assess program effectiveness. WWPD needed to identify any gaps in available information and work more effectively with the states to focus or improve water quality assessment data. WWPD could benefit from identifying indicators to evaluate the extent of livestock waste pollution, target resources, and determine whether the states' nonpoint source and permit programs achieved intended results. The Regional Administrator should instruct the WWPD Director to develop an approach to measure or develop indicators of the effectiveness of the controls over livestock waste pollution in relation to other potentially significant contributors to state water quality problems. WWPD should begin to identify usable sources of information to track significant changes in water quality, and accumulate livestock and other trend data. It should then compare the information to evaluate pollution contributors, and their relative impacts, and assess the need for and effectiveness of controls over these various contributors. WWPD should work more effectively with the states to identify weaknesses in current water quality data and ways the states can improve water quality data. WWPD should use its analysis to negotiate resources, goals, and performance measures. AGENCY COMMENTS Although WWPD's written response indicated disagreement with our recommendations, representatives from WWPD verbally agreed 11 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- that Region 7 could begin to use data from different sources to identify and prioritize significant pollution sources. This information could help the Region more effectively work with the states in planning how to use their limited resources. Livestock waste would be just one component of the overall picture. WWPD representatives agreed that they need to work with the states to improve available water quality data. Also, WWPD representatives agreed they needed to work with the states to ensure that both state and EPA priorities can be met. 111 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- image: ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE 1 BACKGROUND 1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 4 PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE 5 2 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS LIVESTOCK WASTE POLLUTION COULD BE BETTER FOCUSED 6 WWPD SUPPORTED STATE EFFORTS 6 WWPD NEEDED TO USE WATER QUALITY INFORMATION FOR DESIGNING LIVESTOCK WASTE CONTROLS 8 CONCLUSION 14 RECOMMENDATIONS 14 AGENCY COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 15 APPENDICES APPENDLX I: APPENDDC H APPENDIX 111 AGENCY COMMENTS 18 ABBREVIATIONS 26 DISTRIBUTION 27 El HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- image: ------- CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported in the EPA National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Cong-ess that agriculture was the leading source of pollution in the Nation's rivers and streams. The livestock portion of the agriculture industry had expanded, and current farming practices consolidated large numbers of animals to confined areas. These practices concentrated tremendous quantities of livestock waste and increased the potential for degrading water quality. Our audit objectives were to determine whether Region 7 adequately worked with the states to control water pollution from livestock waste and identified the extent of pollution from livestock waste to target resources. BACKGROUND Livestock is a major industry in Region 7. In 1994, Region 7 states produced more than 21 million cattle, 23 million hogs, and 68 million chickens and turkeys. In 1995, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska were among the top 10 livestock producers in the Nation. Hog Feeding Operation Photograph Courtesy of National Pork Producers Council EPA classified pollution from livestock waste as either nonpoint or point source pollution based on the origin. Nonpoint source pollution occurs when precipitation washes contaminants from tracts of land to surface and ground water. In contrast, point El HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- source pollution comes from comparatively easily identified, often municipal and industrial, discharge points. EPA considers pollution from smaller facilities as nonpoint source pollutioa Congress enacted Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 to require states to assess water quality impaired by nonpoint sources and develop comprehensive management plans. Region 7 provided grants under CWA Section 319 to fund selected demonstration projects to help address nonpoint source pollution. CWA does not require states or EPA to establish enforcement programs to control nonpoint source pollution and controls remain largely voluntary. Point source pollution has long been the focus of most water pollution prevention and abatement efforts under CWA and similar state laws. EPA categorizes discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) as point source pollution. EPA regulates point source pollution pursuant to CWA Section 402, which establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. EPA requires NPDES permits for lawful point source discharges from CAFOs. NPDES regulations impose a "no discharge" effluent limitation on CAFOs, meaning that except under a chronic and catastrophic rainfall event at a properly operated facility, all runoff from animal confinement areas must be captured in containment structures such as lagoons. Region 7 delegated the permitting of large facilities to Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri in 1974, and to Iowa in 1978. Hog Facility Lagoon Photograph Courtesy of National Pork Producers Council E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- EPA recognized that CAFOs can also contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Livestock waste loses its identity when waste from lagoons is applied as fertilizer on crop or pasture land. Land application of livestock waste is encouraged as a best management practice. However, proper application of waste depends on factors such as type of crop, weather conditions, method of application, and the amount of nutrients already in the soil. Improper or excess application may result in polluted runoff, thus turning the "no discharge" limitation on CAFOs into a "deferred discharge" or nonpoint source pollution, which the NPDES permit program does not address. EPA issued a Water Quality Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations in February 1994 in response to water quality concerns raised by the Report of the EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup issued in 1993. The EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup was formed in 1992 to study issues relating to impacts of animal feeding operations on waters of the U.S. and to develop strategies for reduction of livestock waste pollution. The 1994 Strategy directed the regions to evaluate available data to identify priority watersheds or other geographic areas with measurable feedlot problems. A watershed is an area draining into a river, river system, or body of water. The Strategy recommended that the regions and the states focus permitting, compliance, and enforcement resources where they would achieve the greatest environmental benefit. According to the EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup, livestock waste can threaten human health and animal welfare. People contract diseases from microorganisms in livestock waste through direct contact with contaminated water, consumption of contaminated drinking water, or consumption of contaminated shellfish. Furthermore, livestock wastes can impact animal welfare through adding excess nutrients to water habitats and spreading diseases to wildlife. CWA established the Section 305(b) report process for states to develop information on water quality within the states. Each state developed a program to assess its water quality and prepare a report every 2 years describing its water quality status. EPA compiled and summarized the data from the state reports, and transmitted the summaries to Congress in the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (hereinafter referred to as National Water Quality Report). E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- The Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division (WWPD) in Region 7 was responsible for overseeing the states* CWA Section 319 and NPDES programs, including activities to address livestock waste. One employee served as the coordinator for NPDES livestock waste issues. Other employees dealt with livestock waste indirectly, such as in the nonpoint source program. Also, Region 7 jointly funded, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A), one employee to serve as technical liaison with USDA and members of the agriculture industry to perform education and outreach activities. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We performed the audit from January 1996 through July 1996. We conducted fieldwork at EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kansas; EPA Region 6 in Dallas, Texas; the EPA Office of Water in Washington, D.C.; the Missouri and Iowa Departments of Natural Resources in Jefferson City, Missouri, and Des Moines, Iowa; the Kansas Department of Health and Environment in Topeka, Kansas; and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in Lincoln, Nebraska. We interviewed Region 7 staff from WWPD to identify Region 7 and state efforts to control water contamination from livestock waste. Also, we interviewed state representatives, attended a multi-state CAFO seminar, and reviewed state nonpoint source management plans and assessments. We accompanied a Kansas inspector on livestock facility inspections, and reviewed inspection and permitting procedures in all four states. Also, we interviewed representatives from the livestock industry and attended a state hearing on proposed regulations to obtain industry comments. We obtained information from Region 6 on its approach to controls over livestock waste to compare with Region 7s approach. We analyzed 1995 state statistical information on permitted operations and trends in the agriculture industry and consulted an Office of Inspector General (OIG) engineer to help interpret water quality data. We reviewed 1994 state water quality assessment reports and the 1994 National Water Quality Report to identify contamination from livestock waste. We reviewed WWPD's performance agreement and met with the EPA Office of Water to evaluate performance measures for livestock waste nonpoint and point source pollution. Also, we obtained water quality assessment information from representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey. E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. We reviewed WWPD Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act assessments. WWPD did not report any weaknesses related to livestock waste, but stated that livestock waste would be implicit in its review strategy for "Focusing Resources on the Environment." We did not assess general controls over the CWA Section 319 projects and NPDES permit program, except where they directly rekted to our objectives. We did not evaluate the selection and usefulness of CWA Section 319 projects. PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE This audit is the first OIG audit directed specifically at addressing livestock waste pollution. A related 1991 OIG audit report on the Delaware and Inland Bays Estuary programs said EPA's efforts to address nonpoint source poEution, including poultry manure, was inadequate. Two June 1995 General Accounting Office (GAO) reports provided background information on animal agriculture and water quality statistical informatioa A 1990 GAO report about EPA efforts to reduce nonpoint source water pollution recommended that EPA shift resources to implement its nonpoint source agenda and assist state and local programs to control nonpoint source pollution. E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- image: ------- CHAPTER 2 EFFORTS TO ADDRESS LIVESTOCK WASTE POLLUTION COULD BE BETTER FOCUSED WWPD supported state programs to address livestock waste concerns but could have been more proactive by developing a more structured overall approach to measure states' success in reducing livestock waste pollution. WWPD provided resources to support the state efforts, but because these programs are either formally delegated or statutorily designated to the states, the states have primary responsibility to manage and operate their programs. Although WWPD does negotiate with and provide input to the states, WWPD questioned its authority to direct what the states select as their priorities for their delegated and voluntary programs. The states were generally satisfied with WWPD's efforts to help implement state programs, but said WWPD could improve customer service. WWPD could have provided better customer service to the states with a more coordinated program that used available tools such as water quality data to encourage states to make program changes and improvements. WWPD needed to identify any gaps in available information and work with the states to identify how the information could be improved. WWPD could benefit from identifying indicators, including water quality information, to evaluate watersheds with livestock waste pollution, effectively allocate resources, and determine whether the states' nonpoint and point source programs achieved intended results. WWPD SUPPORTED STATE EFFORTS WWPD supported state programs to control pollution from livestock waste, although WWPD did not have a well-defined strategy to address livestock waste pollution. WWPD officials said the CWA Section 319 nonpoint source program was state-managed and all its states had implemented the point source permit requirements. Therefore, WWPD did not develop a strategy to target resources based on environmental results. The states were generally satisfied with Region 7's efforts and customer service. However, state officials provided suggested areas for Regional assistance to help the states better address livestock waste pollution. E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- WWPD Provided Resources To Support State Efforts States Suggested Improvements for Region 7 Customer Service WWPD devoted resources to support state efforts to manage livestock waste but was unable to provide data on environmental benefits from its efforts. WWPD awarded the states grant funds under the CWA Section 319 nonpoint source program for livestock waste management projects and the development and distribution of educational material. A representative from the National Pork Producers Council praised WWPD's efforts to educate and work with the industry in preventing pollutioa However, WWPD awarded these projects without Unking the results of the Section 319 projects to an overall Regional strategy to achieve the best results and meet Regional priorities. WWPD provided about $6.7 million for projects demonstrating livestock waste control during fiscal 1990 through 1995. The amount awarded varied widely from year to year and state to state. Besides livestock waste, the projects often involved other agriculture practices. WWPD awarded the livestock waste management projects based on state priorities, interest in the watershed areas, and quality of the proposals. WWPD stated In hs response to the draft report that it was beginning to get environmental results from Section 319 projects. The projects were intended to be long-term projects, and were generally implemented in 1991 and 1992. WWPD stated it is now beginning to see stream improvements resulting from individual projects. WWPD stated it agreed that the Region should use the results of current projects to help the states prioritize future projects, but