United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance
Washington, DC
September 1993
EPA The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
-------
Acknowledgements
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document represents the efforts of a number of people whose devotion to the protection
of water quality and the management of animal waste is exemplary. Over a long period, they
have been relied upon to contribute not only their time but also the unique perspective that
they bring to bear on a National program conducted at a local level. Through their hard work
and dedication to seeking creative solutions the Agency can move closer to a strategy for
effecting change and encouraging excellence in environmental management in the livestock
feeding industry. The research and analysis reported by the following subgroups should
serve as a resource for Agency and State personnel. In addition, I am especially indebted to
the efforts of Ruby Cooper, Paulette Johnsey, Gary Polvi, Stephen Sweeney, and Anne
Weinberg in their efforts in drafting the reports and Jackie Hanson for her long hours and
tireless efforts without which this document would not have been completed.
Subgroup:
Co-leads:
Members:
Subgroup:
Co-leads:
Members:
Subgroup:
Co-leads:
Members:
Magnitude of the Problem
Henry Gibson, State of South Carolina
Anne Weinberg, EPA, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Elizabeth Corr, EPA, Groundwater Protection Division
Nancy Goggin, State of Delaware
Jackie Hanson, EPA, Enforcement Division
David Nelson, State of Minnesota
Ralph Summers, EPA, Region 7
Stephen Sweeney, EPA, Office of General Counsel
Dale Wismer, EPA, Region 3
Permitting Issues
Ruby Cooper, EPA, Permits Division
David Nelson, State of Minnesota
Stephen Sweeney, EPA, Office of General Counsel
Ken Arnold, State of Missouri
Paulette Johnsey, EPA, Region 6
Ralph Summers, EPA, Region 7
Anne Weinberg, EPA, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Compliance Evaluation Issues
Gary Polvi, EPA, Enforcement Division
Nancy Goggin, State of Delaware
Henry Gibson, State of South Carolina
Jackie Hanson, EPA, Enforcement Division
Ralph Summers. EPA, Region 7
Joe Theis, EPA, Office of Enforcement
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Acknowledgements __ Feedlot 'Workgroup
Subgroup: Education and Outreach
Co-leads: Paulette Johnsey, EPA, Region 6
Steve Jann, EPA, Region 5
Members: Ruby Cooper, EPA, Permits Division
Kit Farber, EPA, Municipal Support Division
Jackie Hanson, EPA, Enforcement Division
Kevin Rosseel, EPA, Resource Management and Evaluation Staff
Mike Scott, EPA, Public Liaison Division
Anne Weinberg, EPA, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
David N. Lyons, P.E.
Chair, Feedlot Workgroup
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Table of Contents Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
WATER POLLUTION FROM FEEDLOT WASTE: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS
MAGNITUDE AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 1
FEEDLOTS CASE STUDIES OF SELECTED STATES 31
THE REPORT OF THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE SUBGROUP 119
THE REPORT OF THE EDUCATION/OUTREACH SUBGROUP 133
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Forward Feedlot Workgroup
FORWARD
After reviewing information from various sources that identified livestock feeding facilities as
significant sources of water quality impairment, the Director of the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) formed an EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup in April
1992. The Workgroup's charge was to study issues related to the impact of feedlots on U.S.
waters, and to develop strategies and guidance for reduction of feedlot pollution, utilizing
tools available to the Agency under NPDES, Nonpoint Source, and Ground Water Protection
Programs.
The Workgroup's membership includes representatives from four EPA Regions and nine
Headquarters divisions, as well as six State environmental programs. A roster of the
Workgroup membership follows this forward. Because the Workgroup has an agricultural
focus, the Workgroup has sought and will continue to seek input from United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) staff. The Workgroup has also received input from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The Workgroup has taken a total quality management (TQM) approach, encouraging
participation by each member and utilizing the Focus, Analyze, Develop, Execute (FADE)
approach to organizing this effort. A National meeting of the Workgroup in April 1992 was
used for the Focus phase. During the meeting, the Workgroup determined that all feedlot-
related issues could be placed into one of four categories: (1) determination of the magnitude
and geographic extent of feedlot pollution; (2) feedlot permitting issues/strategies and
development of a guidance document for Federal environmental laws affecting feedlots; (3)
methods/strategies to verify that feedlots comply with water regulations; and (4) methods to
increase voluntary compliance with water regulations and promote public involvement in
reducing feedlot pollution. The Workgroup membership volunteered to staff four subgroups
corresponding to these four categories. Each subgroup was led by representatives from EPA
Headquarters and Regions or States.
The Feedlot Workgroup subgroups have completed the analysis phase of their projects. The
four reports contained in this document are their findings and were used as the basis of the
recommendations made in Draft Water Quality Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
(September 1993). It is hoped that this document will be used as a resource to enhance the
understanding of feedlot-related issues and will provide information to Regions/States as
they develop feedlot strategies.
As you read the document, you may notice variations in structure and format. This occurs
because each subgroup used its unique approach to develop its own report before the reports
were compiled in this document.
