United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4203)
EPA 833-B-95-001
December 1995
vvEPA
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION x
AGENCY /
DALLAS, TEXAS
LIBRARY
Guide Manual On NPDES
Regulations For Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations
Final
-------
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 FEEDLOTS SUBJECT TO THE NPDES PROGRAM 3
2.1 Discharges to Waters of the United States 3
2.2 Animal and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations 4
2.3 Calculating the Number of Animal Units 5
2.4 Feedlots with More Than 1,000 Animal Units 6
2.5 Feedlots with 301 - 1,000 Animal Units 7
2.5.7 Definition of Man-Made Conveyance 8
2.5.2 Definition of Direct Discharge of Pollutants 8
2.6 Feedlots with 300 or Fewer Animal Units and Other Feedlots Designated
as CAFOs 9
2.6.1 Designation Requirements 10
2.6.2 Targeting Designation Efforts 10
2.6.3 Designation Prior to a Discharge 11
2.7 Intermittent Facilities and Partially Sheltered Operations 12
2.8 NPDES Permit Conditions 12
2.8.1 Effluent Limitations Guidelines 13
2.8.2 Limitations Based on Best Professional Judgment 14
2.8.3 Permit Terms Relating to Land Application of Manure 15
3.0 THE 25-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM EVENT EXEMPTION 16
3.1 Applicability of the 25-Year, 24-Hour Storm Exemption 16
3.2 Retention Structure Capacity 17
4.0 OTHER REGULATORY PROGRAMS 18
4.1 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 18
4.2 The Safe Drinking Water Act 23
5.0 APPENDIX
A. NPDES Regulations A-l
B. Sample report for inspections of animal feeding operations B-l
C. Glossary of terms C-l
D. Bibliography D-l
E. Fact sheet - Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v. Southview Farm .... E-l
-------
PREFACE
Since 1972, Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) has defined concentrated
animal feeding operations as point sources subject to the prohibition against discharging
pollutants to waters of the United States without a NPDES permit. In 1976, EPA promulgated
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations to define the term
"concentrated animal feeding operation" (CAFO). In 1987, the CWA was amended to include
Section 402(p), which regulates discharges composed entirely of storm water, including storm
water discharges from certain CAFOs. In recent years, it became clear that NPDES permitting
authorities have not interpreted the CAFO regulations consistently, in part due to confusion over
the meaning and intent of the regulations. In response, EPA assembled representatives from the
States, EPA Headquarters, and EPA Regions to research the impact of livestock waste on waters
of the United States and to encourage and improve CAFO regulatory efforts. EPA is providing
this guidance manual to help permitting authorities understand the applicability of the NPDES
regulations for CAFOs.
Under the NPDES regulations, animal feeding operations that meet certain criteria
automatically fall under the definition of a CAFO. Other animal feeding operations may be
designated as CAFOs if they pose a threat to water quality or use. This guidance explains when
animal feeding operations are automatically CAFOs and the criteria permitting authorities may
use to designate other operations as CAFOs. This guidance also briefly discusses technology-
based permit requirements that may be applicable to animal feeding operations.
This document is guidance only. It does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations.
Agency decisions in any particular case will be made by applying the laws and regulations on the
basis of specific facts when permits are issued or regulations are promulgated.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 301 (a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes statutory requirements for the
discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. Under CWA 502(14)
and implementing regulations at 40 CFR Section 122.23 and 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B,
"concentrated animal feeding operations" are point sources subject to the NPDES permits
program. In this manual, the term "feedlot" is used to denote an animal feeding operation. The
term "feedlot" is not synonymous with "concentrated animal feeding operation", which refers
specifically to animal feeding operations identified as point source dischargers by the CWA and
the NPDES regulations.
A report prepared by EPA, Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States, surveyed seven States and
one EPA Region on implementation of the NPDES regulations for CAFOs. This report indicated
that permitting authorities in different States interpret and implement the CAFO regulations
differently. In particular, there appeared to be some confusion over:
which feedlots are point sources (CAFOs);
• the significance and applicability of the 25-year, 24-hour storm exemption;
• interpretation of the term man-made conveyance;
• designations of CAFOs on a case-by-case basis; and
NPDES regulation of facilities with animals of species not identified in 40 CFR
Part 122, Appendix B.
The purpose of this guidance manual is to clarify these areas of confusion for permitting
authorities, and to suggest appropriate interpretations of the regulations. Section 2.0 provides a
detailed review of the NPDES provisions for CAFOs. Section 3.0 describes the significance of
the term "25-year, 24-hour storm event" and explains how such a storm event precludes liability
under the CWA for discharges from feedlots. Section 4.0 discusses the applicability of other
EPA-administered programs to feedlots. The appendices provide the applicable NPDES
regulations (Appendix A), a sample report for inspections of animal feeding operations
(Appendix B), a glossary of terms (Appendix C), bibliography (Appendix D), and a fact sheet on
the case Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v. Southview Farm.
-------
2.0 FEEDLOTS SUBJECT TO THE NPDES PROGRAM
This section defines the term animal feeding operation (or feedlot) and explains when a feedlot is
a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) subject to NPDES permitting requirements for
discharges to waters of the United States. Appendix A is a copy of the NPDES regulations for
CAFOs.
2.1 Discharges to Waters of the United States
The NPDES program regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the
United States. The term "waters of the United States" as defined at 40 CFR 122.2 is interpreted
broadly. For the purposes of the NPDES regulations, the terms "waters of the United States"
and "navigable waters," which both appear in the regulations, are interchangeable. It should be
noted that this guidance does not expand nor change the definition of "waters of the United
States", and is consistent with 40 CFR 122.2 in determining NPDES program regulation of
discharge of pollutants from point sources to "waters of the United States".
Many discharges to surface water can be considered discharges to waters of the United States.
The discharge does not have to be directly to a large lake or major interstate river. Wetlands and
tributaries of interstate waters also are waters of the United States. Many discharges of
pollutants from a point source to surface water through groundwater (that constitutes a direct
hydrologic connection) also may be a point source discharge to waters of the United States.
However, many waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet
the requirements of the CWA, are not waters of the United States. (See 40 CFR 122.2) EPA and
the Department of the Army are currently developing a joint proposed rule that would
incorporate existing guidance and policy interpreting CWA geographic jurisdiction into the
regulatory definitions of "waters of the United States." This proposal may include both the
isolated waters provisions and provisions that generally exclude certain man-made waters from
CWA jurisdiction. For additional information, contact the Wetlands Division at (202) 260-8798.
A point source is a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or
may be discharged to surface waters. The definition of "point source" in the CWA includes
pipes, ditches, channels, tunnels, conduits, wells, and discrete fissures, which are all examples of
the traditional understanding of the term "point source". Under CWA §502(14), however,
CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are also specifically included in the definition of
"point source."
An actual or ongoing discharge is not required for a facility to be covered by the NPDES
regulations. The definition of a point source includes a concentrated animal feeding operation
from which pollutants are or may be discharged [CWA §502(14) and 40 CFR 122.2].
-------
2.2 Animal and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
A facility (e.g., farm, livestock market) that houses animals must meet both of the following
criteria to be considered an animal feeding operation [40 CFR 122.23(b)(l)]. The facility must:
• Stable, confine, and feed or maintain animals for a total of 45 days or more in any
12-month period; and,
• Not sustain crops, vegetation forage growth, or post-harvest residues in the
normal growing season over any portion of the facility.
The first part of this definition means that animals must be kept on the lot or facility for a
minimum of 45 days. However, it does not mean that the same animals must remain on the lot
for 45 days or more; only that some animals are fed or maintained on the lot 45 days out of any
12-month period. The 45 days do not have to be consecutive, nor does the 12-month period
have to correspond to the calendar year. For example, the 12-month period may be counted from
June 1 to the following May 31.
The regulations give the permitting authority a fair amount of discretion under 40 CFR
122.23(b)(l); EPA interprets "maintained" to mean that the animals are confined in an area where
waste is generated and/or concentrated. Maintained also can mean that the animals in the
confined area are watered, cleaned, groomed, or medicated. This interpretation allows the
permitting authority to regulate animal operations such as dairy farms, stockyards, and auction
houses where animals may not be fed, but are confined temporarily. The important consideration
in this interpretation is that waste is generated in an area where animals are concentrated.
The second part of the definition distinguishes feedlots from pasture land, which is not subject to
the NPDES program. This part of the definition narrows the geographic scope of the regulations
to the portion of the facility where animals are confined and where natural forage or planted
vegetation does not occur during the normal growing season (for that geographic area). Feedlots
with constructed floors, such as solid concrete or metal slats, clearly satisfy this part of the
definition. Other feedlots may have open dirt areas. These "open dirt" feedlots may have some
vegetative growth along the edges while animals are present or during months when animals are
kept elsewhere. EPA interprets the regulations to mean that if a facility maintains animals in an
area without vegetation, including dirt lots, the facility meets the second part of the definition.
A concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) is an animal feeding operation (i.e., it meets the
two criteria above) that also has:
more than 1,000 animal units [40 CFR 122, Appendix B(a)];
between 301 and 1,000 animal units and that may or does discharge by one of the
methods covered by the regulations at 40 CFR 122, Appendix B(b): or,
• been designated a CAFO by the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis [40
CFR 122.23(c)].
4
-------
Under the regulations, two animal feeding operations with the same owner are considered one
operation for permitting purposes if they share a common border or have a common waste
disposal system [40 CFR 122.23(b)(2)]. Two facilities have a common waste disposal system if
the wastes are commingled prior to disposal. When considering two adjoining operations as one,
permitting authorities should also calculate the total number of animals in order to determine if
the operation is a CAFO. An example of two or more facilities which would meet the definition
of one facility based on the regulation occurs at many poultry farms, particularly turkey
operations. A turkey operation with 60.000 turkeys (10,000 turkeys in six individual totally
enclosed facilities) collects its dry waste three times a year and stores it in another completely
enclosed structure. The waste is later applied agronomically to the field, generally in the spring.
This turkey operation is not a CAFO because there is no potential for a discharge from the
operation.
The CWA excludes certain agricultural activities from federal NPDES permitting requirements,
specifically return flows from irrigated agriculture and agricultural storm water runoff. This
exclusion, however, does not apply to CAFOs. which are explicitly identified as point sources
subject to the NPDES permitting program. {CWA Section 502(14);40 CFR 122.3(c) and (f)}. If
a facility does not meet the criteria of a CAFO. discharges may constitute 'nonpoint source1
agricultural storm water runoff and would be regulated under a different authority (States with
approved NPDES programs may still regulate such discharges as 'point source,' but under the
authority of CWA §510). Exhibits 1 and 2 contain flowcharts that illustrate when an animal
feeding operation is a point source that must have a NPDES permit for discharges to waters of
the United States, as discussed below.
2.3 Calculating the Number of Animal Units
The first step in determining if an animal feeding operation is a CAFO is to calculate the number
of animal units fed or maintained on-site. "Animal unit" is a term defined in 40 CFR 122,
Appendix B and varies according to animal type; one animal is not always equal to one animal
unit. The number of animal units in 40 CFR 122, Appendix B is calculated as follows:
number of slaughter and feeder cattle multiplied by 1.0, plus,
number of mature dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4, plus,
• number of swine weighing over 25 kilograms (55 pounds) multiplied by 0.4, plus,
• number of sheep multiplied by 0.1, plus,
number of horses multiplied by 2.0.
The number of animals or animal units is the number most likely to be present for 45 days in a
12-month period. Permitting authorities should advise operators to use the highest number of
animals most likely to be present for 45 days in a 12-month period.
Poultry operations (i.e., operations with turkeys, ducks, broilers or layers) also may be CAFOs,
although there are no animal unit conversion factors for poultry. In determining if a poultry
operation (such as a turkey operation) meets the size criteria to be considered a CAFO, the
cumulative number of animals in the individual houses would be counted. The number of
-------
turkeys, ducks, broilers or layers (with certain types of waste management systems) that cause
an animal feeding operation to be a CAFO is listed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. An operation with
swine weighing less than 25 kilograms or with fewer turkeys, ducks, broilers or layers than the
number listed in 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B (discussed in Section 2.4 and 2.5) may be
designated a CAFO (discussed in 2.6).