the Region did not have a current strategy to do so. State officials said that Region 7's customer service was generally satisfactory but could be unproved. State officials praised EPA employees' efforts to answer their questions, explain NPDES requirements, and attend individual and multi-state CAFO seminars. State officials noted that representatives from Region 7 were willing to attend seminars and explain EPA requirements, or just "establish a presence." Missouri officials were also pleased because WWPD worked with Missouri to establish a program under its State Revolving Fund to help finance the waste control construction for smaller livestock operations. Additionally, Missouri recognized WWPD's concurrence with Missouri's refocusing of inspection efforts in fiscal 1996 from traditional major point sources such as municipal waste treatment facilities to increased livestock facility inspections. E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- However, state officials said EPA could nnprove its customer service by analyzing environmental trends, providing expertise to the states, and ensuring all states provide fundamental environmental protection. Missouri officials said EPA could provide the scientific information to show the true effect and scope of livestock pollution and to determine if Missouri's legislative efforts adequately addressed recent problems without imposing an unreasonable burden on industry. Iowa officials stated Region 7 could evaluate and communicate what it knows about the risks from pathogens or seepage rates from various lagoon liners. Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa officials said that they would benefit from an EPA compilation of studies and projects to date so that what is known about livestock waste pollution is brought together. WWPD NEEDED TO USE WATER QUALITY INFORMATION FOR DESIGNING LIVESTOCK WASTE CONTROLS WWPD and the states focused on controlling livestock waste through NPDES permits and manure management, as provided through state delegated programs. However, WWPD did not use state water quality assessments and other indicators to determine if state livestock waste point and nonpoint source efforts provided the most benefit to water quality. WWPD recognized that it needed to shift its focus toward environmental results in the future. WWPD Focused on Outputs Rather than Results WWPD and the states focused their livestock waste controls toward NPDES permits and manure management, the primary focus of current EPA point and nonpoint source programs. However, WWPD could not demonstrate whether the programs resulted in improved water quality. WWPD focused its controls toward ensuring all large operations were permitted and using sound manure application plans rather than toward assessing water quality changes in heavily permitted sections of the states. WWPD representatives believed that water quality impacts from regulated livestock operations were dependent on having lagoons properly constructed and operated. Also, WWPD stated that individual Section 319 projects include evaluation of results, but given the time lag in observing water quality benefits, the final water quality results are not yet known. These results will generally include other best management practices in addition to livestock waste management so benefits could result from a number or combination of measures taken in a watershed. However, we believe that because states continue to report impairments from livestock waste, the NPDES requirements may not be sufficient to protect water quality. 8 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- WWPD Did Not Use State Water Quality Assessments Permit programs in Region 7 states varied. Although the states' programs were generally more mature and stringent than EPA requirements, WWPD did not tie these programs to changes in water quality and changes in other industry. Also, state inspection practices varied in the numbers of inspectors and frequency of inspections. Controls focused on ensuring that lagoons were properly constructed and maintained, and not on ensuring that water quality was not degraded. All four states had controls for nonpoint source livestock waste and required manure management plans. The states required the application of livestock waste at agronomic rates once the waste was removed from the lagoons. In addition, the states had CWA Section 319 demonstration projects. Three states had projects that focused on control of livestock waste for smaller, unpermitted livestock operations. The fourth state's projects had a more general focus on agriculture. However, WWPD did not evaluate the environmental results and cost effectiveness of the demonstration projects coupled with the permit controls. State water quality assessments prepared pursuant to CWA Section 305(b) provided a good indicator that livestock waste was a source of water quality problems, but WWPD did not use the state water quality assessments to help give direction to state programs for livestock waste management. WWPD did not consider the reports to be useful as a management tool for evaluating the effectiveness of the states' delegated programs in controlling pollution from livestock operations because the data had gaps and was inconsistent. WWPD said it did not use the water quality information to determine which state had the best livestock program because data collection and generation were not designed for that purpose. For instance, Kansas reported the percentage of streams degraded by livestock waste from feedlots. Nebraska reported streams impaired by livestock waste from animal holding areas other than feedlots. Missouri and Iowa reported the percentage of streams degraded by agriculture in general but did not specify streams degraded by livestock waste. Each of the four states reported the percentage of lake acreage impacted by agriculture in general, but not by livestock waste. Table 1 summarizes stream and lake degradation in Region 7 states as reported in the 1994 National Water Quality Report. E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- Table 1 - Impact of Agriculture or Livestock Waste on Water Quality WWPD Did Not Use Other Indicators State Iowa Kansas Missouri Nebraska Percent of Streams Impaired by Agriculture 56% 96% 34% 63% Percent of Streams Impaired by Livestock Waste Not Reported 96%(feedlots) Not Reported 1% (animal holding area) Percent of Lake Acreage Impaired by Agriculture 33% 82% 1% 7% Although states included concerns over livestock waste pollution in the narrative portions of their water quality assessments, the states were not required to use their water quality assessments to determine the effect of livestock waste. The water quality information did not support comparison of the environmental benefits of the nonpoint to point source livestock waste control programs. Also, the reported information did not support a comparison of the effects of livestock waste to the effects of other pollution sources. For example, states were not required to distinguish between livestock waste and other fertilizers when reporting water impairments caused by agriculture. WWPD officials did not formally evaluate these reports in the past, but agreed that they needed to analyze state water quality assessments for information gaps and inconsistencies. WWPD officials said that they did not identify gaps in the information because gathering water quality information is expensive, and more funding may not be available. However, the Geographic Planning and Coordination Branch was in the process of analyzing the 1994 and 1996 water quality assessment reports to identify gaps in assessment coverage, differences in interstate water assessments, and leading causes of impairments. WWPD intended to use the results of this analysis for state grant negotiations to improve state water quality monitoring and reporting by the second quarter of fiscal 1997. Other good indicators