Summary of Report Findings
Several important findings emerged from the subgroup studies. Data indicate that animal
waste impairs surface water uses at approximately the same level as other significant
sources of water pollution such as storm sewers/runoff or combined sewer overflows. Even
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Forward Feed lot Workgroup
though feedlots cause a significant number of water impairments, the Workgroup found that
only a fraction of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are covered by permits
and that far fewer, still, receive compliance inspections. These findings may well be the
result of noted confusion/inconsistency in the interpretation of Federal regulations for CAFOs
from State to State. The Workgroup also found thai the feedlot industry is distinguished from
other types of industries in its tendency to be cooperative rather than competitive. For this
reason, it is believed that education/outreach activities on the part of EPA and the States
would be especially fruitful in attaining greater compliance.
-------
Chair: |
FEEDLOT WORKGROUP MEMBERS
NAME
Dale Wismer
Nancy Goggin
Henry Gibson
Steve Jann
David Nelson
Paulette Johnsey
Ralph Summers
Ken Arnold
Ubbo Agena
Monica Heimdal
Ruby Cooper
Elizabeth Corr
Kit Farber
Jacqueline Hanson
Gary Polvi
Kevin Rosseel
Michael Scott
Lynn Shuyler
Stephen Sweeney
Joseph Theis
Anne Weinberg
Richard Reynnells
David Lyons
!
AFFILIATION
EPA Region 3
State of Delaware
State of South Carolina
EPA Region 5
State of Minnesota
EPA Region 6
EPA Region 7
State of Missouri
State of Iowa
EPA Region 8
EPA Permits Division
EPA Groundwater Protection Division
EPA Municipal Support Division
EPA Enforcement Division
EPA Enforcement Division
EPA Office of Wastewater Enforcement & Compliance
EPA Public Liason Division
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA Office of General Counsel
EPA Office of Enforcement
EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
LJSDA Extension Service
EPA Enforcement Division
r
VII
-------
The Magnitude of
Animal Waste Pollution
-------
WATER POLLUTION FROM FEEDLOT WASTE:
AN ANALYSIS OF ITS MAGNITUDE AND
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
February 1993
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
WATER POLLUTION FROM FEEDLOT WASTE: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS MAGNITUDE AND
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 1
I. PURPOSE 1
II. BACKGROUND l
A. Size And Geographic Distribution Of Livestock Operations 2
B. Livestock Operations Requiring NPDES Permits 5
III. DATA SOURCES 5
IV. GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF WATER POLLUTION 6
A. Surface Water Pollution 6
1. National Data and Comparison of Feedlots and Other
Nationally Significant Water Pollution Problems:
Subgroup Analysis Using Section 305(b) and 319 Data 6
2. Manure Surplus Method of Analysis 9
3. Animal Unit Density Versus Surface Water Coverage
Method of Analysis 9
4. Site-Specific Studies 11
B. Ground water Pollution 15
1. National Data 15
2. Site-Specific Studies 16
V. NATURE OF IMPACTS FROM ANIMAL WASTE 17
A. Human Health Implications 17
1. Methemoglobinemia 17
2. Acute Symptoms and Diseases from Exposure to
Microorganisms 18
B. Adverse Ecological Effects 18
1. Fishkills 18
2. Changes in Water Habitat/Ecosystem 18
3. Wildlife Impacts 18
4. Soil Pollution 19
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
5. Acid Deposition 19
6. Global Climate Change 19
vi. COSTS OF LIVESTOCK WASTE POLLUTION 20
VII. REGIONAL DATA AND REGIONAL COMPARISON OF FEEDLOTS
AND OTHER SOURCES OF POLLUTION 20
REGIONAL FINDINGS 21
vin. CONCLUSIONS 24
IX. FURTHER ACTION BY THE FEEDLOT WORKGROUP 24
LITERATURE CITED 25
APPENDIX A: METHOD OF ANALYSIS USED TO DETERMINE MAGNITUDE OF
FEEDLOT, CSO, AND STORM SEWER/RUNOFF POLLUTION 29
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paj
1 Estimated Number of Farms and Animals Inventory by Livestock
Category in the U.S. 2
2 Percentage of Impaired U.S. Waters in Which Various Sources of Pollution
Contributed to Impairment and Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired 8
3 Concentrations of Selected Pollutants in CSO Effluent, POTW Effluent,
and Livestock Wastes (mg/1) 13, 14) 13
4 Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. RIVERS in Regions 1-10 21
5 Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. LAKES in Regions 1-10 21
6 Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in the GREATS LAKES in Regions 2-5 21
7 Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. ESTUARIES in Regions Having Estuaries 22
8 Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. COASTS in Regions Reporting Data On Non-Estuarine
Coasts 22
9 Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. RIVERS in Regions 1-10 22
10 Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. LAKES in Regions 1-10 23
11 Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in the GREAT LATES in Regions 2-5 23
12 Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. ESTUARIES in Regions Having Estuaries 23
13 Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. COASTS in Regions Reporting Data on Non-Estuarine
Coasts 24
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
List of Figures
Figure Paj
1 Cattle Fattened on Grain and Concentrates and Sold: 1987 3
2 Milk Cows—Inventory: 1987 3
3 Hogs and Pigs—Inventory: 1987 4
4 Chickens 3 Months Old or Older—Inventory: 1987 4
5 Pounds of Economically Recoverable Phosphorous in Animal Waste per Acre
of Harvested Cropland in 1987 10
6 Livestock Water Pollution Potential—Relative Estimate of Surface Water
Contamination from Livestock 12
7 Sources of Nitrogen Entering the Chesapeake Bay and Sources of Phosphorus
Entering the Chesapeake Bay 14
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
WATER POLLUTION FROM FEEDLOT WASTE: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS
MAGNITUDE AND GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
I. PURPOSE
This paper was prepared at the request of the Director for the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance to inform management at the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) of the extent of water pollution from waste generated at both small
and large feedlots. This paper is intended to be an internal resource for EPA management to
use as an aid in making program decisions.