2.4 Feedlots with More Than 1,000 Animal Units
If the number of any one species exceeds the corresponding number indicated below, or the
cumulative number of animal units exceeds 1,000, the animal feeding operation is a CAFO and
should be covered by a NPDES permit:
1,000 slaughter and feeder cattle,
• 700 mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry),
• 2,500 swine each weighing over 25 kilograms (55 pounds),
• 500 horses,
• 10,000 sheep or lambs.
55,000 turkeys,
100,000 laying hens or broilers (with a continuous flow watering system),
• 30,000 laying hens or broilers (with a liquid manure system)1, or
5,000 ducks.
Example: If an animal feeding operation maintains 8,500 sheep on one lot and 1,200 cattle on an adjacent lot,
the entire facility is a CAFO and is subject to NPDES requirements. [1,200 cattle exceeds the 1,000-cattle
threshold]
Example: An animal feeding operation confines and maintains 650 cattle, 5,000 sheep, and 30 horses in adjacent
pens. [(650 x 1.0) + (5,000 x 0.1) + (30 x 2.0)] = 1,210 animal units]. This exceeds 1,000 animal units, thus
the facility is a CAFO and is subject to NPDES requirements.
'EPA recognizes that "continuous watering system" refers to an outdated technology, and the threshold in the CAFO
regulations that is based on this technology would rarely apply. Therefore, the threshold based on "liquid manure
system" would be the more commonly applied threshold for poultry operations. For facilities with inadequate or
inappropriate waste treatment systems or waste handling practices (i.e.. those that threaten or impair water quality), the
permitting authority should determine whether a facility's waste handling system constitutes a "liquid manure system."
EPA believes that animal feeding operations, including poultry operations, that remove waste from pens and stack it in
areas exposed to rainfall or an adjacent watercourse may have established a crude liquid manure system for process
vvastewater that may discharge pollutants, and therefore would be subject to the CAFO regulations [58 FR 7617]. These
facilities would be point sources under the NPDES program if the number of animals confined at the facility meets the
regulatory definition in 40 CFR Part 122. Appendix B or if the facility is designated a CAFO.
-------
o
t—
i? a
m M «!
0- X •"
>— • 3
£ os
z
^
y,
•X E >*»
1 •'= £
|l |
00
en
LU
^.
H ^
^ M r1^
o|g
z^
p^
_=p
O — J *^3
p., — Q
o ^
c/^ ^— r3
[j_j £^ _f~;
its
p t.
~ o
c .b
n 3
b^
t/
o
z
^
•p
f—
§ Q
Cu X "^
o ^J
z
y:
t O
™ '3 ra"
|| |
CO
—
C/)
LU
»
s 2 m
E ^ °^
Sl§
Z §
-**•
••= •• " 1 2 Pr «
Ew « c ffi rr J2
»- ** -9 - - •- {y*5
°" £ ^ .E ^ -g y ^ .E
w £ 1 - 1 1 i ^
QO" ooof— -^Jo
Q.0> t-^^^55,2
z1- s= a c: < ^ :=
o o ^o c o " o
-------
EXHIBIT 1-A
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION
with over 1,000 animal units
(asdescribed in 40 OR122,AppendixB)
Does the facility h ave
the potential to
discharge by any
means?
NPDES PERMIT REQUIRED
FOR LAWFUL DISCHARGE
t
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
Production facilities must at least
meet effluent guidelines: no discharge
unless chronic or catastrophic rainfall
causes overflow from a storage facility
designed, constructed, and operated top
contain all process generated wastewater
plus the runoff' from a 25-year, 24-hour
storm event.
Non-producing facilities (i.e..
livestock markets) must meet best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) or
best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT) determined on a best
professional judgment (BPJ) basis of the
permit writer and State water quality
standards.
NPDES PERMIT NOT REQUIRED
CZARAand/or State requirements
may apply
-------
EXHIBIT 1-B
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION
with 301-1,000 animal units
(asdescribed in 40 QRR122.AppendixB)
Does [he facility have
the potential to discharge
through a man-made devise
or directly to waters of
the U.S.?
i
Case-by-case designation:
Has the permitting authority
designated the facility a
concentrated animal feed ing
operation?
NPDES PERMIT REQUIRED
FOR LAWFUL DISCHARGE
1
Does the facility have
the potential to
discharge through any
other means of
conveyance?
NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
BAT OR BCT based on BPJ of th e
permit writer and State water
quality standards
NPDES PERMIT NOT REQUIRED
CZARA and/ or State requirements
may apply
-------
EXHIBIT 1 -C
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION
with 300 or fewer animal units
(as described in 40 OR 122. Appendix B)
1
Does the facility h ave
the potential to discharge
through a man-made devise
or directly to waters of
the U.S.?
Case-by-case designation:
Has the permitting authority
designated the facility a
concen trated an im al feedin g
operation?
NPDES PERMIT REQUIRED
FOR LAWFUL DISCHARGE
1
NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
BAT OR BCT based on BPJ of the
permit writer and State water
quality standards
NPDES PERMIT NOT REQUIRED
CZARA and/or State requirements
may apply
-------
EXHIBIT 2
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION
with animal species NOT
(described in 40 OR 122, Appendix Q
I
Does the facility have
the potentialto discharge
through any means of
conveyance?
Case-by-case designation:
Has the permitting authority
designated the facility a
concentrated animal feed ing
operation?
NPDES PERMIT REQUIRED
FOR LAWFUL DISCHARGE
NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS:
BAT OR BCT based on BPJ of the
permit writer and State water
quality standards
NPDES PERMIT NOT REQUIRED
CZARA and/ or State requirements
may apply
-------
Discharges to waters of the United States from animal feeding operations with more than 1,000
animal units are point source discharges regardless of the manner of conveyance. The
categorization of these facilities as CAFOs is not limited by the traditional understanding of the
term 'point source.' The discharge may occur through a man-made conveyance (defined in
Section 2.5.1) or through a natural channel or gully that transports wastes, for example, from a
retention structure to nearby surface waters. Flows from the CAFO over bare ground adjacent to
the animal enclosure, for instance, are likely to converge in naturally occurring channels (e.g.,
surface depressions). Any time wastewater from areas of the CAFO flow to waters of the
United States, the result is a discharge that is subject to the NPDES program.
Areas of the CAFO may include animal or poultry watering systems, washing, cleaning or
flushing pens, barns, or manure pits, loading and unloading areas, and feed mills.
2.5 Feedlots with 301 - 1,000 Animal Units
There are two criteria that animal feeding operations with 301 -1,000 animal units must meet
before a permit is required for a discharge to waters of the United States: size and method of
discharge. If both of these criteria are met, the feedlot is a CAFO and must have a NPDES
permit for discharge to waters of the United States.
First, if the number of any one species exceeds the corresponding number indicated below, or the
cumulative number of animal units exceeds 300, the facility meets the size criterion:
• 300 slaughter and feeder cattle,
• 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milked or dry),
• 750 swine each weighing over 25 kilograms (55 pounds),
• 150 horses,
• 3,000 sheep or lambs,
16,500 turkeys,
• 30,000 laying hens or broilers (with a continual flow watering system),
9,000 laying hens or broilers (with a liquid manure system),2 or
1,500 ducks.
Example: A hog operation maintains 780 mature swine. This facility meets the size criteria.
[780 mature swine exceeds the 750 swine threshold]
Example: A facility maintains 180 dairy cows and 50 feeder cattle. This facility meets the size criteria.
[(180 x 1.4) + (50 x 1.0) = 302 animal units]
Second, animal feeding operations meet the "method of discharge" criterion if the operation
discharges pollutants:
• into waters of the United States through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or
similar man-made device; or.
- See Footnote 1.
-------
directly into waters of the United States that originate outside of and pass over,
across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the
animals confined in the operation.
2.5.7 Definition of Man-Made Conveyance
The term man-made conveyance means a conveyance constructed by man and used for
transporting wastes to waters of the United States [40 CFR 122, Appendix B]. Man-made
devices include pipes, ditches, and channels. If human action was involved in the creation of the
conveyance, it is man-made even if natural materials were used to form the conveyance. A man-
made channel or ditch that was not created specifically to carry animal wastes but nonetheless
does so during storm events is considered a man-made conveyance.
Three types of conveyances are listed in the regulations, (1) a man-made ditch, (2) a flushing
system, and (3) a similar man-made device. A ditch or flushing system transports the wastes to
waters of the US (these conveyances assist or facilitate the wastes in reaching waters of the US).
In other words, they cause the situation at the animal feeding operation to be worse than if the
ditch or flushing system did not exist.
Some States have interpreted man-made conveyance more broadly than others, or have pursued
permitting more aggressively for some types of conveyances than others. For example, in
Minnesota and Iowa, the permitting authority has interpreted man-made conveyance to include
agricultural drainage tiles that sometime receives drainage from the feedlot. By facilitating and
directing discharge flows, these tiles convey wastewater to waters of the United States, and the
operation is subject to the NPDES program. Kansas defines the term broadly to include
irrigation systems and tractors with bucket scoops, both of which convey wastewater through
mechanical, man-made means to waters of the US.3
2.5.2 Definition of Direct Discharge of Pollutants
A direct discharge criterion is presumed to be met whenever a stream, creek, wetland, or other
waterbody begins outside a facility and passes over, across, or through the facility [40 CFR 122,
Appendix B]. This method of discharge criterion is also met if animals maintained at the facility
can come into direct contact with waters of the United States. A stream running through the area
where animals are confined indicates that there is a direct discharge of pollutants. An intermittent
stream or a dry creek bed running through the facility also falls into this category. A facility
where such a conveyance exists is subject to NPDES permitting.
Information provided by the operator on a permit application or other information source (e.g.,
U.S. Geological Survey maps) may supply sufficient detail for a permitting authority to
determine if the operation meets the regulatory criteria. The accuracy of the information may
also be verified through a site inspection.
3 State interpretations of man-made conveyances came from actual on-site interviews with permits staff, water quality staff
and nonpomt source staff. These interviews provided the background information for the Feedlots Case Studies of
Selected States, which was part of the Report of the EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup, September 1993.
-------
2.6 Feedlots with 300 or Fewer Animal Units and Other Feedlots Designated as CAFOs
Three types of operations can be designated as CAFOs on a case-by-case basis if determined to
be actual or potential significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States:
1) An animal feeding operation with more than 300 animal units (but less than 1000
animal units) that does not meet the discharge criterion described in Section 2.5
[40 CFR 122.23(c)(l)j. In other words, these operations may be designated
regardless of the manner of conveyance of the discharge.
2) An animal feeding operation with 300 animal units or fewer if the facility meets
the "method of discharge" criterion discussed in Section 2.5, namely that the
operation actually or potentially discharges pollutants [40 CFR 122.23(c)(2)]:
• into waters of the United States through a man-made ditch, flushing
system, or similar man-made device; or,
* directly into waters of the United States that originate outside of and pass
over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact
with the animals confined in the operation.
3) An animal feeding operation that raises animals other than the species identified in
40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B. Examples of such animal feeding operations
include llama ranches and farms that raise mink or other fur-bearing animals.
These operations would be designated under the authority of 40 CFR
122.23(c)(l), which does not reference 40 CFR 122, Appendix B. These
operations may be designated as CAFOs regardless of the manner of conveyance
of the discharge.
No operation may be designated a CAFO on a case-by-case basis until the permitting authority
has conducted an on-site inspection of the facility, regardless of the size of the operation or the
type of animals confined [40 CFR 122.23(c)(3)]. In States where EPA is the permitting
authority, the Regional Director or a duly authorized representative may designate a CAFO. In
NPDES-authorized States, only the State program director or a representative authorized by the
Director may designate a CAFO.
Appendix B of this document is a sample guide for conducting inspections to determine whether
an operation should be designated a CAFO. Permitting authorities may also consider
establishment of point-based rating systems where points are assigned based on the facility's
location, operating practices, and impact on receiving waters. A score above a certain level
indicates that the facility is or may be a significant contributor of pollution and should be
designated a CAFO. Rating scales should be adjusted to accurately reflect local conditions. The
provisions of 40 CFR §122.23(c) provide the permitting authority with flexibility to designate
CAFOs to protect waters of the United States.