existed, such as growth and changes in livestock, other industry, and population. However, WWPD did not use these indicators to help the states derive the best benefits from their livestock waste programs. WWPD needed to use these 10 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- indicators to help the states determine the probable causes of pollution, target priority areas, and evaluate the states' success in managing pollution. To illustrate, if livestock concentration in an area increases, but water quality does not decrease, the livestock waste practices may be adequate. WWPD pointed out, and we agree, that the assumption could be made only after also taking into account such factors as water quality data collection, trends, resources, etc. WWPD needed to work with the states to identity available information and fill in information gaps. Other livestock fanning practices contributed to water quality impairments and WWPD needed to compare the effects of livestock waste to the effects of other pollution sources. However, because fl-nitTfeiJ manure contains contaminants that are released in other agricultural practices and discharged from municipal waste treatment facilities, WWPD may only be able to identify probable causes of pollution in order to evaluate program effectiveness. At a May 15,1996, hearing about proposed changes in Missouri's legislation, representatives from the livestock industry said that they were not convinced that livestock waste caused as much of a pollution problem as shifts in population and the increase in septic tanks. This example illustrated the need for WWPD to have sufficient knowledge of pollution trends and probable causes to support the states' management decisions. Newspaper articles provided indications of problems from livestock waste. WWPD could use the articles to gather indications of shifts in industry practices and potential problems. Newspaper articles published in 1995 reported kills of small mouth bass, channel catfish, northern pike, and walleye fish. The states in Region 7 reported 14 livestock waste spills killing more than 462,000 fish in 1995. The articles also raised concerns about the spills' effects on human health. After one spill of livestock waste in Kansas, a creek was found to have fecal bacteria 325 times greater than the standard safe for swimming. Although the stream was designated for non-contact use, a user of the creek was upset because his children had been swimming in the stream, and no warning signs had been posted. WWPD would have benefitted from using mapping to help in its evaluation. WWPD said it worked with and provided assistance to the states to develop geographic information systems (GIS), but WWPD was not using the information for Regional planning and evaluation. Some Region 7 states had identified concentrations of CAFOs within each state through using GIS. For example, Iowa 11 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- Environmental Indicators Measure Performance developed maps of permitted hog operations, maps of assessed water quality, and trend information. Kansas developed maps of permitted operations that could be overlaid with maps of assessed water quality. WWPD could have benefitted from determining what work was already done by the states and building on this work for its analysis. By contrast, Region 6 was developing GIS programs to use in its vulnerability and National Environmental Policy Act assessments. Region 6 indicated it was proactive in developing this information because ft had not delegated the NPDES program to several of their states, but indicated that the information would still be useful for management decisions after it delegates the program to the states. Region 6 officials said they would use the best available information while working to improve the quality of the information. Region 6 officials said the information analysis led to their increased understanding of the factors needed for Regional decisionmaking, such as the cumulative effect of pollution sources on a watershed. Region 6 officials stated they were deliberately designing the GIS programs to be readily used by other regions and states. WWPD's management agreement with the EPA Headquarters Office of Water for fiscal 1996 intended to transition from measuring success by counting activities to measuring success through environmental indicators. The agreement contained goals and measures for fiscal 1996. However, these activities related to efforts expended—not environmental results. WWPD recognized this and stated in its management agreement that it planned to move toward measuring success by using environmental indicators. WWPD can benefit from using information such as state water quality assessment information and from EPA information systems to identify region-specific issues and tie these issues to National goals. EPA Office of Water plans to measure progress toward its goals using state water quality assessment reports, information in the EPA water quality databases, biological survey information, Safe Drinking Water Information System, and U.S. Geological Survey data and studies. WWPD should establish baselines for water quality factors and negotiate region-specific goals based on data in state water quality reports and EPA information systems. This analysis may also allow WWPD to work with the states and grantees to target research and efforts to control nonpoint source pollution to meet National goals. To illustrate, WWPD could establish baselines and measure performance based on information 12 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- such as the water quality factors in Table 2 from states' 1994 water quality assessment reports and the 1994 National Water Quality Report. WWPD noted that critical data, such as how many miles/acres were actually assessed in each state would be needed to understand how widespread the problems reported actually were. Table 2 - Water Quality Indicators Indicators Percent of assessed streams partially or not supporting designated use Percentages of assessed streams impaired by nitrates Percentages of assessed streams impaired by bacteria Percent of assessed streams impaired by oxygen depleting substances Percent of assessed streams impaired by agriculture Percent of assessed streams impaired by feedlots Iowa 57% 10%' 9% Not reported 56% Not reported Kansas 99% Not reported 95% 21% 96% 96% Missouri 47% Not reported Not reported 1% 34% Not reported Nebraska 72% Not reported 21% 0% 63% Not reported 1 Iowa expressed the percentage of mites impaired by nitrates in terms of miles assessed for support of drinking water uses (IS. 3 impaired miles of 151 assessed). WWPD also committed to addressing water quality problems through a watershed approach, which may help target water quality problems caused by various types of sources, including livestock waste runoff. Since inception of the CWA Section 319 program in 1987, WWPD encouraged the states to use a watershed approach to identify the sources of nonpoint and point source pollution in a watershed and identify community-based actions to address the pollution. All states in Region 7 identified major watersheds, but implemented the watershed approach to varying degrees. Also, all states responded positively to a recent renewed emphasis on watersheds. For example, Nebraska targeted watersheds on a 13 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- rotating basis for a more in-depth assessment of water quality for each watershed. Kansas identified one priority watershed to target resources and efforts for fiscal 1996 based on problems identified (including livestock waste) and population served. Missouri identified areas of concern for each watershed in its draft 1996 water quality assessment report. Iowa plans to increase the use of GIS to identify watersheds that are more likely to have pollution problems, such as livestock waste, for its selection of