The Agency presently faces significant resource demands to control water pollution problems
from several sources. Therefore, to assist in providing a basis for program priorities, this
paper compares the magnitude of water pollution caused by livestock1 waste with other
nationally significant water pollution sources, such as storm water and combined sewer
overflows (CSOs). This paper is not intended to provide strict risk assessment of various
sources of water pollution: since the necessary data are unavailable, this paper does not
assess the total population affected by each source, nor does it quantify the amount or effect
of pollutant loadings from these sources. Rather, the paper compares pollution sources on the
basis of the total amount of waters not meeting designated uses because of pollutants from
various sources.
This paper also describes the geographic extent of both surface and ground water pollution
from livestock waste and the human health, ecological, and economic implications of livestock
waste pollution.
II. BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA) required that EPA regulate
"concentrated animal feeding operations" (CAFOs). Although most animal feeding
operations were traditionally considered to be nonpoint sources of pollution, Congress defined
CAFOs as point sources in the FWPCA. EPA thus established regulations under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which require
permits for CAFOs that discharge to waters of the U.S. at times other than the event of a
25-year/24-hour storm, and that (1) have more than 1,000 animal units (AUs)2 or (2) have
more than 300 AUs and discharge directly to waters of the United States.
Livestock, for the purposes of this paper, is defined as cattle, swine, horses, and poultry.
1.000 AUs equal 1,000 slaughter and feeder cattle; 700 mature dairy cattle; 2,500 swine, each weighing
more than 25 kilograms; 500 horses; 10.000 sheep or lambs; 55.000 turkeys; 100.000 layers or broilers if
the facility has continuous overflow watering; or 30,000 layers or broilers if the facility has a liquid
manure handling system. 300 AUs equal 300 slaughter or feeder cattle; 200 mature dairy cattle; 750
swine, each weighing more than 25 kilograms; 150 horses; 3,000 sheep or lambs; 16.500 turkeys; 30,000
layers or broilers if the facility has continuous overflow watering; or 9,000 layers or broilers if the
facility has a liquid manure handling system.
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Facilities in both categories are subject to penalties for any discharge to a water of the U.S.
without a permit. Facilities in the first category shall not discharge to waters of the U.S.
except in the event of a 25-year/24-hour storm. In addition, any facility may be required to
obtain a permit if the NPDES permitting authority determines that the facility contributes
significantly to pollution of a surface water. Permit conditions necessary to protect surface
water quality may be included in any permit.
In this report, the term "CAFO" will be used to indicate any livestock or poultry facility that
meets the NPDES criteria. The term "feedlot" will be used to refer to CAFOs as well as any
other animal feeding operation.
A. Size And Geographic Distribution Of Livestock Operations
Table 1 gives information on the industry profiles for various types of livestock operations in
the United States. This table gives estimates of the total number of farms, the total animal
inventory on these farms, the number of these farms housing 1,000 or more animal units, and
the percentage of each type of livestock housed in facilities having more than 1,000 animal
units (1,2). Table 1 shows that the percentage of animals kept in operations holding more
than 1,000 animal units ranges from 8 percent of dairy cows to 80 percent of fed beef cattle.
For cattle, the industry profiles only include data for fed cattle operations; range and pasture
cattle operations, where manure is deposited in a diffuse manner such that manure nutrients
can be assimilated by plants and therefore in general do not threaten water quality; are
excluded. However, all poultry, swine, and dairy operations are included in the profiles
because poultry and swine facilities nearly always meet the definition of an animal feeding
operation (40 CFR 122.23) and most dairy operations either meet that definition or have
animal holding areas where manure is deposited in a concentrated manner such that
improperly managed manure may present a threat to water quality.
Table 1. Estimated Number of Farms and Animal Inventory by Livestock
Category in the U.S.
Livestock
Category
Beef feedlot
Dairies
Layers
Broilers
Swine
Total Number
of Farms
190,000
202.000
142,000
27,600
243,400
Total U.S. Animal
Inventory
14,000,000
10.085,000
316,503,000
766.486,000
52.217,000
Number of Farms
with>1000 AUs
1,700
780
560
520
2.400
Percentage of
Inventory
on Farms with
>1000 AUs
80
8
50
50
20
Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the distribution of the various types of livestock across the United
States as published in the Census of Agriculture (1987) (3).
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Figure 1
Cattle Fattened on Grain and Concentrates and Sold: 1987
Figure 2
Milk Cows - Inventory: 1987
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Figure 3
Hogs and Pigs - Inventory: 1987
1
, o
"ii _
/ ^
t- - "••'" * - -*^5
!;' /
> 1 Dot = n.OOO Hogs
•-'•••.. '
• • ^ <--5r"" ""•--"
^^ I \
'.1
-• *• US D—rw.