-------
2.6.1 Designation Requirements
In making a case-by-case designation of a CAFO, at least the following factors must be
considered:
• Size of the operation;
• Amount of wastes reaching waters of the United States;
• Location of the operation relative to waters of the United States;
• The means of conveyance of animal wastes and process wastewater into waters of
the United States;
• The slope, vegetation, rainfall, and other factors affecting the likelihood or
frequency of discharge of animal wastes and process wastewater into waters of
the United States; and
Other relevant factors, for example proximity to impaired or pristine surface
waters, public complaints, etc.
These factors are important because they enable the permitting authority to systematically
identify the feedlots that individually or as a group may impair water quality. For example, the
size of a feedlot, its proximity to waters of the United States, and the lack of a waste retention
structure may, in combination, indicate that it is a potential significant contributor of pollution.
Also, the impact of the aggregate amount of waste from many small operations may equal or
exceed that of a large operation (i.e., over 1,000 animal units) and may necessitate that all smaller
operations in a watershed be designated CAFOs.
Examples of cases when such factors warrant designation of feedlots as CAFOs are included
below.
Example: Four animal feeding operations that each maintain 250 dairy cows (which does not meet the size
criteria) are located within a watershed of a small river impaired by nutrient contamination. During storms,
runoff from these facilities collects in naturally-occurring channels and flows into the river. The aggregate
amount of waste equals the waste that would be produced by a single dairy operation with 1,400 animal units.
These facilities would be a prime candidate for inspection and designation as CAFOs. Before the designation
process could occur, the NPDES permitting authority would have to conduct an on-site inspection of the facility.
Example: An animal feeding operation that maintains 310 cattle is located adjacent to a water quality impaired
river. The operator routinely piles the waste next to the enclosure where it remains until a contract hauler picks it
up for disposal. The waste is removed on a monthly basis, but rainfall occurs several times a month and runoff
from the stacked manure flows through naturally-occurring channels in the ground to the river. This facility
would be a prime candidate for inspection and designation as a CAFO. Before the designation process could
occur, the NPDES permitting authority would have to conduct an on-site inspection of the facility.
2.6.2 Targeting Designation Efforts
There are several approaches permitting authorities may consider when prioritizing sites for
inspection and possible designation as CAFOs. It is strongly recommended that the permitting
authority contact the feedlot owner to arrange a site visit. EPA encourages permitting authorities
10
-------
to target feedlots as part of a watershed or whole-basin planning effort. This approach may be
particularly useful if the basin or watershed is known to experience problems with high nutrient
levels or microbial contamination. Also, if a State has listed a river on a CWA §303(d) or CWA
§304(1) list, all operations that contribute to the impairment problem may be suitable for
designation and permitting. Assessments conducted under §319 of the CWA also may be used in
targeting efforts.
Alternatively, feedlots may be targeted in many different watersheds based on proximity to
waters of the United States or proximity to waters with known or suspected impairments. A
third approach might target older operations that were established before implementation of
existing State waste handling statutes or development of newer waste handling technologies.
Finally, response to public concern provides another possible approach. The inspection
approach selected will depend upon the resources available, the number of potentially regulated
operations, the degree of known resource impairment, and other factors unique to each area.
2.6.3 Designation Prior to a Discharge
A permitting authority does not need to verify the occurrence of a discharge from an operation
prior to designating it as a CAFO [CWA §502(14); 41 FR 11459]. Point source includes CAFOs
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. The facility, however, is not obligated to have a
NPDES permit unless there is an actual discharge. An unpermitted feedlot designated as a CAFO
would be subject to enforcement under the CWA only if it actually discharges. Thus, once such a
discharge occurs, the unpermitted facility is considered in violation of the CWA. Even after the
discharge ceases, the operation remains in continuing violation (i.e., for the purpose of citizens'
suits under CWA §505) if the discharger does not apply for and obtain a NPDES permit [Carr v.
Alta Verde Industries. 931 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir. 1991)].
If an animal feeding operation does not meet the definition of a CAFO and has not been
designated a CAFO, however, any addition of pollutants to waters of the United States would
not constitute a violation of the CWA. The following two examples illustrate the application of
this principle (designating a feedlot prior to a discharge.)
Example: An operation maintains 100 mature swine (which does not satisfy the size criterion and is located near
a water quality impaired lake). The facility has gutters that transport runoff to a plot of nearby land. After a
major storm, the gutters overflow into the adjacent lake. The facility has not been designated a CAFO, and thus
the discharge does not violate the CWA.
Example: An operation maintains 100 mature swine (which does not satisfy the size criterion), and is located
near a water-quality impaired lake. The facility has gutters that transport runoff to a plot of nearby land. The
permitting authority conducts a site inspection and based on location-specific factors (runoff collection system
and proximity to the lake) notifies the facility operator that the facility has been designated a CAFO. The
operator does not believe a discharge will occur and does not obtain a NPDES permit. After a major storm, the
gutters overflow into the lake. The facility has violated the CWA and is subject to enforcement action.
1 1
-------
2.7 Intermittent Facilities and Partially Sheltered Operations
Permitting authorities and members of the regulated community have expressed confusion over
how to apply the CAFO regulations to enclosed, partially sheltered, and temporary animal
holding facilities. This section clarifies EPA's position on these issues.
A totally enclosed facility with no discharge (and no anticipated or potential discharge) of animal
waste to waters of the United States is not a CAFO. A partially sheltered facility, however, is a
CAFO if it meets the size and discharge criteria of the NPDES regulations, or if it is designated a
CAFO. In partially sheltered operations, the number of animals maintained at the facility for 45
days or more is the combined number of animals in the open and sheltered sections of the facility.
The entire operation is considered one unit and all animals must be counted for the purposes of
CAFO classification — not just those in the open areas. This is in contrast to the situation
where an operator has an enclosed facility and an open lot facility where the two facilities are not
adjoining and have separate waste management systems. In facilities that use both pasture and
confined areas where animals are concentrated the confined area may be a CAFO; the pasture is
not subject to the NPDES regulations, and the animals that remain at pasture would not be
counted for classification purposes.
Example: A dairy operation feeds 1,200 cows at pasture throughout the year. The operation has a holding area
where the cows gather two times a day, 365 days a year before entering the milking barn. The holding area has
no vegetative growth. The holding area is a CAFO and is covered by the NPDES regulations.
Livestock marketing operations also may be subject to these provisions. Auction houses and
transfer facilities that meet the regulatory definition of a CAFO must have NPDES permits if
they discharge of wastewater to waters of the United States.
Example: A livestock market facility where 1,500 cattle are maintained for four days per month, or 48 days in
each 12-month period, is considered a CAFO.
2.8 NPDES Permit Conditions
NPDES permits for CAFOs must contain the following technology-based effluent limitations:
• For CAFOs with over 1,000 animal units where animals are grown, requirements
at least as stringent as those in the national effluent limitations guidelines for
feedlots.
• For CAFOs with over 1,000 animal units that are non-producing facilities, best
available technology economically achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) based on the best professional judgment of
the permit writer. ("Non-producing" CAFOs are CAFOs that do not feed and
grow animals, but only house them temporarily. Transfer facilities and auction
houses are examples of non-producing operations.)
12
-------
For CAFOs with less than 1,000 animal units. BAT and BCT based on the best
professional judgment of the permit writer.
Permit writers can refer to the effluent limitations guidelines supporting documents to help them
determine best professional judgment (BPJ) requirements and limitations for non-producing
CAFOs and CAFOs with fewer than 1.000 animal units. Permit writers may also reference the
CZARA guidance document (see Section 4.1) in BAT and BCT for feedlots.
The conditions in State NPDES permits must conform with the minimum federal requirements.
NPDBS permits may contain more stringent requirements established pursuant to State law,
including State water quality standards. Some States also have the authority to include
requirements for groundwater protection and to ensure development of nutrient management
plans or land application procedures. In addition, many States have non-NPDES programs that
regulate feedlots. However, permits issued under such non-NPDES programs do not authorize
discharges under the CWA, and therefore do not shield discharging facilities from enforcement
actions.
2.8.1 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
The effluent limitations guidelines for feedlots with over 1,000 animal units, other than non-
producing facilities, are at 40 CFR Part 412.4 The effluent limitation allows no discharges to
waters of the United States, except when chronic or catastrophic storm events cause an overflow
from a facility designed, constructed, and operated to hold process generated wastewater plus
runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. All NPDES permits for CAFOs with over 1,000
animal units, other than non-producing facilities, must contain an equivalent or more stringent
effluent limitation. The 25-year, 24-hour storm event and the terms "chronic" and "catastrophic"
are discussed in Section 3.0.
In practical terms, the effluent limitations guidelines mean that these facilities must have retention
structures that are properly constructed and operated to hold process-generated wastewater and
runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. NPDES permits issued to CAFOs should clearly
state this requirement. It should be emphasized that the management of the entire waste handling
system must be considered when designing the retention structure(s). Capacity needed in the
storage structure not only is based on manure that is loaded into the structure, the volume of
runoff from the open lot areas and other contributing drainage areas, and the rain falling on the
structure itself. This capacity is normally expressed as a given number of days, weeks, or
months worth of waste produced at the facility. To ensure appropriate practices for the
application of waste, specifically manure to the land, it is recommended that the permittee
develop, implement and periodically update a nutrient management plan to: apply nutrients at
rates necessary to achieve realistic crop yields; improve the timing of nutrient application; and,
use agronomic crop production technology to increase nutrient use efficiency.
The guidelines do not apply to non-producing facilities because they were not considered during development of the
guidelines, and the definition of the operations covered by the guidelines refers only to CAFOs where livestock are grown
and fed, not where individual livestock are held briefly[40 CFR 412.1Kb); 40 FR 12513]. However, non-producing
operations that meet the definition of a CAFO must have a permit to lawfully discharge.
13
-------
CAFOs subject to effluent limitations guidelines are also subject to NPDES regulations for storm
water discharges associated with industrial activity. Compliance with the effluent limitations in
the guidelines, however, provides compliance with the storm water regulations since the
guidelines establish BAT/BCT or new performance standards (NSPS) for storm water discharges
from these facilities.
Since the effluent guidelines for feedlots do not establish numeric limitations for discharges that
result from chronic or catastrophic storms, non-numeric conditions (e.g., development of a
nutrient management plan, retention structure design requirements, inspection and reporting
requirements, best management practices (BMPs), and pollution prevention plans) may be
included in NPDES permits as effluent limitations.
NPDES permits for CAFOs must require at a minimum annual reporting of monitoring results
[40 CFR 122.44(i)(2) and 122.44(i)(3)]. Monitoring requirements can range from visual
inspection of overflow or potential discharge points at specified intervals and/or after storms of a
certain size; to permits which require installation of a sensor or collection device that will detect
any discharge from the retention structure.
2.8.2 Limitations Based on Best Professional Judgment
The effluent limitations for CAFOs with fewer than 1,000 animal units, as well as all non-
producing CAFOs, must be established on the basis of the best professional judgment (BPJ) of
the permit writer. These limitations must meet technology-based standards (BAT/BCT) and any
more stringent limitations necessary to comply with applicable State water quality-based
standards. These CAFOs are not subject to the NPDES storm water regulations for storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity because the effluent guidelines for feedlots do not
apply to these facilities.
The NPDES regulations for BPJ determinations of BAT/BCT [40 CFR 125.3(d)(3)] require
permitting authorities to consider the cost of achieving effluent reduction, the age of the
equipment and the facility, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the control
techniques, the process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts.
As in the case of CAFOs subject to effluent limitations guidelines, CAFO permits based on BPJ
may contain non-numeric conditions (e.g., development of nutrient management plans, retention
structures, inspections and reporting, and other pollution prevention practices) if numeric
effluent limitations are infeasible and if non-numeric conditions are reasonably necessary to
achieve effluent limitations and standards and to carry out the intent of the CWA. In addition,
these CAFOs also must require a minimum of annual reporting of monitoring results, which is
discussed above in Section 2.8.1. [40 CFR 122.44(i)(2)].
CAFOs of different sizes often have similar potential to discharge pollutants to waters of the
United States and may use similar pollution control practices effectively. Permitting authorities
should base BPJ determinations on pollution reduction achieved by feedlot operations within the
locality, information gathered during inspections, and any economic or other analyses on
pollutant control technologies previously conducted for the feedlot industry. The analyses
14
-------
performed by EPA for the feedlot industry in establishing the feedlot regulations and effluent
limitations guidelines may be a useful source of information, EPA also conducted an economic
analysis of waste management practices for feedlots for the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA), which also may be useful for development of NPDES permits.