CWA Section 319 projects. CONCLUSION WWPD depended on the states to identify and control livestock waste pollution but could have been more proactive by developing a strategy to ensure Region 7 and its states achieved environmental results. Because the programs are delegated or statutoriry designated to the states, the states made their own assessments, set their own priorities, and provided their own water quality assessment data. Although WWPD personnel stated the states were adequately managing livestock pollution, they could not provide evidence of environmental outcomes to measure success. WWPD will need to develop measures of environmental results if the Region is going to fulfill hs responsibility to collect, analyze, and share information, and provide guidance and direction to the states as they carry out day-to-day operations of environmental programs. Measuring the effectiveness of state livestock waste management will be complicated because of differences in states' approaches and trends in the livestock industry. We recognize that livestock waste is not the only pollution contributor of concern to the Region, but Region 7 will need to identify the significance of livestock waste as a pollution contributor in relation to other contributors to more effectively allocate resources. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Regional Administrator advise the Director, WWPD, to develop an approach to: (1) integrate management planning with information available from the states and other sources, and (2) measure the effectiveness of hs controls over livestock waste pollution in relation to other significant contributors to state water quality problems. The approach should describe how WWPD will obtain the information needed to support Regional management decisions and target resources, including plans to begin to: 14 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- 1. Use existing information such as state water quality assessments to identify significant changes in water quality. 2. Compile existing livestock and other appropriate industry data, such as location and density of operations and livestock production information, to identify potential pollution sources, and develop trend information. 3. Compare significant changes in water quality to available pollution source information, including trends in the livestock industry, to evaluate the success of pollution controls by watershed. 4. Identify weaknesses in data sources and work with the states to focus or improve water quality data. 5. Use the analysis of probable pollution sources and changes in water quality to negotiate future Regional resources, goals, and performance measures. Then negotiate state resources, goals, and performance measures. AGENCY COMMENTS ANDOIG EVALUATION WWPD disagreed with the underlying assumptions of the report and the general intent of our recommendations. WWPD provided areas of disagreement and comments to clarify some issues, and we revised sections of the report accordingly. Its chief concern focused on EPA's authority with relation to delegated programs and the intended uses of water quality monitoring data. It also expressed concern that the language in the report appeared to focus on livestock waste in isolation from other pollution contributors. WWPD's written response indicated that existing water quality data was not available for making meaningful conclusions as to the success or failure of livestock waste controls. Current sources of livestock industry data are not useful as a predictor of water quality problems. WWPD agreed in our exit conference that it should identify weaknesses in existing data sources and stated that h was already working to improve water quality monitoring. However, it did not believe that sufficient information was available to evaluate the success of livestock waste controls. WWPD stated, and we agree, that its programs should be aimed at preventing pollution and not just reacting to water quality problems after the fact. WWPD disagreed with the fifth recommendation, but stated in our exit conference that it should analyze potential and existing pollution sources and other indicators, and use that analysis to 15 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- negotiate future Regional and state resource allocations, goals, and performance areas. WWPD repeatedly stressed that assessments would be overall assessments and would not focus on livestock waste in isolation. Although WWPD's written response indicated disagreement with our recommendations, during our exit conference representatives from WWPD agreed that Region 7 is moving in the direction indicated by the report and could begin to use data from different sources to identify and prioritize pollution sources and as a tool to effectively channel resources. The officials stated that livestock waste would be just one component of an overall strategy, although they were not sure that data would ever be available to precisely evaluate the success of livestock waste pollution control efforts. WWPD representatives agreed that they needed to work with the states to improve available water quality data. Also, WWPD representatives agreed they needed to work with the states to ensure that both state and EPA priorities can be met. WWPD representatives indicated that we should recognize that its relationship with the states is one of partnership, and it cannot "demand or force" the states to operate these programs any differently than they are, as long as the states meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of their delegated or statutoriry designated programs. Also, WWPD was reluctant to agree with our recommendations because of concerns over the resources needed to increase water quality monitoring efforts. We believe that, although the programs have been delegated to the states, EPA still retains overall responsibility for protecting water quality, and cannot limit its role to that of silent partner or intermediary. Without a formal structure that includes National goals and performance measures for watershed management, wide disparities between state efforts may result. We recognize that the state water quality assessments contain data gaps and need to be improved. However, the challenge to EPA and the states is to make effective use of the tools already in place to characterize water quality, while working to improve the tools. We also recognize that the water quality data may not allow WWPD to pinpoint with 100 percent accuracy the sources of pollution and the direct effect on water quality, and that WWPD may need to identify other indicators to support its management decisions. However, EPA and the states are expending resources on monitoring water quality, and WWPD should work with the states to identify areas where monitoring efforts could be focused to increase the information's usefulness as a management tool. 16 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- WWPD stated in its response that monitoring pollution from one specific sector (livestock waste) is not the goal or purpose of water quality assessment under CWA Section 305(b). However, the EPA Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports), dated May 1995, stated that a long- term goal for the 305(b) process is for the assessment data in the reports to become more useful to decisionmakers and help focus resources on priority areas. The guidelines stated that EPA has added codes to its Waterbody System to specifically identify pollution from animal operations, CAFOs (permitted, point source), and nonpoint source pollution from CAFOs. EPA created the Waterbody System, a computerized data system, to manage the waterbody-specific portion of the 305(b) information. While we have no disagreement whh WWPD's stated plan to include livestock waste in an overall strategy, we disagree with WWPD's contention that it should not have a system in place to monitor contamination from a particular sector, in this case livestock waste. We do not know how WWPD will meet its goals to improve water quality if it cannot identify and address the probable causes and relative priority of pollution sources. Livestock waste is of concern to Region 7, as evidenced by the Region providing additional resources in response to concerns by states and the industry. WWPD could benefit by proactively identifying changes in industry, determining the impact on water quality, and planning for an adequate response to ensure Regional and National goals are met. 17 E1HWF 6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 726 MINNESOTA AVENUE KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 SEP 2 01996 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Comments to Draft Audit Report - Region 7's Efforts to Address Water Pollution From Livestock Waste dated August 27, 1996 FROM: TO: Dennis Grams, P.E. Regional Administrator Bennie S. Salem Acting Divisional Inspector General For Audit We have reviewed the document entitled Draf^ Audit Report - Region Ts Efforts to Address Water Pollution From Livestock Waste dated August 27,1996. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with our comments. I want to preface our comments by saying that I appreciate the professional manner in which you and your staff conducted the audit. Although we disagree with some of the report's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, your staff was consistently courteous and professional. Operating in this way will help ensure a constructive relationship, and enhance the overall effectiveness of our respective offices. Our comments are contained in the attachment. If you have any questions, please refer them to Gale Hutton, Director, Water, Wetlands and Pesticides Division. Attachment 18 RECYCLE image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 2 of 8 ATTACHMENT: Review Comments for the Draft Audit Report - Region 7's Efforts to Address Water Pollution From Livestock Waste dated August 27, 1996. L Introduction: Although we are providing you specific comments related to the report's findings, and to the report's recommendations in particular, we want to first provide you with some general comments related to the stated purpose and objectives of the audit. The stated objectives (from the executive summary, which differs slightly from the objectives statement in the report) "were to determine whether Region 7 adequately worked with the states to control water contamination from livestock waste, and developed procedures to identify contamination from livestock waste". We believe the objectives are critically important since it provides the basic foundation upon which the audit is designed and executed. However, we find a major problem with the underlying assumptions used in the audit report. These assumptions include: 1) that U.S.EPA has authorities over state-delegated or statutorily designated programs which in fact do not exist; and 2) that water quality monitoring can be used effectively for certain purposes for which it is not intended, when in fact it can not. Region 7 has in fact worked closely with the states on the issue of pollution from livestock operations. This is supported by text contained in the report stating that "the states were generally satisfied with Region 7's efforts and customer service". The audit report continues to make references throughout the body, conclusions, and recommendations implying that Region 7 should be doing much more to control water pollution from livestock waste . We disagree with this. While we agree that more can always be done in any of the Agency's multitude of programs, it should be emphasized that the NPDES, NFS, and Water Quality Programs, all of which have a bearing on livestock operations, are all either delegated programs or are statutorily designated to be operated by our four regional states. The states are responsible for implementing these programs. They are responsible for making decisions concerning how those programs are managed with respect to addressing livestock operations. They have the authority and latitude in how they choose to do this so long as they meet the statutory and regulatory requirements associated with these programs. Do we always agree with the states in how they implement these programs? No, we do not. Do we always agree with the states in the decisions they make on how to best bring the delegated programs to bear on environmental issues such as livestock waste? No, we do not. However, we have determined that Region 7 states are meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements in these program areas as they relate to livestock waste. Region 7's relationship with the states is one of partnership. While we do "work with" the states, we do not and can not dictate to them how to operate the delegated programs, or what the greatest priorities are towards which they must direct their resources. In this partnership we negotiate with the states on these issues, we provide them technical and financial assistance, and we work to ensure that the statutory and regulatory requirements are met. But, so long as the 19 image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 3 of 8 states meet the regulatory and statutory requirements of the delegated programs (or program designated to be operated by the state), we have no authority to demand or force the states to operate these programs any differently than they are. In view of the states satisfaction with the manner in which we have been working with them, we believe that we have not only "adequately worked with the states", but have been successful. This is supported by the fact that the states have met the statutory and regulatory requirements of the NPDES, NFS, and WQS programs as they relate to livestock waste. The stated objectives, as well as repeated references throughout the report, also imply that systems should be in place to monitor contamination originating from a particular sector - in this case waste from livestock operations. There are several problems with this: 1) monitoring pollution from one specific sector is not the goal or purpose of water quality assessment under 305b of the Clean Water Act; 2) ambient water quality monitoring is the states' responsibility, not EPA's under the Clean Water Act; and 3) livestock operations and the highly intermittent nature of their discharges associated with rainfall events do not lend themselves to conventional fixed station water quality monitoring. The report's conclusions fail to distinguish between livestock point source pollution control programs such as NPDES permits and nonpoint source programs despite the vastly different statutory and operational basis of the two programs. The major thrust of the U.S. EPA's and the State's efforts with respect to pollution from livestock operations is through discharge control and prevention accomplished by effective implementation of the NPDES permit program. If an effective permit is issued and complied with, there will be, effectively, no discharge, and as a result, there will be no pollution of the surface waters. The approach of monitoring to detect pollution, and then continue post-mitigation monitoring to measure mitigation effectiveness is neither reasonable nor viable for permitted livestock operations. The situation is completely different for nonpoint source pollution from the standpoint of EPA and state authorities since no control program is mandated and difficulties of monitoring for trends and effectiveness of controls is even more daunting than for point sources. Following are our comments on the report. IL Comments on Recommendations: Region 7 disagrees with the general recommendation of the report and particularly four of the five specific recommendations listed. We believe our focus on prevention, education, and demonstration is the appropriate approach and is consistent with our authority under the CWA and other competing priorities. EPA has not been given the responsibility or resources to collect the vast amount of water quality information that would be necessary to document the effectiveness of state livestock pollution control programs in the manner suggested by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). 