4 IT4MO (****, *.' r
Figure 4
Chickens 3 Months Old or Older - Inventory: 1987
:
"C:i -.
<•? i »*•''*
-1
1 Oot - 50 OOO C^vckens
3 Months Old or OKMM
>— v ' -•-•
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
B. Livestock Operations Requiring NPDES Permits
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database indicates that EPA's Regional offices and
States with approved NPDES programs have issued individual permits covering 1,051
CAFOs and five general permits covering at least another 123 facilities. The total number of
NPDES permits for feedlots is significantly less than the approximately 6,000 facilities (see
Table 1) that have more than 1,000 animal units. The discrepancy between the number of
facilities with NPDES permits and the total number of feedlots over 1,000 animal units is
believed to be due to the following factors: (1) feedlots may be covered by non-NPDES
State permits, which are not reported in PCS; (2) because of limited State and Federal
resources, some feedlots that should have a permit have not been brought into a regulatory
program; (3) some regulatory authorities misinterpret the Federal regulations for CAFOs and
mistakenly exempt facilities that should have permits; and (4) permits are required for only
those facilities that discharge at times other than the event of a 25-year/24-hour storm.
To increase permit coverage of CAFOs, some States (including Oregon, Montana, and
Washington) have issued general permits for CAFOs. In addition, EPA Regions 8, 9, and 10
have, respectively, issued general permits for CAFOs in South Dakota, Arizona, and Idaho
(these States have not been delegated NPDES authority in these Regions). Region 6 has
very recently issued general permits for CAFOs in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Louisiana. The Region estimates that more than 1,000 facilities will be covered under the
new general permit. Some of these general permits have requirements (such as retention
pond liner specifications or monitoring of discharge) in addition to the requirements given in
the effluent guidelines for CAFOs.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has estimated that there are
approximately 378,000 animal feeding operations with less than 1,000 animal units but more
than 20 animal units (4). While most of these operations are not subject to NPDES
regulations, many have been regulated by State regulatory programs.
Data recently collected pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) sections 319 and 305(b)
indicate significant pollution problems caused by feedlots and animal holding areas. Data
also indicate significant impairments caused by pasture and range operations but those
impairments will not be included here. However, no conclusive evidence currently indicates
the relative water quality impacts caused by small versus large or regulated (permitted)
versus nonregulated (nonpermitted) feedlots.
III. DATA SOURCES
The major data sources used in this paper include the 1989 CWA section 319 Report to
Congress, entitled Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution, and the 1990 CWA section 305(b)
report, entitled National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress. After evaluating
a number of references for data quality, consistency, and comprehensiveness, the subgroup
has determined that these two data sources give the best data on the extent of feedlot
pollution and allow comparison between feedlots and other pollution sources.
Supplemental information was obtained from computerized literature searches of the Aquatic
Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts, and the Water Resources Abstracts Volume 1. Also
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
reviewed were relevant reports prepared in connection with the National Estuary Program,
the Clean Lakes Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Rural Clean Water Program,
and the Global Climate Change Program.
IV. GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF WATER POLLUTION
A. Surface Water Pollution
1. National Data and Comparison of Feedlots and Other Nationally Significant Water
Pollution Problems: Subgroup Analysis Using Section 305(b) and 319 Data
This subgroup's analysis of the most recent summary data collected pursuant to sections
305(b) and 319 of the CWA indicates that feedlots nationally cause or contribute to 7 percent
of impairments (i.e., cause non-support or partial support of designated water uses) in lakes
and 13 percent of impairments in rivers (6, 7).3 When overall levels of water-use impairment
are figured in, feedlots are found to impair approximately 1 percent of assessed lakes and 3
percent of assessed rivers.
In addition to the results of this analysis, the Waterbody System, a database currently used
by 39 States to store waterbody-specific data on water pollution impacts, indicates that 1,785
waterbodies are impaired by feedlots in these States. Also, in 1984, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service estimated that feedlots impair fisheries in nearly 60,000 miles of streams
nationally (8) (fishery impairment standards of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are
likely to be higher standards than State-designated water use standards for some portion of
our Nation's streams).
We believe that our estimates of the extent of water use impairment in lakes and rivers are
reasonable and conservative, reflective of the effects animal waste has on waters of the U.S.
However, it should be noted that the accuracy of the figures provided by our analysis cannot
be determined.
a. Data Limitations.
The national data used in our analysis are imprecise: some States do not disaggregate
agricultural sources of pollution into more specific source categories such as feedlots or
The method used to analyze the magnitude and geographic concentration of feedlot pollution is described
in Appendix A. The data used in the analysis come from the National Water Quality Inventory: 1990
Repon to Congress and Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Report to Congress on Section 3J9 of the
CWA {1989).
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
irrigated crops,4 not all waters of the United States were assessed, some States did not
provide data for the most recent section 305(b) and section 319 summary reports,5 a few
States reported data for their lakes or rivers but not both and some States may have excluded
water impairments caused by CAFOs (point sources) in their section 319 (nonpoint source)
reports.6 Furthermore, there are known water quality impairments caused by animal waste
from feedlots in some States that do not report any feedlot-specific data in the section 319
summary report. Some of these impairments are noted in the site-specific examples given
later in this paper, and some of these impairments are noted in the descriptive parts of the
States' 305(b) or 319 reports but are not accounted for in the States' tabulated summary data.