2.8.3 Permit Terms Relating to Land Application of Manure
In general, the Clean Water Act does not regulate manure spreading operations, only manure
spreading for CAFOs. As explained previously, CAFOs are the only feedlots subject to
regulation under the point source permit program (NPDES). When a NPDES permit contains
conditions for appropriate land application practices, and the permittee complies with those
conditions, the permit will provide compliance with the CWA and act as a "shield against
enforcement for any additions of pollutants to Waters of the United States that may occur. If a
feedlot is determined not to be a CAFO, then it is not a point source (Appendix E). In addition,
the CWA does not regulate manure spreading once the manure leaves the property where it was
generated. The CAFO owner/operator is only responsible for complying with NPDES permit
requirements relative to any manure spreading on-site.
To ensure that land application of manure is in accordance with appropriate practices, it is
recommended that the permittee develop, implement and periodically update a nutrient
management plan to: apply nutrients at rates necessary to achieve realistic crop yields; improve
the timing of nutrient application; and, use agronomic crop production technology to increase
nutrient efficiency.
Use of nutrient management plans minimize damage to groundwater and surface water and
increases the efficiency of nutrient uses by crops. A nutrient management plan should be
developed and kept on-site by the permittee. This document should be reviewed and updated if
necessary by the permittee at least once every three years, or whenever the crop rotation is
changed or the nutrient source is changed. Nutrient management plans should be reviewed by the
permitting authority on a periodic basis. A detailed description of recommended core
components of a nutrient management plan is available in The United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
EPA contemplated that in certain circumstances that NPDES permits incorporate appropriate
land application measures. The Agency promulgated and published permit application forms
regarding agricultural activities: Short Form B. 38 FR 10960 (May 3, 1973), (proposed); and, 38
FR 18000 (July 5, 1973). Section II.3 of the permit application form requests information on the
appropriate land (in acres) available for manure disposal and/or runoff disposal.
15
-------
3.0 THE 25-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM EVENT EXEMPTION
Section 2.0 discussed the size and discharge criteria defining concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs). Discharges from animal feeding operations that occur under certain rainfall
conditions are subject to a narrow exemption from the NPDES regulations for CAFOs. This
exemption, discharge due to a 25-year. 24-hour storm, is discussed in greater detail in this section.
3.1 Applicability of the 25-Year, 24-Hour Storm Exemption
A 25-year, 24-hour storm refers to the number of inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period that is
expected to occur only once every 25 years.5 Storm events larger than the 25-year, 24-hour
storm are expected to occur less frequently than smaller storm events. For example, a 50-year,
24-hour storm event is larger than a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and is expected to occur less
frequently. Conversely, a 10-year, 24-hour event is smaller and is expected to occur more
frequently than a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Maps published by the National Weather
Service (NWS) show the amount of rainfall that constitutes the 25-year, 24-hour storm event for
every location in the United States.
Example: Cheyenne, Wyoming received 3 inches of rain in the last 24 hours. According to the NWS, the 25-
year, 24-hour storm event for Cheyenne is 2.8 inches of rain. Therefore, the storm exceeds the 25-year, 24-hour
storm event.
According to 40 CFR 122, Appendix B, an animal feeding operation is not a CAFO if it
discharges only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm or larger. This exemption applies to all
feedlots, including CAFOs designated as such on a case-by-case basis.
The effluent guidelines for feedlots [40 CFR 412], and consequently NPDES permits for
CAFOs, contain references to catastrophic and chronic rainfall. A catastrophic event is
equivalent to a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Catastrophic events could also include tornadoes,
hurricanes, or other catastrophic conditions that would cause an overflow from the required
waste retention structure. A chronic rainfall is a series of wet weather conditions that preclude
dewatering of properly maintained waste retention structures [58 FR 7620]. Under the current
effluent limitations guidelines for CAFOs, permitted discharges that result from chronic rainfall
or catastrophic events do not violate the CWA. Unpermitted discharges other than those due to
a 25-year, 24-hour storm, however, would not be authorized because, absent a permit, a discharge
is a violation of the CWA.
Example: According to NWS, the 25-year, 24-hour storm event for Omaha, Nebraska is 5.3 inches of rain. A
storm lasting six days delivers 20 inches of rain. This is not a 25-year, 24-hour storm event because 5.3 inches
of rain was not received in any single 24-hour period. Rather, it is a chronic rainfall. A discharge from an
unpermitted facility would be a CWA violation. A discharge from a facility with a NPDES permit that contains
language based on the effluent limitations guidelines would not be a CWA violation as long as the facility has
been operated properly.
5 The 25-year, 24-hour storm event is a statistical calculation of the National Weather Service, and is defined by the
Department of Commerce in " 25-year, 24-Hour Rainfall". Technical Paper 40, as the maximum 24-hour precipitation event
with a probable recurrence interval of once in 25 years.
16
-------
NPDES permits for CAFOs may include language similar to the effluent guidelines or language
requiring the installation of diversion systems(smaller operations). Also, every NPDES permit
must include the provisions of 40 CFR 122.41. including the upset and bypass provisions. This
permit language will ensure that the permitted operation is not in violation of the permit or the
CWA due to discharges that occur as a result of a chronic rainfall, providing that the operation is
in compliance with all other permit conditions.
3.2 Retention Structure Capacity
Retention structures need to be designed, built, and maintained to prevent discharges that are
caused by storms up to and including the 25-year, 24-hour storm. The capacity of the retention
structure must be based on the amount of process generated wastewater generated by the facility
and the volume of the expected runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm for all the contributing
drainage areas (including open lot surfaces, roofed areas, and areas between lots and retention
structures). However, an unpermitted concentrated animal feeding operation with a retention
structure that is designed, built, and maintained to contain process wastewater and the runoff
from a 25-year. 24-hour storm is not protected from liability under the CWA in the event of a
discharge due to smaller storm events. While design and equipment effectiveness may increase
the confidence of the unpermitted discharger, capacity alone provides little protection from
enforcement in the event of a discharge. The capacity to contain all runoff from a 25-year, 24-
hour storm event protects unpermitted facilities from violating the CWA only if it functions to
actually prevent all discharges from smaller and chronic storm events.
Example: An unpermitted CAFO's waste handling system has the capacity to contain the expected volume of
runoff from a 25-year. 24-hour rainfall event plus three week's worth of average daily process-generated
wastewater production. It rains heavily for three weeks (a chronic rainfall), but the rainfall in any 24-hour period
never exceeds the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The facility's waste handling system reaches capacity and
discharges to waters of the United States. The facility would be in violation of the Clean Water Act.
Example: A permitted CAFO's waste handling system has the capacity to contain the expected volume of runoff
from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event plus three week's worth of average daily process-generated wastewater
production. It rains heavily for three weeks (a chronic rainfall), but the rainfall in any 24-hour period never
exceeds the 25-year. 24-hour storm event. The facility is covered by language identical to the effluent limitations
guidelines in the permit and is not considered in violation of the CWA.
This interpretation was supported by Carr v. Alta Verde Industries. 931 F.2d 1055 (5th Cir.
1991), in which an unpermitted facility discharged as a result of chronic rainfall that did not
qualify as a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The court ruled that such a facility was not exempted from
CWA jurisdiction (and the NPDES permit program), and remained in continuing violation while
discharging until it obtained a NPDES permit. Discharges from an unpermitted facility, other
than those from a 25-year. 24-hour storm, are in violation of the CWA regardless of retention
capacity.
17
-------
4.0 OTHER REGULATORY PROGRAMS
This section discusses two provisions of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment of
1990 (CZARA) that apply to feedlots. Although a CAFO with a NPDES permit is exempt from
CZARA, NPDES permitting efforts should be coordinated with CZARA and other applicable
regulatory programs.
It also discusses Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) program , which apply to feedlots only in
rare instances.
4.1 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
In its reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1990, Congress identified
nonpoint source pollution as a major factor in the continuing degradation of coastal waters.
Congress also recognized that effective solutions to nonpoint source pollution could be
implemented at the State and local levels. Therefore, in the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), Congress added Section 6217, which calls upon States with
federally-approved coastal zone management programs to develop and implement coastal
nonpoint pollution control programs. The §6217 program is administered at the federal level
jointly by EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA).
Section 6217(g) of CZARA called for EPA, in consultation with other agencies, to develop
guidance on "management measures" for sources of nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters.
Under §6217 of CZARA, EPA is responsible for developing technical guidance to assist States in
designing coastal nonpoint pollution control programs. On January 19, 1993, EPA issued its
Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters
which addresses five major source categories of nonpoint pollution:
1) Urban runoff;
2) Agriculture runoff;
3) Forestry runoff;
4) Marinas and recreational boating; and
5) Hydromodification.
The guidelines for the agriculture nonpoint source category specifically includes management
measures for "confined animal facilities." The guidance also specifies management measures for
erosion and sediment control, nutrient management on cropland, and grazing. These three
additional management measures apply to facilities with livestock even if they are not confined
animal facilities as defined by CZARA. However, they do not apply to CAFOs under the
NPDES program. This section explains which feedlots are subject to the confined animal facility
requirements of CZARA and discusses these requirements in more detail. It also briefly explains
the nutrient management measure, which may be implemented by confined animal facilities.
What is the "Coastal Zone"?
Under the initial Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 35 States and territories are considered
to have coastal waters. Participation in the coastal zone management program is voluntary.
18
-------
Twenty-nine States have developed coastal zone management programs that were approved by
NOAA. Of the other 6 States with coastal waters, 2 are not participating and 4 have programs
currently in development.6
Each of these 29 States delineated a "coastal zone" for their program. In delineating a "coastal
zone," States have implemented this language differently, depending on the specific geography
and other circumstances in the State. In many States, the coastal zone extends inland a set
distance, while in others the entire State is part of the coastal zone (e.g., Delaware and Florida).
CZARA Approach
The original Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 did not specifically address water quality
concerns. The enactment of §6217 acknowledges the impact of nonpoint source pollution on
coastal waters. States are to develop and implement coastal nonpoint pollution control programs
that must be approved by NOAA and EPA. One of the first steps in program approval is to
delineate a §6217 management area, which may or may not correspond to the previously
established coastal zone.
NOAA made recommendations to the States in March 1993 for coastal zone boundary changes
to address nonpoint pollution of coastal waters. In general, the recommendations are that coastal
watersheds be used as boundaries for §6217. States may change their coastal zone boundaries to
coincide with the program management area, or may use State authorities other than the Coastal
Zone Management Act to implement management measures in areas outside of the coastal zone.
The §6217 management area may be larger than the coastal zone to encompass all the activities
that may contribute to nonpoint pollution of coastal waters; in no case may the program
management area be smaller than the coastal zone.
EPA's Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters specifies "management measures" designed to protect coastal waters from nonpoint
source pollution. The management measures are the equivalent of technology-based controls for
the nonpoint source program and are defined in CZARA §6217 as:
...economically achievable measures to control the addition of pollutants to our coastal
waters, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through
the application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies,
processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.
To remain eligible for full federal funding under §319 of CWA and §306 of CZMA. coastal States
must develop programs to implement the management measures in conformity with EPA's
management measures guidance, including establishing enforceable policies and mechanisms to
assure implementation of the measures. States, however, have flexibility to determine the most
The 29 States and territories currently participating in the program are: Alabama, Alaska. American Samoa. California,
Connecticut. Delaware, Florida, Guam, Hawaii. Louisiana, Maine. Maryland. Massachusetts. Michigan. Mississippi, New
Hampshire. New Jersey, New York. North Carolina, Northern Mariana Island, Oregon. Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina. Rhode Island, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington, Wisconsin. The four States currently developing
programs are: Georgia, Minnesota. Ohio, and Texas. Illinois and Indiana are not participating in the coastal zone
management program.
19
-------
effective way to implement them within the management area. This flexibility allows for the
enormous differences in the site-specific factors that influence the nature and amount of nonpoint
source pollution, and the different mechanisms States have at their disposal to enact control
programs. Different States may decide to use different management practices to achieve
conformity with the required management measures. Management measures are not directly or
automatically applicable to categories of nonpoint sources as a matter of federal law. Instead, it
is the State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, backed by the authority of State law,
that provides for implementation of the management measures.