20 image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 4 of 8 Region 7 could support a recommendation that we conduct a review of the animal feeding operation activities in the four Region 7 states, including a dicsussion of state suggestions for support activities the Region might accomplish, during FY97 and the first quarter of FY98. This would build on work accomplished during the last year, and could provide suggestions for priority work negotiations between Region 7 and the states as we enter into work plan negotiations for FY99. A. Recommendations #1, #2, AND #3 The Region disagrees with specific recommendations 1, 2, and 3. Existing water quality data is not suitable for identifying significant changes in water quality and then make meaningful conclusions as to the success or failure of livestock pollution controls. Also, current sources of livestock industry data are not useful as a predictor of water quality problems. The OIG report recognizes that the 305(b) Reports do not contain adequate information for this purpose (pages 8 and 9). Even if there were a sufficient number of monitoring locations to do what the OIG recommends, water quality trends can only be evaluated over the long term. This is especially true for nonpoint source pollution where EPA guidance and USDA studies have shown it takes as long as ten years to show trends after significant land use change. B. Recommendation #4 We do agree with this recommendation in so far as it applies to all water quality data, not just livestock sources. The Region currently has a regional water monitoring team which is creating a regional assessment framework that will provide evaluation and guidance on how the states could improve their monitoring. Since 1994 the Region has utilized Office of Research and Development REMAP funding to provide grants to the states to demonstrate probabilistic monitoring designs. Also as stated in the Report, the Region is evaluating 1994 and 1996 state 305(b) Reports which will assist the regional monitoring team and provide input into FY98 grant negotiations. In addition, consistent with the national 319 program guidance, we are allowing part of the 319 grant funds to be used by states for water quality monitoring in 319 watersheds. C. Recommendation #5 The Region disagrees with this recommendation. As explained in our response to recommendations 1, 2, and 3, existing data is not sufficient to enable Region 7 to evaluate the success of livestock pollution controls in this manner. It is equally important to recognize that programs should be aimed at preventing pollution, not just reacting to water quality problems after pollution is documented. Resources, goals, and performance measures for a livestock pollution control program for a changing industry in which ne\v, very large operations are being built, can not be based solely on reacting to changes in water quality after a problem occurs. 21 image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 5 of 8 However, the Region supports the recommendation1 is overall thrust in that we should analyze potential (and existing) pollution sources and changes in water quality (and other environmental indicators) and use that analysis to help negotiate future regional and state resource allocations, goals, and performance areas. We are doing this through the activities mentioned in B. above for water and for general overall regional efforts, through our prioritization team activities under the Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) approach. We are compiling existing regional and state program priorities, acquiring additional, available databases, and meeting with the lead state environmental agencies to understand their respective prioritization activities. In addition, we have negotiated a commitment in the FY97 work plans with 3 of our 4 states that calls for them to begin a prioritization process for "Places" during FY97. m. General & Specific Comments: General 1. The draft report concentrates on and recommends the use of environmental data, primarily water quality data, to make decisions on the use of resources and to evaluate the success of the state livestock pollution control programs. We believe the report should more fully recognize that environmental data cannot be used to totally drive the livestock program for several reasons. Because of the episodic nature of the discharges from animal feeding operations (acute events) and the possible long term effects of land application practices (chronic) and other nonpoint source (NFS) controls, ambient water quality data may either miss the acute event or take an extended period of time to reflect trends in water quality. While we may agree that water quality data can be improved, and we are encouraging this with our focus on the Watershed and Community Based approaches to pollution control and other Regional actions, as a practical matter sufficient data will not be available to totally use this as a basis for decision making, especially as it relates to a specific, and often inseparable, pollution source such as livestock operations. We would therefore suggest that you reconsider the almost exclusive focus on water quality data and trends as contained in the report and recommendations. The use of data and trends becomes more appropriate as environmental improvement is focused on the total picture, rather than on specific segments such as livestock waste. We believe it is important to include and acknowledge the role of programs in preventing a decline in water quality. Ideally, programs should be aimed at prevention, not just reacting to water quality problems after pollution is documented. This is particularly important for a changing industry in which new, very large operations are being built. The NPDES program and related state efforts are designed to address this. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, and smaller animal feeding operations, should have necessary pollution control facilities in place prior to starting operation. Prevention is an important and necessary effort in our overall pollution control program, and, is a partial basis for WWPD saying that the permit program is achieving intended results. 4 22 image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 6 of 8 Specific Comments 1. Page ii — 3rd Sentence — this is not entirely correct, for example, we evaluate the states NFS program each year in making project funding decisions. Also, each 319 project dealing with animal waste issues is evaluated through quarterly/annual reports. The states' operation of the NPDES program is also reviewed periodically. 2. Page ii — 4th Sentence — water quality is not available from any source to do this for the Region as a whole. 3. Page 4 — last paragraph — while it is correct that WWPD did not report any specific FMFIA weaknesses related to livestock waste in our FY96 Review Strategy, livestock waste is one part of the total picture when priorities are considered in a watershed or community-based approach to environmental improvement. Therefore, livestock waste is considered in our Review Strategy under our item #2, "Focusing Resources on the Environment", which deals with risk and priority setting. 4. Page 6 — 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence ~ although a comprehensive strategy specific to livestock waste may not be in place, WWPD did award 50% of the NPS grants on a competitive basis each year, and that competitive basis included how well the projects matched up with priority areas and how well the project proposals identified the likelihood of environmental results from the projects. 