It is possible that these States are reporting feedlot impairments in the nonspecified
agriculture category, rather than in the feedlot category.
b. Analytical Methodology Limitations.
In addition to the data limitations, there are analytical methodology limitations. Because we
use specified7 agriculture impacts as a representative sample for all agricultural impacts, our
method will overestimate feedlot impairments in any geographic area that attributed some
impairments to feedlots and the remaining nonfeedlot agriculture impairments to the
unspecified agriculture category.
Because of data and methodology limitations, the absolute extent of feedlot impacts may be
different from that indicated by our analysis. However, most of the sources of data
imprecision that affect analysis of feedlot data also affect section 305(b) data for other
pollution sources such as CSOs or separate storm sewers. Therefore, it is thought that a
relative comparison of data for feedlots with data for other sources is still a reasonable means
to determine whether feedlots cause approximately the same amount of impairments as other
sources that are considered significant.
Table 2 shows that feedlot impairments, as analyzed by our methods, are comparable in
magnitude to impairments from other nationally significant sources that are acknowledged as
serious. Our estimates show that feedlots impair more river miles than CSOs, storm sewers.
States that did not disaggregate agricultural sources of pollution are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
Delaware, Maryland. Pennsylvania. Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma. New Mexico, Iowa, Utah, and Idaho.
Missouri and South Dakota disaggregate only feedlot sources of pollution; all other agricultural sources
of pollution are reported as aggregate.
States that did not provide usable summary data for this analysis in the section 305(b) or section 319
summary reports are New Hampshire. New Jersey, Florida. Mississippi. South Carolina, Michigan.
Minnesota. Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado. Alaska. Idaho, and Oregon
States reporting data for lakes or rivers but not both for either the section 305(b) or section 319 summary
report are Alabama, Arizona. Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas. Kentucky. Louisiana. Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina. North Dakota. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermom, Virginia, and West
Virginia.
Specified agriculture categories are irrigated crops, nonirrigated crops, specialty crops, aquaculture,
feedlots, rangeland, pasture, animal holding areas, and streambank erosion. States may also choose to
attribute impacts to unspecified agriculture.
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
or industry, and are a significant source of pollution in lakes. Feedlot impact is indicated to be
less significant, on the average, in estuaries and ocean coasts—although there are estuaries,
such as the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, where animal waste pollution is a significant
problem. Wetlands impairments are not listed in Table 2 because the wetlands data reported
in the section 305(b) summary report are based on an extremely limited sample.
Table 2. Percentage of Impaired U.S. Waters in Which Various Sources
of Pollution Contributed to Impairment and Percentage of Assessed
Waters Impaired
Type of
Waterbody
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Great Lakes
Coasts
Feedlot
Source **
13
7
3
0
0
CSOs Source *
2
0.1
6
46
4
Storm Sewers
Source *
11
28
30
0
36
Industry
Source *
9
9
10
3
15
Percent Assessed
Waters That Are
Impaired*
30
40
33
97
10
Data taken from National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress.
* Analysis performed by feedlot workgroup, using method described in Appendix B.
The data indicate that feedlot impairments are not evenly distributed across the Nation.
Factors that contribute to the uneven distribution of feedlot pollution include variations in:
site sensitivity, feedlot density, and regulatory or voluntary control of feedlot wastes. The
uneven distribution of feedlot impairments is also partially due to differences in water quality
standards, as well as differences in the averaged level of designated uses of feedlot-polluted
waters, from State to State. State examples illustrating the variation in factors that
contribute to feedlot pollution problems arc given below.
The State of Wisconsin reports a higher than average rate of impairments caused by feedlots.
It should be noted that Wisconsin has an active regulatory program for feedlots, and also has
well-developed nonpoint source and water monitoring programs. However, although
Wisconsin has a progressive program, it also has a very large number of small dairy farms,
sited along streams, which significantly contribute to the State's water quality problems.
The following observations were made on the section 319 data provided for the 13 States that
have the highest fed cattle inventory in the Nation: no data at all are reported for Nebraska,
there are no disaggregation of agriculture sources for Iowa or Idaho, and there is little
disaggregation for Oklahoma. No feedlot impacts are recorded for Arizona, Colorado,
Kansas, or Minnesota. Feedlot data are provided for California, Illinois, South Dakota,
Texas, and Washington. Using the subgroup's method of analysis on data from these States,
we find that feedlots are reported to (1) cause 4 percent of impairments in lakes and 6 percent
of impairments in rivers—about half of the national averages and (2) impair 1 percent of
assessed lakes and 4 percent of assessed rivers—which is the same as the national average
for lakes and greater than the national average of 3 percent for rivers. It is possible that
factors such as drier weather patterns or better manure management in these States help
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
keep the level of feedlot impairments near the national average, even though these States
have high livestock production.
2. Manure Surplus Method of Analysis
Other methods of estimating the distribution of feedlot pollution do not involve use of section
305(b) or section 319 data. One method is to determine where manure nutrient production
exceeds crop nutrient assimilation. Since it is cost-prohibitive to transport most types of
manure over long distances, a local overabundance of manure is a reasonable predictor of
water impairments caused by feedlots. This method indicates which areas of the country
would be more likely to have water quality impairments caused by animal waste even if there
were no direct discharges of animal waste to waters of the United States.