CZARA Management Measures for Animal Feeding Operations
The effect of the CZARA management measures for feedlots is to subject smaller feedlots to
requirements similar to those found in the NPDES regulations. Feedlots located in §6217
program management areas that are not CAFOs under the NPDES program may be subject to
CZARA requirements. This section will outline the two management measures for confined
animal facilities presented in EPA's CZARA guidance.
The first management measure for confined animal facilities in the EPA guidance applies, in
§6217 management areas, to all new operations and existing "large" operations (as defined by the
CZARA and explained below):
Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal Facilities (New or Large
Existing Facilities)
Limit the discharge from the confined animal facility to surface waters by:
• Storing both the facility wastewater a«^the runoff from confined animal facilities that is caused by storms
up to and including a 25-year, 24-hour frequency storm. Storage facilities should:
(a) Have an earthen Lining or plastic membrane lining, or
(b) Be constructed with concrete, or
(c) Be a storage tank.
• Managing stored runoff and accumulated solids from the facility through an appropriate waste utilization
svstem.
This management measure applies to all new facilities regardless of size and to all existing
confined animal facilities that contain more than a certain number of animals. As defined in
EPA's guidance, a large facility is one that contains the numbers of livestock or equivalent animal
units listed below.
20
-------
Head Animal Units
BeefFeedlots 300 300
Stables(horses) 200 400
Dairies 70 98
Layers 15,000 150 (liquid manure system)
495 (continuous overflow watering system)
Broilers 15,000 150 (liquid manure system)
495 (continuous overflow watering system)
Turkeys 13,750 2,475
Swine 200 80
These cutoffs were developed based on an economic analysis for CZARA, and the numbers of
animals are different than the numbers of animals used in the definition of a CAFO under the
NPDES regulations. This does not impede implementation of the NPDES program since EPA's
CZARA guidance states that any facility with a NPDES permit for concentrated animal feeding
operations is exempt from CZARA requirements. If a facility subject to CZARA requirements
is later designated as a CAFO by the Director of a NPDES permit program, that facility is no
longer subject to the CZARA management measures. This means that a feedlot will never be
subject to both NPDES and CZARA requirements at the same time.
This CZARA management measure has the same goal as the NPDES CAFO requirements: no
discharge of wastewater or runoff from feedlots during storms equal to or smaller than the 25-
year, 24-hour storm event. Both programs envision facilities designed with sufficient storage
capacity to hold all wastewater and runoff up to and including the 25-year, 24-hour storm event,
although CZARA has more stringent requirements for waste storage structures to protect
groundwater. In addition, the CZARA management measure calls for stored runoff and
accumulated solids from the facility to be managed through an appropriate waste utilization
system. This requirement can be met through implementation of an appropriate nutrient
management plan.
The second management measure for feedlots in EPA's CZARA guidance applies to "small
existing units" (as defined in the CZARA and explained below):
Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal Facilities (Small Existing
Units)
Minimize the discharge of pollutants by:
• Designing and implementing systems that collect solids, reduce contaminant concentrations, and reduce
runoff to minimize the discharge of contaminants in both facility wastewater and in runoff that is caused
by storms up to and including a 25-year, 24-hour frequency storm. Implement these systems to
substantially reduce significant increases in pollutant loading to groundwater.
• Managing stored runoff and accumulated solids from the facility through an appropriate waste utilization
system.
2 1
-------
This management measure applies to all existing operations that contain the following number of
livestock or animal units:
Head Animal Units
BeefFeedlots 50-299 50-299
Stables(horses) 100-199 200-399
Dairies 20-69 28-97
Layers 5,000-14.999 50-149 (liquid manure system)
165-494 (continuous overflow watering system)
Broilers 5,000-14,999 50-149 (liquid manure system)
165-494 (continuous overflow watering system)
Turkeys 5,000-13,749 900-2,474
Swine 100-199 40-79
This management measure for smaller existing units calls for a somewhat less stringent level of
control and was developed to minimize the economic impact on small operations (i.e., systems
should minimize as opposed to limit discharges). This management measure also calls for proper
land application of waste. Feedlots containing fewer than the number of livestock animal units
listed above are not subject to the requirements of CZARA management measures.
CZARA Nutrient Management Measure
Under CZARA, States are required to develop plans for nutrient management for activities
associated with the application of nutrients to agricultural lands. Use of nutrient management
plans minimizes damage to groundwater and surface water and increases the efficiency of nutrient
use by crops. Coastal zone States should implement the nutrient management measure through
application of management practices and operation and maintenance requirements for nutrient
application to agricultural land.
The nutrient management practices to use are those commonly suggested by the USDA and
States for general use of agricultural lands, and each State may select those management practices
most appropriate for its nutrient management needs. At a minimum, however, the nutrient
management plans should conform to the management measure as described below.
22
-------
Nutrient Management Measure
Develop, implement, and periodically update a nutrient management plan that includes the following core
components:
Farm and field maps indicating acreage, crops, soils, and waterbodies.
Realistic yield expectations for the crop(s) grown.
• A summary of available nutrient resources including: soil test results for pH, phosphorus, nitrogen,
and potassium; a nutrient analysis of manure or other effluent; nitrogen contribution to the soil from
legumes grown in the rotation (if applicable); and, information on other significant nutrient sources
(i.e. irrigation water).
An evaluation of field limitations based on environmental hazards or concerns, such as: sinkholes,
shallow soils over fractured bedrock, and soils with high leaching potential; lands near
surface water; highly erodible soils; and, shallow aquifers.
Use of the limiting nutrient concept to establish the mix of nutrient sources and requirements for the
crop based on realistic yield expectations.
Identification of application and timing methods for nutrients in order to: achieve realistic crop
results, reduce losses to the environment, and avoid application to frozen soil or during periods
of leaching or runoff.
Provisions for the proper calibration and operation of nutrient application equipment.
The practices that can be used to implement and fulfill these management measures are described
in detail in EPA's Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources ofNonpoint Pollution
in Coastal Waters. The practices described in this reference are useful for feedlots with NPDES
permits as well.
4.2 The Safe Drinking Water Act
The following four programs established by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) may apply to
select feedlots.
The Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) helps protect underground sources of
drinking water by controlling the pollutants disposed of in injection wells. Injection wells that
accept feedlot drainage are classified as agricultural drainage wells, one of the many types of
Class V wells. Currently, all Class V wells are authorized by rule and are subject to inventory
requirements at 40 CFR Part 144, but not to technical requirements. However, Class V wells are
subject to a performance standard that prohibits movement of contaminants into an underground
source of drinking water, if the contaminants could cause a violation of a drinking water standard
or otherwise adversely affect human health. Well injection of feedlot waste and runoff is very
uncommon. For that reason, the UIC program requirements will apply to very few feedlots.
The Sole Source Aquifer Program includes development of a comprehensive management plan
requiring identification of existing and potential point and nonpoint sources of groundwater
23
-------
degradation, an assessment of the relationship between activities on the land surface and
groundwater quality, and development of management practices to be implemented in the critical
protection area. If identified as a source of groundwater degradation, a feedlot located above a
sole source aquifer could be subject to additional management practices. In a sole source aquifer
area, no federal financial assistance can be used for projects that could contaminate the aquifer
and create a significant public health hazard. For feedlots above a sole source aquifer, permitting
authorities should work with USDA-NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) and
USDA-CFSA (Conservation Farm Service Agency) to determine applicable waste retention
requirements for facilities using federal cost-share funds.
The State Wellhead Protection Areas Program requires each State to adopt a program to protect
wellhead areas from contaminants that may adversely affect human health. States determine the
boundary of their wellhead protection areas and are required to identify all actual and potential
sources of contaminants within each wellhead protection area A feedlot within a designated
wellhead protection area identified as a source of contaminants adversely affecting human health
could be subject to additional discharge limitations or management practices.
The Surface Water Treatment Rule establishes criteria that public water systems must meet in
order to avoid filtration. These criteria include identification of activities that may have an
adverse effect on the quality of water sources, and demonstration through ownership or written
agreements with land owners that all sources of human activities with potential for such adverse
impact can be controlled Feedlots located near such public water systems may be asked to enter
into such a written agreement
24
-------
APPENDIX A
NPDES Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
A-l
-------
§122.23
requisite authority to sign permit applica-
tions unless the corporation has notified the
Director to the contrary. Corporate proce-
dures governing- authority to sign permit ap-
plications may provide for assignment or
delegation to applicable corporate positions
under §122.22(a)(l)(ii) rather than to specific
individuals.'
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietor-
ship. By a general partner or the pro-
prietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality. State, Federal,
or other public agency. By either a prin-
cipal executive officer or ranking elect-
ed official. For purposes of this section,
a principal executive officer of a Fed-
eral agency includes: (i) The chief exec-
utive officer of the agency, or (ii) a
senior executive officer having respon-
sibility for the overall operations of a
principal geographic unit of the agency
(e.g., Regional Administrators of EPA).
(b) All reports required by permits,
and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person de-
scribed in paragraph (a) of this section,
or by a duly authorized representative
of that person. A person is a duly au-
thorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writ-
ing by a person described in paragraph
(a) of this section;
(2) The authorization specifies either
an individual or a position having re-
sponsibility for the overall operation of
the regulated facility or activity such
as the position of plant manager, oper-
ator of a well or a well field, super-
intendent, position of equivalent re-
sponsibility, or an individual or posi-
tion having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the com-
pany, (A duly authorized representa-
tive may thus be either a named indi-
vidual or any individual occupying a
named position.) and,
(3) The written authorization is sub-
mitted to the Director.
(c) Changes to authorization. If an au-
thorization under paragraph (b) of this
section is no longer accurate because a
different individual or position has re-
sponsibility for the overall operation of
the facility, a new authorization satis-
fying the requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section must be submitted to
the Director prior to or together with
any reports, information, or applica-
tions to be signed by an authorized rep-
resentative.
(d) Certification. Any person signing a
document under paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section shall make the following
certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accord-
ance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based
on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons directly
responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are signifi-
cant penalties for submitting false informa-
tion, including the possibility of fine and im-
prisonment for knowing violations.
(Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.),
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.))
[48 FR 14153, Apr. 1, 1983, as amended at 48
FR 39619, Sept. 1, 1983; 49 FR 38047, Sept. 29,
1984; 50 FR 6941, Feb. 19, 1985; 55 FR 48063,
Nov. 16, 1990]
§122.23 Concentrated animal feeding
operations (applicable to State
NPDES programs, see § 123.25).
(a) Permit requirement. Concentrated
animal feeding operations are point
sources subject to the NPDES permit
program.
(b) Definitions. (1) Animal feeding oper-
ation means a lot or facility (other
than an aquatic animal production fa-
cility) where the following conditions
are met:
(i) Animals (other than aquatic ani-
mals) have been, are, or will be stabled
or confined and fed or maintained for a
total of 45 days or more in any 12-
month period, and
(ii) Crops, vegetation forage growth,
or post-harvest residues are not sus-
tained in the normal growing season
over any portion of the lot or facility.
(2) Two or more animal feeding oper-
ations under common ownership are
considered, for the purposes of these
regulations, to be a single animal feed-
ing operation if they adjoin each other
or if they use a common area or system
for the disposal of wastes.
(3) Concentrated animal feeding oper-
ation means an "animal feeding oper-
ation" which meets the criteria in ap-
pendix B of this part, or which the Di-
-------
rector designates under paragraph (c]
of this section.
(c) Case-by-case designation of con-
centrated animal feeding operations. (1)
The Director may designate any ani-
mal feeding operation as a con-
centrated animal feeding operation
upon determining that it is a signifi-
cant contributor of pollution to the
waters of the United States. In making
this designation the Director shall con-
sider the following factors:
(i) The size of the animal feeding op-
eration and the amount of wastes
reaching waters of the United States;
(ii) The location of the animal feed-
ing operation relative to waters of the
United States;
(iii) The means of conveyance of ani-
mal wastes and process waste waters
into waters of the United States;
(iv) The slope, vegetation, rainfall,
and other factors affecting the likeli-
hood or frequency of discharge of ani-
mal wastes and process waste waters
into waters of the United States; and
(v) Other relevant factors.