5. Page? —line 2 — "WWPD...was unable to provide data on environmental benefits from its efforts." This statement is somewhat misleading. We are beginning to get results now from Section 319-fiinded projects as the first round of watershed projects is being completed. Because the projects are comprehensive in nature, it may be difficult to directly connect in-stream improvements to livestock management BMPs, but we are seeing some stream improvements. One dramatic example is the return of naturally reproducing trout in some of the Northeast Iowa streams. Other projects underway that address livestock concerns have not yet progressed to the stage that we can point to environmental improvements. It is important to remember that the first projects funded by 319 did not get started with on-the-ground activities until 91 or 92, and were slated to last several years. 6. Page 7 — line 8 — "WWPD awarded these projects without having a structured plan to achieve the best results..." It is not clear what "structured plan" means in this context. There was a written, structured process by which the Section 319 projects were selected for funding. Part of that process included criteria that projects should be in priority watersheds, and that the projects be consistent with the EPA-approved states' nonpoint source management plans, and which represent the best opportunity for success. The entire nonpoint source program is based on state-identified priorities. 7. Page 8 — 2nd & 3rd full paragraphs - as the 3rd paragraph explains, the available water quality information from the states could not be used to compare states or evaluate "which had 23 image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 7 of 8 the best" program. Therefore, the statement in the 2nd paragraph that "WWPD did not use the state water quality assessments to help give direction to the livestock waste program" is essentially validated and should be removed as a criticism. In this context it is unclear what is meant by the "livestock waste program." Also, in 2nd paragraph, the statement is made that WWPD did not consider the state water quality reports to be useful. This is an overstatement. There is much information in the reports that is useful, even though there are limitations to the reports as a whole. 8. Page 9 — first full paragraph - "...states were not required to distinguish between livestock waste and other fertilizers..." Such a distinction is not easily made. It would not be reasonable to require the states do this. 9. Page 9 — second paragraph --"...begin to use the information to support livestock pollution controls." Actually, as suggested on Page 10, the Region can begin to use the information to support additional monitoring requests to the states. Just evaluating the data gaps and inconsistencies won't lead to support for livestock pollution controls. Also, a misconception perpetuated by this language is that the Region only supports livestock pollution controls where there are problems reported. Requiring NPDES permits for all point sources is supported by the Region, not just where there are problems reported. 10. Page 10 —1st full paragraph - we disagree that "Other good environmental indicators existed such as growth and changes in the livestock, other industry, and population." These are not environmental indicators in the sense that we normally use them. In addition, we are not aware of any timely and consistent reporting on a region-wide basis of those "indicators". 11. Page 10 - 1st full paragraph - this paragraph seems to take a fairly simplistic approach to livestock waste control that probably is not generally workable. It states that "if livestock concentration in an area is increased, and water quality is not decreased, the livestock wastes practices in the area may be adequate." This statement does not take into consideration the many other factors that must be taken into consideration when evaluating an increase/decrease in water quality. This also gets into the area of water quality data collection, determining trends, resources, etc. The point is that a program for a changing industry and new operations can't be driven exclusively by environmental data. 12. Page 11 — last paragraph (and on page 12) -it states that "WWPD focused its controls toward ensuring all large operations were permitted and using sound manure application plans rather than toward assessing water quality changes in heavily permitted sections of the states." The implication is that WWPD should have done the latter rather than the former. We disagree. With limited resources, it is more important to prevent pollution from occurring than to monitor it after it occurs. However, if the statement includes nonpoint source watershed projects we would note that several of these projects include evaluation and assessment of results, but many are still underway. Given the lag time in observing water quality benefits, in most cases, final water quality results are not yet in. Benefits of livestock exclusion from streams are more readily 24 image: ------- APPENDIX I Page 8 of 8 observable in a shorter time frame, and these have been recorded in several of the projects. Again, these projects generally include other BMPs in addition to livestock management, so benefits could result from a number or combination of measures taken in the watershed. It is not always possible to isolate water quality benefits related to a single management measure implemented in a watershed. 13. Page 12 — first paragraph, last sentence states that "Controls focused on ensuring that lagoons were property constructed and maintained, and not on ensuring that water quality was not degraded." We disagree with this statement, as water quality is dependent on having lagoons properly constructed and operated. 14. Page 12 & 13 — last paragraph on page 12 that ends on page 13 - This discussion is much broader than the livestock pollution management issue. Although it is generally consistent with the overall direction we are taking, it is longer term and not directed at livestock waste but does include it as suggested by some of our earlier comments. Regard the specific illustration, the Region, for reasons previously cited, would not want to utilize the 1994 State Water Quality Assessment Reports for baselines. As an example, Table 2 leaves out how many miles/acres were actually assessed in each state which is critical to understanding how widespread the problems reported actually were. Also, literal use of the data in KS for targeting purposes would be difficult since 96% of the streams assessed were reported as impaired by livestock. 7 25 image: ------- APPENDIX ABBREVIATIONS CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation CWA Clean Water Act EPA Environmental Protection Agency GAO General Accounting Office GIS Geographic Information System NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OIG Office of Inspector General USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture WWPD Water. Wetlands, and Pesticides Division 26 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: ------- APPENDIX HI DISTRIBUTION Office of Inspector General Inspector General (2410) Region 7 Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division Director, Office of External Programs Audit Followup Coordinator Headquarters Office Assistant Administrator for Water (4101) Director, Office of Wastewater Management (4201) Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs (1301) Office of Public Affairs (1701) Associate Administrator for Regional Operations and State/Local Relations (1501) Headquarters Library (3401) Regional Offices Regional Administrators States Iowa Department of Natural Resources Kansas Department of Health and Environment Missouri Department of Natural Resources Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 27 E1HWF6-07-0017-6100312 image: -------