A map showing (for each county) the pounds of economically recoverable phosphorus (from
manure deposited in a concentrated manner and therefore easy to collect and utilize) in
animal waste per acre of harvested non-nitrogen fixing crops is shown in Figure 5 (9). Some
counties would have excess recoverable phosphorus even if all cropland were planted in
phosphorus-intensive crops. Counties planted in crops that require relatively little
phosphorus would also be prone to pollution from phosphorus-contaminated runoff. This
study did not consider factors such as manure or nutrient management practices, the nutrient
needs of the crops actually grown, soil types, proximity to surface waters, or topography,
which all affect the likelihood that water quality impacts will occur. These results were
obtained under the direction of EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE),
Water Policy Branch. This study averages the manure nutrients available to all fields in a
county; however, in any county, certain fields may receive excessive amounts of manure and
thereby threaten water quality, while other fields may receive much less manure.
Recent surveys have indicated that, at least in some localities, few farmers follow
recommendations to reduce fertilizer rates on crops following manure application or legume
rotations (10). When soil nitrogen inputs from these sources are not accounted for, the
excess nitrate can leach into ground water or enter surface water in runoff.
Phosphorus contamination also results from improper management of manure nutrients. The
map in Figure 5 was based on phosphorus rather than nitrogen because the N:P crop uptake
ratio is greater than the N:P ratio available from manure, and phosphorus residues will
accumulate in the soil when beneficial use of manure is not phosphorus-limited (11). Erosion
of phosphorus-contaminated soil can cause surface water quality impairments.
3. Animal Unit Density Versus Surface Water Coverage Method of Analysis
Another analysis that can help determine where feedlots are likely to cause surface water
quality impacts has been conducted by the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (12). This analysis indicates the
difficulty of preventing discharge of animal wastes in each county or State, and it is based on
-------
Pounds of Economically Recovarnble Phosphorous In Animal
Waste par Acre of Harvested Cropland In 1987
n
0 to 20
2Q to 40
40 to BO
80 to S5B
Estimate* by «h* Bruc* Company - based on the 1987 Certain of Agriculture data and
USDA and MWPS phosphorout production and recovery coefficients.
Warning: Acreaga and animal population data valuea wltlihold In Con*ui torsonia countlM.
Ui
£ «-
le
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
the premise that water quality impacts are more likely to occur in areas that have a larger
source of pollutants and in which the pollutants have greater proximity to surface water.
In this analysis, animal unit density (all animal units in a geographic area (county or State)
divided by the total land area) was multiplied by "surface water density" (i.e., the fraction of a
geographic land area that is covered by surface water). Each geographic area was then
.assigned a pollution susceptibility ranking from 0 to 3 based on the quartile values of the
resultant products of multiplication. The results are given in Figure 6 (12).
This analysis does include all animal units, regardless of whether they are housed at CAFOs
or smaller feedlots or are kept on range or pasture. This analysis does not consider
movement of pollutants through soil to ground water that is connected to surface water. This
analysis identifies high pollution potential in two areas, the Chino Basin, California, and Lake
Okeechobee, Florida, which have become widely known for feedlot pollution problems.
For most States, the results of the manure surplus and animal density versus surface water
coverage analyses generally agree with the analysis of section 305(b)/319 data on feedlot
impairments. The former two analyses may be useful to help determine the likelihood that
feedlot pollution is occurring in states that did not provide 305(b) or 319 data.
While the analytical methods developed in this report are useful, none of them are perfect in
identifying which areas will have animal waste pollution problems and which areas will not.
Therefore, wherever feedlots are present, several steps must be taken to minimize the
potential water pollution impact of animal wastes: (1) discharge of animal wastes must be
minimized—wastes must be stored in an environmentally sound manner until they can be
beneficially used; (2) manure nutrient management must be considered as part of an overall
nutrient management plan; and (3) erosion of nutrient-containing soil must be minimized.
4. Site-Specific Studies
Details of several site-specific studies of surface water contamination caused by feedlots are
described below. Some of the pollution problems listed below are being actively abated.
These examples are provided as background information for managers who are not familiar
with the nature of water impairments caused by animal waste. These examples are also
provided so that managers who become involved in future efforts to reduce feedlot pollution
will know where to seek advice from public officials or other persons involved in finding
solutions to animal waste pollution.
Note that this report covers examples of impairments caused by feedlots in States that
provide no feedlot-specific data in the most recent section 319 summary report. It is hoped
that States will be able to provide more specific data in future section 305(b) and 319
reporting cycles.
However, wherever feedlot pollution occurs, the impact can be immediate and severe. Table
3 compares the concentrations of pollutants found in feedlot waste with those from CSOs and
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
11
-------
LIVESTOCK WATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL
RELATIVE ESTIMATE OF SURFACE WATER CONTAMINATION
FROM LIVESTOCK
to
it in the quartile of States with the . . .
STATE
HIGHEST pollution potential
SECOND HIGHEST pollution potential
THIRD HIGHEST pollution potential
LOWEST pollution potential
SHADINGS:
COUNTY is in the quartile of counties with the . . .