(2) No animal feeding operation with
less than the numbers of animals set
forth in appendix B of this part shall be
designated as a concentrated animal
feeding operation unless:
(i) Pollutants are discharged into wa-
ters of the United States through a
manmade ditch, flushing system, or
other similar manmade device; or
(ii) Pollutants are discharged di-
rectly into waters of the United States
which originate outside of the facility
and pass over, across, or through the
facility or otherwise come into direct
contact with the animals confined in
the operation.
(3) A permit application shall not be
required from a concentrated animal
feeding operation designated under this
paragraph until the Director has con-
ducted an on-site inspection of the op-
eration and determined that the oper-
ation should and could be regulated
under the permit program.
-------
APPENDIX B TO PART 122—CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING A CONCENTRATED ANI-
MAL FEEDING OPERATION (§ 122.23)
An animal feeding operation is a con-
centrated animal feeding- operation for pur-
poses of § 122.23 if either of the following cri-
teria are met.
(a) More than the numbers of animals spec-
ified in any of the following categories are
confined:
(1) 1,000 slaughter and feeder cattle,
(2) 700 mature dairy cattle (whether milked
or dry cows),
(3) 2,500 swine each weighing over 25 kilo-
grams (approximately 55 pounds),
(4) 500 horses,
(5) 10,000 sheep or lambs,
(6) 55,000 turkeys,
(7) 100,000 laying hens or broilers (if the fa-
cility has continuous overflow watering),
(8) 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if the fa-
cility has a liquid manure system),
(9) 5,000 ducks, or
(10) 1,000 animal units; or
(b) More than the following number and
types of animals are confined:
(1) 300 slaughter or feeder cattle,
(2) 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milked
or dry cows),
(3) 750 swine each weighing over 25 kilo-
grams (approximately 55 pounds),
(4) 150 horses,
(5) 3,000 sheep or lambs,
(6) 16,500 turkeys,
(7) 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if the fa-
cility has continuous overflow watering),
(8) 9,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facil-
ity has a liquid manure handling system),
(9) 1,500 ducks, or
(10) 300 animal units;
and either one of the following conditions
are met: pollutants are discharged Into navi-
gable waters through a manmade ditch,
flushing system or other similar man-made
device; or pollutants are discharged directly
into waters of the United States which origi-
nate outside of and pass over, across, or
through the facility or otherwise come into
direct contact with the animals confined in
the operation.
Provided, however, that no animal feeding
operation is a concentrated animal feeding
operation as defined above if such animal
feeding operation discharges only in the
event of a 25 year, 24-hour storm event.
The term animal unit means a unit of meas-
urement for any animal feeding operation
calculated by adding the following numbers:
the number of slaughter and feeder cattle
multiplied by 1.0, plus the number of mature
dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4, plus the num-
ber of swine weighing over 25 kilograms (ap-
proximately 55 pounds) multiplied by 0.4,
plus the number of sheep multiplied by 0.1,
plus the number of horses multiplied by 2.0.
-------
new source subject to the provisions of
this subpart:
Effluent characteristic
TSS
DH
Not to
Within
Effluent limitations
exceed 50 mg/l
the ranoe 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) Any overflow from facilities de-
signed, constructed and operated to
treat to the applicable limitations the
precipitation and runoff resulting from
a 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event
shall not be subject to the limitations
of this section.
[42 FR 10681, Feb. 23, 1977]
§411.36 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
The pretreatment standards under
section 307(c) of the Act for a source
within the materials storage piles run-
off subcategory, which is a user of a
publicly owned treatment works (and
which would be a new source subject to
section 306 of the Act, if it were to dis-
charge pollutants to the navigable wa-
ters), shall be the standard set forth in
40 CFR part 128, except that, for the
purpose of this section, §128.133 of this
title shall be amended to read as fol-
lows:
In addition to the prohibitions set forth in
40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standard for
incompatible pollutants introduced into a
publicly owned treatment works shall be the
standard of performance for new sources
specified in 40 CFR 411.35; provided that, if
the publicly owned treatment works which
receives the pollutants is committed, in its
NPDES permit, to remove a specified per-
centage of any incompatible pollutant, the
pretreatment standard applicable to users of
such treatment works shall, except in the
case of standards providing for no discharge
of pollutants, be correspondingly reduced in
stringency for that pollutant.
§411.37 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology.
The following limitations establish
the quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties, controlled by this
section, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best conventional pollutant control
technology.
(a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph (b) of this section, the following
limitations establish the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant prop-
erties, controlled by this section,
which may be discharged by a point
source subject to the provisions of this
subpart after application of the best
conventional pollutant control tech-
nology.
Effluent characteristic
TSS
nH
Effluent limitations
Not to exceed 50 mg/l
Within the ranae 6 0 to 9 0
(b) Any untreated overflow from fa-
cilities designed, constructed and oper-
ated to treat the volume of runoff from
materials storage piles which results
from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event
shall not be subject to the pH and TSS
limitations stipulated in paragraph (a)
of this section.
[39 FR 6591, Feb. 20, 1974. Redesignated and
amended at 44 FR 50741, Aug. 29, 1979]
PART 412-FEEDLOTS POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart A—All Subcategories Except
Ducks
Sec.
412.10 Applicability; description of all
subcategories except ducks.
412.11 Specialized definitions.
412.12 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
resenting the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently
available.
412.13 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
resenting the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable.
412.14 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
412.15 Standards of performance for new
sources.
412.16 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
412.17 [Reserved]
Subpart B—Ducks Subcategory
412.20 Applicability; description of the duck
subcategory.
412.21 Specialized definitions.
-------
§412.11
412.22 Effluent limitations guidelines rep-
resenting the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently
available.
412.23 [Reserved]
412.24 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources.
412.25 Standards of performance for new
sources.
412.26 Pretreatment standards for new
sources.
AUTHORITY: Sees. 301, 304 (b) and (c), 306 (b)
and (c), and 307(c) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended; 33 U.S.C.
1251, 1311, 1314 (b) and (c), 1316 (b) and (c), and
1317(c); 86 Stat. 816 et seq., Pub. L. 92-500; 91
Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217.
SOURCE: 39 PR 5706, Feb. 14, 1974, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart A—All Subcategories
Except Ducks
§412.10 Applicability; description of
all subcategories except ducks.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to discharges of pollutants re-
sulting from feedlots in the following
subcategories: Beef cattle—open lots;
beef cattle—housed lots; dairy cattle—
stall barn (with milk room); dairy—
free stall barn (with milking center);
dairy—cowyards (with milking center);
swine—open dirt or pasture lots;
swine—housed, slotted floor; swine—
solid concrete floor, open or housed lot;
sheep—open lots; sheep—housed lots;
horses—stables (race tracks); chick-
ens—broilers, housed; chickens—layers
(egg production), housed: chickens—
layer breeding or replacement stock;
housed; turkeys—open lots; turkeys—
housed; and for those feedlot oper-
ations within these subcategories as
large or larger than the capacities
given below:
1,000 slaughter steers and heifers; 700 ma-
ture dairy cattle (whether milkers or dry
cows); 2,500 swine weighing over 55 pounds;
10,000 sheep; 55,000 turkeys; 100,000 laying
hens or broilers when facility has unlimited
continuous flow watering systems; 30,000 lay-
ing hens or broilers when facility has liquid
manure handling system; 500 horses; arid
1,000 animal units from a combination of
slaughter steers and heifers, mature dairy
cattle, swine over 55 pounds and sheep.
V
$412.11 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below, the gen-
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in part
401 of this chapter shall apply to this
subpart.
(b) The term feedlot shall mean a con-
centrated, confined animal or poultry
growing operation for meat, milk or
egg production, or stabling, in pens or
houses wherein the animals or poultry
are fed at the place of confinement and
crop or forage growth or production is
not sustained in the area of confine-
ment.
(c) The term process waste water shall
mean any process generated waste
water and any precipitation (rain or
snow) which comes into contact with
any manure, litter or bedding, or any
other raw material or intermediate or
final material or product used in or re-
sulting from the production of animals
or poultry or direct products (e.g. milk,
eggs).
(d) The term process generated waste
water shall mean water directly or indi-
rectly used in the operation of a feedlot
for any or all of the following: Spillage
or overflow from animal or poultry wa-
tering *-°ms; washing, cleaning or
flushhji ?;•"" \ barns, manure pits or
other ih.^,"'..•• facilities; direct contact
swimming, washing or spray cooling of
animals; and dust control.
(e) The terms 10 year, 24 hour rainfall
event and 25 year, 24 hour rainfall (vent
shall mean a rainfall event with a prob-
able recurrence interval of once in ten
years or twenty-five years, respec-
tively, as defined by the National
Weather Service in Technical Paper
Number 40, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas
of the United States", May 1961, and
subsequent amendments, or equivalent
regional or state rainfall probability
information developed therefrom.
(f) The term open lot shall mean pens
or similar confinement areas with dirt,
or concrete (or paved or hard) surfaces
wherein animals or poultry are sub-
stantially or entirely exposed to the
outside environment except for pos-
sible small portions affording some
protection by windbreaks, small shed-
type shade areas. For the purposes
hereof the term "open lot" is synony-
mous with the terms "cowyard" (dairy
cattle), "pasture lot" (swine), and "dirt
lot" (swine, sheep or turkeys), "dry
-------
§412.12
lot" (swine, cattle, sheep, or turkeys)
which are terms widely used in the in-
dustry.
(g) The term housed lot shall mean to-
tally roofed buildings which may be
open or completely enclosed on the
sides wherein animals or poultry are
housed over solid concrete or dirt
floors, slotted (partially open) floors
over pits or manure collection areas in
pens, stalls or cages, with or without
bedding materials and mechanical ven-
tilation. For the purposes hereof, the
term "housed lot" is synonymous with
the terms "slotted floor" buildings
(swine, beef), "barn" (dairy cattle) or
"stable" (horses), "houses" (turkeys,
chickens), which are terms widely used
in the industry.
(h) The term stall barn shall mean
specialized facilities wherein producing
cows and replacement cows are milked
and fed in a fixed location.
(i) The term free stall barn shall mean
specialized facilities wherein producing
cows are permitted free movement be-
tween resting and feeding areas.
(j) The term milkroom shall mean
milk storage and cooling rooms nor-
mally used for stall barn dairies.
(k) The term milking center shall
mean a separate milking area with
storage and cooling facilities adjacent
to a free stall barn or cowyard dairy
operation.
§412.12 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
In establishing the limitations set
forth in this section, EPA took into ac-
count all information it was able to
collect, develop and solicit with re-
spect to factors (such as age and size of
plant, raw materials, manufacturing
processes, products produced, treat-
ment technology available, energy re-
quirements and costs) which can affect
the industry subcategorization and ef-
fluent levels established. It is, however,
possible that data which would affect
these limitations have not been avail-
able and, as a result, these limitations
should be adjusted for certain plants in
this industry. An individual discharger
or other interested person may submit
evidence to the Regional Adminis-
trator (or to the State, if the State has
the authority to issue NPDES permits)
that factors relating to the equipment
or facilities involved, the process ap-
plied, or other such factors related to
such discharger are fundamentally dif-
ferent from the factors considered in
the establishment of the guidelines. On
the basis of such evidence or other
available information, the Regional
Administrator (or the State) will make
a written finding that such factors are
or are not fundamentally different for
that facility compared to those speci-
fied in the Development Document. If
such fundamentally different factors
are found to exist, the Regional Admin-
istrator or the State shall establish for
the discharge effluent limitations in
the NPDES permit either more or less
stringent than the limitations estab-
lished herein, to the extent dictated by
such fundamentally different factors.
Such limitations must be approved by
the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The Admin-
istrator may approve or disapprove
such limitations, specify other limita-
tions, or initiate proceedings to revise
these regulations.
(a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph (b) of this section, the following
limitations establish the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant prop-
erties which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best practicable control technology
currently available: There shall be no
discharge of process waste water pol-
lutants to navigable waters.
(b) Process waste pollutants in the
overflow may be discharged to navi-
gable waters whenever rainfall events,
either chronic or catastrophic, cause
an overflow of process waste water
from a facility designed, constructed
and operated to contain all process
generated waste waters plus the runoff
from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event
fcr the location of the point source.
§412.13 Effluent limitations guidelines
representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable.
(a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph (b) of this section, the following
-------
.20
limitations establish the quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant prop-
erties which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart after application of the
best available technology economically
achievable: There shall be no discharge
of process waste water pollutants to
navigable waters.
(b) Process waste pollutants in the
overflow may be discharged to navi-
gable waters whenever rainfall events,
either chronic or catastrophic, cause
an overflow of process waste water
from a facility designed, constructed
and operated to contain all process
generated waste waters plus the runoff
from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event
for the location of the point source.
$412.14 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
The pretreatment standards under
section 307(b) of the Act for a source
within all subcategories except ducks
which is a user of a publicly owned
treatment works and a major contrib-
uting industry as defined in 40 CFR
part 128 (and which would be an exist-
ing point source subject to section 301
of the Act, if it were to discharge pol-
lutants to the navigable waters), shall
be the standard set forth in 40 CFR
part 128, except that, for the purpose of
this section, 40 CFR 128.121, 128.122,
128.132, and 128.133 shall not apply. The
following pretreatment standard estab-
lishes the quantity or quality of pollut-
ants or pollutant properties controlled
by this section which may be dis-
charged to a publicly owned treatment
works by a point source subject to the
provisions of this subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Fecal coliform
BODS
Pretreatment standard
Do.
[40 FR6440, Feb. 11, 1975]
§412.15 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph (b) of this section, the following
standards of performance establish the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties which may be dis-
charged by a source subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart: There shall be
no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b) Process waste pollutants in the
overflow may be discharged to navi-
gable waters whenever rainfall events,
either chronic or catastrophic, cause
an overflow of process waste water
from a facility designed, constructed
and operated to contain all process
generated waste waters plus the runoff
from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event
for the location of the point source.
§412.16 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
The pretreatment standards under
section 307(c) of the Act for a source
within all subcategories except ducks
which is a user of a publicly owned
treatment works (and which would be a
new source subject to section 306 of the
Act, if it were to discharge pollutants
to the navigable waters), shall be the
standard set forth in part 128 of this
chapter, except that, for the purpose of
this section, §128.133 of this title shall
be amended to read as follows:
In addition to the prohibitions set forth in
40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standard for
incompatible pollutants introduced into a
publicly owned treatment works shall be the
standard of performance for new sources
specified in 40 CFR 412.15; Provided That, if
the publicly owned treatment works which
receives the pollutants is committed, in its
NPDES permit, to remove a specified per-
centage of any incompatible pollutant, the
pretreatment standard applicable to users of
such treatment works shall, except in the
case of standards providing for no discharge
of pollutants, be correspondingly reduced in
stringency for that pollutant.
§412.17 [Reserved]
Subpart B—Ducks Subcategory
§412.20 Applicability; description of
the ducks subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to discharges of pollutants re-
sulting from feedlots for the following
subcategories: Ducks—dry lot; ducks-
wet lot; and for those feedlot oper-
ations within these subcategories as
large or larger than the capacities
given below:
5,000 ducks
-------
§412.21
§412.21 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart:
(a) Except as provided below] the gen-
eral definitions, abbreviations and
methods of analysis set forth in Part
401 of this chapter shall apply to this
subpart.
(b) The term feedlot shall mean a con-
centrated, confined animal or poultry
growing operation for meat, milk or
egg production, or stabling, in pens or
houses wherein the animals or poultry
are fed at the place of confinement a"d
crop or forage production or growth is
not sustained in the area of confine-
ment.
(c) The term process waste water shall
mean any process generated waste
water and any precipitation (rain or
snow) which comes into contact with
any manure, litter or bedding, or any
other raw material or intermediate or
final material or product used in or re-
sulting from the production of animal
or poultry or direct products (e.g. milk,
eggs).
(d) The term process generated waste
water shall mean water directly or indi-
rectly used in the operation of a feedlot
for any or all of the following: Spillage
or overflow from animal or poultry wa-
tering systems; washing, cleaning or
flushing pens, barns, manure pits or
other feedlot facilities; direct contact
swimming, washing or spray cooling of
animals; and dust control.
(e) The terms 10-year, 24-hour rainfall
event and 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event
shall mean a rainfall event with a prob-
able recurrence interval of once in ten
years or twenty-five years, respec-
tively, as defined by the National
Weather Service in Technical Paper
Number 40, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas
of the United States", May 1961, and
subsequent amendments, or equivalent
regional or state rainfall probability
information developed therefrom.
(f) The term dry lot shall mean a con-
finement facility for growing ducks in
confinement with a dry litter floor
cover and no access to swimming areas.
(g) The term wet lot shall mean a con-
finement facility for raising ducks
which is open to the environment with
a small portion of shelter area, and
with open water runs and swimming
areas to which ducks have free access.
§ 412.22 Effluent limitations guidelines
represer .ng the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the applica-
tion of the best practicable control
technology currently available.
In establishing the limitations set
forth in this section, EPA took into ac-
count all information it was able to
collect, develop and solicit with re-
spect to factors (such as age and size of
plant, raw materials, manufacturing
processes, products produced, treat-
ment technology available, energy re-
quirements and costs) which can affect
the industry subcategorization and ef-
fluent levels established. It is, however,
possible that data which would affect
these limitations have not been avail-
able and, as a result, these limitations
should be adjusted for certain plants in
this industry. An individual discharger
or other interested person may submit
evidence to the Regional Adminis-
trator (or to the State, if the State has
the authority to issue NPDES permits)
that factors relating to the equipment
or facilities involved, the process ap-
plied, or other such factors related to
such discharger are fundamentally dif-
ferent from the factors considered in
the establishment of the guidelines. On
the basis of such evidence or other
available information, the Regional
Administrator (or the State) will make
a written finding that such factors are
or are not fundamentally different for
that facility compared to those speci-
fied in the Development Document. If
such fundamentally different factors
are found to exist, the Regional Admin-
istrator or the State shall establish for
the discharger effluent limitations in
the NPDES permit either more or less
stringent than the limitations estab-
lished herein, to the extent dictated by
such fundamentally different factors.
Such limitations must be approved by
the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The Admin-
istrator may approve or disapprove
such limitations, specify other limita-
tions, or initiate proceedings to revise
these regulations.
(a) The following limitations estab-
lish the quantity or quality of pollut-
ants or pollutant properties, controlled
by this section, which may be dis-
charged by a point source subject to
the provisions of this subpart after ap-
-------
§412.26
plication of the best practicable con-
trol technology currently available:
Effluent limitations
Effluent characteristic
Maximum
for any 1
day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not ex-
ceed —
Metnc units (kg/1,000 ducks)
BODS
Fecal coliform
BODS
Fecal coliform
1.66
0)
091
English units (lb/1,000 ducks)
3.66
2.00
1 Not to exceed mpn of 400/100 ml at any time.
2 See above (not typically expressed in English units).
§412.23 [Reserved]
§412.24 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources.
The pretreatment standards under
section 307(b) of the Act for a source
within the ducks subcategrory which is
a user of a publicly owned treatment
works and a major contributing indus-
try as defined in 40 CFR part 128 (and
which would be an existing point
source subject to section 301 of the Act,
if it were to discharge pollutants to the
navigable waters), shall be the stand-
ard set forth in 40 CFR part 128, except
that, for the purpose of this section, 40
CFR 128.121, 128.122, 128.132, and 128.133
sha,ll not apply. The following
pretreatment standard establishes the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties controlled by this
section which may be discharged to a
publicly owned treatment works by a
point source subject to the provisions
of this subpart.
Pollutant or pollutant property
Fecal coliform
BODS
Pretreatment standard
No limitation
Do.
[40 FR6440, Feb. 11, 1975]
§412.25 Standards of performance for
new sources.
(a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph (b) of this section, the following
standards of performance establish the
quantity or quality of pollutants or
pollutant properties which may be dis-
charged by a source subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart: There shall be
no discharge of process waste water
pollutants to navigable waters.
(b) Process waste pollutants in the
overflow may be discharged to navi-
gable waters whenever rainfall events,
either chronic or catastrophic, cause
an overflow of process waste water
from a facility designed, constructed
and operated .to contain all process
generated waste 24-hour rainfall event
for the location of the point source.
§412.26 Pretreatment standards for
new sources.
The pretreatment standards under
section 307(c) of the Act for a source
within the ducks subcategory, which is
a user of a publicly owned treatment
works (and which would be a new
source subject to section 306 of the Act,
if it were to discharge pollutants to the
navigable waters), shall be the stand-
ard set forth in part 128, of this chap-
ter, except that, for the purpose of this
section, §128.133 of this title shall be
amended to read as follows:
In addition to the prohibitions set forth in
40 CFR 128.131, the pretreatment standard for
incompatible pollutants introduced into a
publicly owned treatment works shall be the
standard of performance for new sources
specified in 40 CFR 412.15; Provided That, if
the publicly owned treatment works which
receives the pollutants is committed, in its
NPDES permit, to remove a specified per-
centage of any incompatible pollutant, the
pretreatment standard applicable to users of
such treatment works shall, except in the
case of standard providing for no discharge
of pollutants, be correspondingly reduced in
stringency for that pollutant.
-------
APPENDIX B
Suniple Inspection Report
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION INSPECTION REPORT
(Name of permitting authority)
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Inspector's Name
Arrival Time
Departure Time
Facility Name
_Owner Name/Operator Name_
Facility Location_
_0wner Address/Operator Address_
Name and position of individual to whom credentials presented
Weather conditions immediately prior to and during inspection_
II.
FACILITY OPERATION INFORMATION
What type of operation is the facility?
_Dairy Cattl
_Bee! Cattle
Chickens
_Turkeyi
_Swme
Horses
How many and what type of animals are present?
Dairy Cattle
Swme(0ver 551bs.)
Beef Cattle
Horse*
Sheep and/or Lambs
Chickens
Turkeys
Other
No. of animals
No. of animals_
No. of animaU
No. of animalj_
No. of animats_
No. of animals_
No. of animals
No. of animals
Livestock Market
Racwack/Rodeo
Other
Approximate number ot days ammala are subleaVcontined and fed/maintained over any 12-month period (provide source of the information)
Are any crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility
(provide source of this information)
Is the facility located near a lurface water? (If so, provide proximity of surface wat«r)_
-------
SAMPLE
6. Do the animals enter or cross surliice water (e.g.., rivers, streams, cunulsWn a regular basis? Yes No
7 Were animals observed in surface water? Yes_ No
III. WASTE HANDLING, TREATMENT, AND/OR MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS
I. Describe the types ofconnnemeni(i.e.., free stall burns, sheltered or limited shelter dirt lots, paved or dirt open lots, swine houses)__
Describe the types of waste handling used (i.e., direct spreading in solid form, slotted floor with lagoon or
pit, single or multi-cell lagoon, aerated lagoon, land application of liquid manure, spray irrigation, contractor disposal, etc.)
If there is a waste storage lagoon give capacity and state how the dimensions were obtained (i.e.., measured, estimated, information from tht operator)
Is there a nutrient management plan (i.e.., land application records) kept on-site?_
5, Can pollutants from the disposal of wastes and waslewalers enter a surface water, dry bed, ditch, canal, etc.? If yes, name the surface water, drybed,
ditch, canal, etc., and describe how the discharge may occur
IV. DISCHARGE INFORMATION
If there is evidence of a discharge or a discharge was observed, obtain answers to the following questions and indicate how (he information waa
obtained. Also, take a sample from the source of the discharge and lake photographs of the discharge or evidence of the discharge
1 Did the discharge occur through or because of a man-made ditch. Hushing system or similar man-made device (i.e.., man-made shaping or grading or
man-made alteration to property, trough)?
Yes No
Explain how and why the discharge occurred.
-------
SAMPLE
2. r in iirr -*— •"T'lftjii —hirh hut nrmmrt m ttu ftrility inrt rfMrrtii hmr ind irhj- it* tiimhuim 1—irrri (t j . ftih-T- «f
itongo Ktucaim, 25-ywr, 24-hour Harm)
3. Provide tfa« typ« (difcA. oad. OTIIM, riv«r. drytxd) «n4 om» at tt» t
4.
»* .—-j . V^» MM
rrwOTvyviMwmi WMWOT^ z ^v ^^^^__ i^w a
Anuml WUM. YM _^ No.
Hun or mow runoff YM No
If tnothw tjrp« of di«chM|*, piMM AMerib*.