1^^ HIGHEST pollution potential
ftm SECOND HIGHEST pollution potential
Y / / A THIRD HIGHEST pollution potential
I 1 LOWEST pollution potential
94
3
COLOR ORIGINAL:
REPRODUCE THIS MAP ON
A COLOR PHOTOCOPIER
s.- a
&* t^
I?
a 2
^!?
«>
s.
_J <*
*g
B'S
I!
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Table 3. Concentrations of Selected Pollutants in CSO Effluent, POTW
Effluent, and Livestock Wastes (mg/1) (13, 14)
Pollutant
Source
CSO
POTW
Swine Effluent
Dairy Runoff
Milking Waste
Beef Runoff*
TSS
374
22
9,000
no data
2,380
6,000
Total
Nitrogen
8
20
1,200
150
446
1,100
Total
Phosphorus
5
6
400
80
60
110
BOD
71
19
2,500
1,500
3,870
3,200
Runoff from a paved lot
Southeastern Pennsylvania: Agriculture impacts in Pennsylvania are not disaggregated in
the summary section 319 report; any feedlot impairments might be attributed to unspecified
agriculture rather than to the more specific source of feedlots. However, the Pequea and Mill
Creeks watershed in southeastern Pennsylvania has experienced widespread surface water
pollution from agriculture, primarily from livestock production. Some portion of this production
occurs on feedlots. In this watershed, State researchers identified 58.5 miles of streams that
have been degraded by agricultural nonpoint sources. In 1986, researchers detected nitrate -
N levels above 10 mg/1 (the national drinking water standard) in 43 percent of water samples
in Pequea Creek. They also found ammonia concentrations at levels acutely toxic to aquatic
life (3.8 mg/1) in both the storm and base flow of Pequea Creek (15).
Lake Okeechobee. Florida: No data from the State of Florida were included in the 1989
section 319 summary report. However, one of the largest and most severe algal blooms ever
recorded in Lake Okeechobee occurred in the summer of 1986. Blue green algae spread
across more than 120 square miles of the lake surface. Lake Okeechobee is the second
largest lake entirely within the boundaries of the U.S. and serves as a drinking water supply
for millions of people. Additional significant algae blooms occurred again in the fall of both
1986 and 1987.
In attempting to explain why these intense blooms occurred, researchers reviewed U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and Slate water quality data collected over the previous decade.
These data indicate a steady increase in the phosphorus concentration in the lake. The
researchers noted that most of the phosphorus entering the lake comes from discharges from
dairy and beef operations adjacent to the lake. There are roughly 75,000 head of beef cattle
and 45,000 head of dairy cattle in Okeechobee County.
More important, researchers found a significant downward trend in the ratio of total nitrogen
to total phosphorus, which could indicate a "shift in species composition from the lake's
normal algal flora to less desirable N fixing blue green algae." If these trends continue,
researchers suggest that eutrophication will accelerate and, ultimately, the lake's fishery
resources will be severely damaged (16).
Lake Ponchartrain. Louisiana: No water quality impacts attributed to feedlots are recorded
for Louisiana lakes in the most recent section 319 summary report. However, this major lake,
13
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
which is located near New Orleans, is considered to be "no longer suitable for swimming or
fishing within about a half mile of most of the shoreline and the more than 4 million people
living in the lake basin are unable to use it safely for recreation." The lake's southern shores
have been closed to swimming since 1985 because bacteria levels exceeded safe levels by
two orders of magnitude. Livestock operations are one of the major sources of pollution to
Lake Ponchartrain (17).
The Clean Lakes Program: No feedlot-specific impairments are listed for Kansas in the
section 319 summary report. However, regional EPA staff report water pollution problems
from animal feeding operations in Lone Star Lake, Kansas; Herington Reservoir, Kansas; and
Lamar Lake, Missouri. Each of these pollution problems was reported in 1992 (18). Because
of Kansas permit program action, wastewater controls have now been installed at Lone Star
Lake.
Chesapeake Bay Model Results: The graphs in Figure 7 indicate preliminary Chesapeake
Bay watershed model results. The graphs give the percentages of the total N and P loaded
into the Bay by different sources. The figures show that for the Bay, animal waste impacts
are comparable in magnitude to urban (storm sewers/runoff) impacts. These two pollution
sources were also found to be of comparable magnitude on a national basis, as was
illustrated in Table 2. In addition, animal waste represents 34 percent and 20 percent of the
controllable agricultural NPS phosphorus and nitrogen in the Basin. Furthermore, in the
more seriously polluted portions of the Bay (the northern Bay areas), animal waste causes
an even greater percentage of the pollution problem. The areas with the greatest
concentration of animals include the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the Susquehanna,
Potomac, Rappahannock, and James River Basins (19). No feedlot-specific impairments are
recorded in the section 319 reports for Maryland, Delaware, or Pennsylvania, although rivers
in these States largely drain into the Chesapeake.
Figure 7
Sources of Nitrogen Entering the Chesapeake Bay
Aimosphenc
Deposition
117,
Major Point Sources
23%
Forest
All Other
Agriculture
Sources
34%
Sources of Phosphorus Entering the Chesapeake Bay
Atmospheric
Deposition
All Other
Agriculture
Sources
397,
Major Point
Sources
34%
Animal Waste
Total N Entering Bay: 377 Million \bsJyr.