5. What iidM25-yMr. 24-hournin£UI «nwn» fix thij kxatwo?
V. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
I. Doo • wr&c* wattr, drytad, ditch, caad. «e. p«M ovw, «eto«, ihroufh, or iloof rida *• ma whin tta* aaiiMl* u« confiocd?
2. IfdMucwwtoll i« go. wtm i» d» daaae* from ifa> «TJ« wh«r> tfa« laiaato «rt r nnrlnH IB t «iAo» wanr. dry b«d, ditch, eaati. ac?
3.
4. De*crib« wb«r» ihe wrfte* wMw orifiaMM and witm it flow* ooc4 it hu rec«iv»d • diMteff*.
5. Pi » lilni nrt>«r naiiMl nnmiiiiH in itn nnimtliiri virinirr iml rtnir pmTimhy tn tin mam nr nrtur mrfii« wmn.
6. Provkte iafocnmioa on tfM OMitoy «0tec« w«w, wch M uw*. k
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
SAMPLE
1. Describe iny compliance tuggettionj or rccommeadationi given to facility owner/operator.
"M *"• fa***" «g*«o« fa.g- dMiymte u a CAPO, ichedute a fbUow-up inspection, no action)
VII. FACILITY DIAGRAM
Attach • ikMch of th» nwitity layout, inchidiDy pntinrat mfonmtkMi weh u wtfte* WMW, dudurfB iocatioo, buUdiot*, firacinf, etc.
-------
APPENDIX C
Glossary
C-l
-------
Glossary
25-Year. 24-Hour Storm Event - The maximum 24-hour precipitation event expressed in inches
with a probable recurrence interval of once in 25 years, as defined by the National Weather
Service.
Aerobic - The presence of free oxygen, or the use of bacteria and free oxygen to reduce organic
matter.
Anaerobic - The absence of oxygen, or the use of anaerobic bacteria to reduce organic matter.
Animal feeding operation - A lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility)
where animals have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of at
least 45 days in any 12-month period, and the animal confinement areas do not sustain crops,
vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues in the normal growing season.
Animal unit - A unit of measurement for any animal feeding operation calculated by adding the
following numbers: the number of slaughter and feeder cattle multiplied by 1.0, plus the number
of mature dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4, plus the number of swine weighing over 25 kilograms
(approximately 55 pounds) multiplied by 0.4, plus the number of sheep multiplied by 0.1, plus
the number of horses multiplied by 2.0.
Best available technology (BAT) - A level of reduction determined to be economically
achievable through the use of the best available technology according to 301(b)(2)(a) and
§402(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act. The criteria and standards for establishing technology-based
permit requirements are listed in 40 CFR 125.3.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) - A level of treatment that succeeds
BPT (Best Practical Control Technology Currently Available) for conventional pollutants. The
deadline for achieving BCT was July 1, 1984 but was changed in the 1987 amendments to March
31, 1989.
Best management practices (BMPs) - Schedules of activities, prohibitions, maintenance
procedures, and other management practices found to be the most effective and practicable
methods to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. Best
management practices also include operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
Clean Water Act - The Clean Water Act, found at 33 USC 1251 et seq.. previously called the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Concentrated animal feeding operation - An animal feeding operation that meets the criteria
in 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B, or that the Director designates as a significant contributor of
pollution pursuant to 40 CFR 122.23(c). Animal feeding operations defined as concentrated in
40 CFR 122, Appendix B are as follows:
-------
1. A lot or facility that stables or confines and feeds or maintain for a total of 45
days or more in any 12-month period more than the number of animals specified
in any of the following categories:
a. 1,000 slaughter or feeder cattle,
b. 700 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers or dry cows),
c. 2,500 swine each weighing over 25 kilograms (approximately 55 pounds),
d. 500 horses,
e. 10,000 sheep or lambs,
f. 55,000 turkeys,
g. 100,000 laying hens or broilers (when the facility has unlimited continuous
flow watering systems),
h. 30,000 laying hens or broilers (when facility has liquid manure handling
system),
i. 5,000 ducks,
j. 1,000 animal units.
2. A lot or facility that discharges pollutants into waters of the United States either
through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or other similar man-made device; or
directly into waters of the United States which originate outside of and pass over,
across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the
animals confined in the operation and that stable or confine and feed or maintain
for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the numbers of
animals in the following categories:
a. 3 00 slaughter of feeder cattle,
b. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers of dry cows),
c. 750 swine (each weighing over 25 kilograms),
d. 150 horses,
e. 3,000 sheep or lambs,
f. 16,000 turkeys,
g. 30,000 laying hens or broilers (when the facility has unlimited continuous
flow watering systems),
h. 9,000 laying hens or broilers (when facility has liquid manure handling
system),
i. 1,500 ducks, or
j. 300 animal units.
Provided, however, that no animal feeding operation is a concentrated animal feeding operation as
defined above if such animal feeding operation discharges only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour
storm event.
Concrete and earthen pit - A structure for storage of liquid or solid manure with a concrete
floor and earthen sides that may include a filter wall or picket dam to allow liquid to drain from
one side to a separate compartment.
-------
Concrete tank - A tank constructed entirely of concrete and located under the animal
confinement so that manure falls directly into the tank.
Confinement feeding - Feeding in limited quarters, often under a roof and over slotted floors.
Control facility - Any system used for retention of wastes on the premises prior to their
ultimate disposal, which may include the retention of manure, liquid waste, and runoff from the
feedlot area.
Earthen pit - A liquid manure storage structure constructed entirely of natural soil, hauled-in
clay or soil, and bentonite.
Filter walls - A wall with drain holes in it constructed entirely of natural soil, hauled-in clay or
soil, and bentonite.
Gutter - A channel or trough used to carry liquid waste.
Gutter Cleaner - A device installed in shallow, narrow gutters to carry the manure to a stacker
for piling.
Holding pond - A detention device that stores runoff water from a settling basin.
Lagoon - A reservoir or pond built to contain water and animal wastes until they can be removed
or decomposed either by aerobic or anaerobic action.
Land application - The removal of wastewater and waste solids from a waste control facility
and distribution to, or incorporation into, the soil mantle primarily for disposal purposes.
Liner - A barrier in the form of a layer, membrane, or blanket installed to prevent discharges
from retention structures to waters of the United States, through groundwater that has a
hydrologic connection to surface waters.
Liquid manure - A mixture of water and manure, usually less than 10 percent solids.
Liquid tight concrete pit - An outside manure pit constructed so that the entire wetted area is
concrete.
Livestock Waste - Animal waste, but also may include bedding, feed, and other by-products of
an animal feeding operation.
Man-made discharging devices - A pipeline, ditch, or drain tile that discharges into Waters of
the United States. Any object that carries waste or runoff (pipes, terraces, irrigation systems,
tractors with bucket scoops, etc.).
-------
Open confinement - A fenced area where the animals are fed, but that is not a pasture.
Generally an open animal feeding operation will have a high density of animals, will have little or
no vegetation, and will be covered with a manure pack that requires periodic cleaning.
Open feedlot - (See open confinement, above).
Process wastewater - Any process-generated wastewater and any precipitation (rain or snow)
which conies into contact with any manure, litter or bedding, or any other raw material or
intermediate or final material or product used in or resulting from the production of animals or
poultry or direct products (e.g., milk, eggs).
Process-generated wastewater - Water used either directly or indirectly by an animal feeding
operation for various uses, including: spillage or overflow from animal poultry watering systems;
washing, cleaning, flushing pens, bams, manure pits, or other feedlot facilities; direct contact
swimming, washing, or spray cooling of animals, and dust control.
Retention facility or Retention structures - All collection ditches and conduits for the
collection of runoff and wastewater, and all basins, ponds, and lagoons used to store wastes,
wastewaters, and manures.
Settling basin (or channels) - Type of temporary runoff storage area where the liquids flow at
a very slow velocity, which allows the solids to settle out and the liquids to drain out slowly.
The Act - Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, also known as the Clean Water Act,
found at 33 USC 1251 et seq.
Waste retention pond for retention lagoon) - Excavated or diked structures or natural
depressions provided for or used for the purpose of holding animal wastes and other associated
animal feeding operation materials.
Waste treatment facilities - Structures and/or devices that stabilize, or otherwise control
pollutants so that after discharge of treated wastes, water pollution does not occur and the public
health and the beneficial uses of Waters of the United States are adequately protected.
Waters of the United States
1. All waters that are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the
ebb and flow of the tide.
2. All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands.
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would
affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
-------
a. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes;
b. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or,
c. Which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in
interstate commerce.
4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States
under this definition.
5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this definition.
6. The territorial sea; and
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
identified in items 1 through 6 of this definition.
Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
-------
APPENDIX D
Bibliography
D-l
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Publications and Reports
Bodman, G.R., Dashazer, J.A., et al., Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook, Midwest Plan
Service, Iowa State University, Fourth Edition. 1987.
Ensminger, M.E., Animal Science (Animal Agriculture Series), Interstate Publishers, Inc.,
Danville, IL, Ninth Edition. 1989.
Howard, K. and T. Plasto, Feedlotting: A Guide for Beef Producers, Queensland Department of
Primary Industries Information Services, Brisbane, Australia. 1991.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Regulations and Guidelines for Animal
Feeding Operations in Iowa, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1992.
Manges, H.L., Lipper, R.J., et al., Treatment and Ultimate Disposal of Cattle Feedlot Wastes,
EPA 660/2-75-013. 1975.
Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association, Manure Management Handbook, Ontario Soil
and Crop Improvement Association, Ontario, Canada. 1982.
Sutton, Alan L. "Animal Agriculture's Effect on Water Quality," Water Quality, Department of
Agriculture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. July 1990.
Swanson, N.P., Mielke, et al., "Transport of Pollutants from Sloping Cattle Feedlots as Affected
by Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Recurrence," Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, WI, pp. 51-55. 1971.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. 1992.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 25 Year, 24 Hour Rainfall (Inches), Technical Paper 40, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standard for the Feedlots Point Source Category, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, EPA 440/1-74-004-a.
1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Feedlot Workgroups, Washington, DC. 1993.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Preliminary Economic Achievability Analysis:
Agricultural Management Measures, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC. 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources
ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. January 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An
Analysis of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Feedlots Workgroup, Washington, DC. 1993.
Young, R.A., et al.s "Effectiveness of Vegetated Buffer Strips in Controlling Pollution from
Feedlot Runoff," Journal of Environmental Quality, pp. 483-487. July/Sept. 1980.
Young, R.A., et al. An Evaluation System to Rate Feedlot Pollution Potential, Agriculture
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 1982.
Laws and Regulations
The Clean Water Act as Amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4, Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, 100th Cong., 2d Session (1988).
Criteria for Determining a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, 40 CFR §122, Appendix B
(1992).
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 40 CFR §122.23 (1992).
Effluent Guidelines and Standards: Feedlots Point Sources Category, 39 FR 5704 (Feb. 14,
1974).
EPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Feedlots, 40 CFR 412 (Revised through July 1, 1991).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Program Elements Necessary for
Participation: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 40 FR 54182 (Nov. 20, 1975).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit and Reporting Requirements for
Discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Region 6 Final Notice), 58 FR 7610
(Feb. 8, 1993).
State Program Elements Necessary for Participation in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, 41 FR 11458 (Mar. 18,1976).22
-------
APPENDIX E
Fact Sheet - Southview Farm Case
E-l
-------
Agricultural Point Sources and the Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v.
Southview Farm
The CWA does not regulate manure spreading operations in general -- only manure spreading by
CAFOs. As explained previously, CAFOs are the only feedlots subject to regulation under the
point source permit program. If a feedlot is not a CAFO, it is not a point source. In a recent
Second Circuit case, Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v. Southview Farm, the
Circuit Court agreed with the citizen plaintiffs' alternative argument that, "manure spreading
vehicles themselves were point sources. The collection of liquid manure into tankers and their
discharge on fields from which the manure directly flows into navigable waters are point sources
under the case law." Southview Farm. 34 F.3d 114, 119 (2d Cir. 1994). EPA does not endorse
this interpretation in general and believes it was only applicable to the Southview Farm case.
Furthermore, EPA believes it was unnecessary for the Court to make this point in determining
that Southview Farms was a CAFO because Southview Farm operated a "large" CAFO (more
than 1,000 animal units). As a large CAFO, the means of conveyance (i.e., manure spreading
vehicles) was irrelevant for determining whether there was a point source discharge.
------- |