Total P Entering Bay: 27 Million IbsJ'yr.
14
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
National Estuary Program (NEP) Results: Intensive studies conducted by the Washington
Department of Ecology on commercial shellfish beds have implicated environmentally
unsound animal-keeping practices by small part-time farms for the bacterial contamination
that has closed a number of shellfishing areas in recent years (20).
Lake Merhl. Maryland: No water quality impairments caused by feedlots are noted for the
State of Maryland in the most recent section 319 report. Water quality officials found that a
single dairy caused severe water pollution in this 10-acre lake which drains a 345-acre
watershed in Frederick County, Maryland. Officials found that waste management practices
from the 100-head dairy need improvement in order to allow swimming in the lake. The
primary concern is high bacteria counts (21).
Little Black River Basin. Missouri: In a study of the Little Black River Basin in Missouri and
Arkansas, the USGS in cooperation with the USDA-SCS identified livestock waste as the
principal source of bacterial pollution in the basin. Concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria
exceeding 200 colonies per 100 milliliters occurred in 12 percent to 30 percent of the samples
(sample size was 131) collected throughout the Basin. In each case, the primary source of
fecal contamination was livestock (22).
B. Groundwater Pollution
1. National Data
The States indicate that groundwater quality is generally high. However, nitrates, pathogens
(including fecal coliform, fecal streptococci, and other coliform bacteria), and salts from
manure have contaminated ground water in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, Kentucky, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin and are a concern in other States with
significant livestock production (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33). Sources include
leaking storage lagoons and over-application of manure nutrients onto cropland. Nitrates
move through most soil types, but microorganisms generally must move to ground water
through macropores in unconsolidated materials and fractured aquifer systems rather than
directly through the soil (34). Nitrates and pathogens both may enter ground water when
contaminated surface drainage enters poorly constructed wells.
Livestock waste provides a potential source of high levels of nitrate in ground water in
regions with high livestock density and sensitive hydrogeology. Although manure solids can
effectively seal the unpaved floor of an active beef feedlot and thereby restrict nitrate
movement, there are certain combinations of soil type and waste characteristics that are
conducive to the out-migration of nitrate leachate (35). If the seal is disturbed, as it is when
a feedlot is abandoned, seasonally emptied, or completely cleaned of manure, increased
amounts of nitrate may be formed and may subsequently leach (36, 37). Moreover, improper
application of animal wastes to land can lead to nitrate accumulation in soil and ground water
pollution (38).
In addition, ground water can be a significant mechanism for carrying contamination to surface
water. Nationally, about 40 percent of the average annual stream flow is from ground water.
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
and during dry periods, there are many areas where nearly all of the stream flow is sustained
by ground water inflow. Pollutants can thus be transferred from ground water to surface
water.
National Pesticides Survey: In 1990, EPA completed a National Pesticide Survey in which
the presence of 127 pesticides, pesticide degradates, and nitrates in community water system
wells and rural domestic drinking water wells was monitored. Nitrate was the contaminant
most frequently detected in the survey. In general, the researchers who conducted the
National Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells survey found a positive correlation between the
nitrate concentration in public and private wells and the market value of livestock in the
survey area (sample size of 1350 wells: 650 public wells and 700 private wells) (39).
However, the survey did not indicate the relative contributions of nitrates made by livestock
wastes versus other rural sources of nitrate contamination such as fertilizer runoff or septic
system leakage.
2. Site-Specific Studies
Chino Basin. California: Nitrate contamination in the Basin presently affects local drinking
water quality and is expected to have a major impact on the drinking water quality in densely
populated Orange County, California, since water rising from the Basin is used to recharge
the primary source of drinking water for Orange County residents. In 1986, the Soil
Conservation Service of the USDA conducted a study to identify the role of dairy farming as it
affects ground water contamination in the Chino Basin. The researchers found that the
nitrate-N concentration in ground water rose from 6 mg/1 to 16 mg/1 between 1969 and 1986.
Currently, only 60 percent of the area's wells meet acceptable nitrate levels, and dairy
operations have been identified as the most significant source of this increase (40). The
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California reported that the 1986 nitrate levels in
pumped ground water averaged 23 mg/1, 40 mg/1, and 63 mg/1 in the three subbasins that
comprise the Chino Basin (41).
Inland Bays. Delaware: In 1986, Dr. William Ritter of the University of Delaware measured
the level of nitrates in ground water that exceeded 100 mg/1 in areas beneath several poultry
houses. Several other researchers found nitrate concentrations exceeding 10 mg/1 in over 20
percent of wells in southeastern Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland (42).
Delaware has numerous poultry houses that do not discharge and therefore are not subject to
the NPDES program, but the "dry" manure can ultimately cause both ground and surface
water pollution if there is runoff or leachate from uncovered stacks of manure.
Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania: In May 1991, a random sampling of 183
wells in this watershed revealed that 50 percent of wells had a nitrate concentration greater
than 10 mg/1 with the highest detection at 47 mg/1. Researchers believe the high levels of
nitrate are related to the high animal density in Lancaster County, which is the highest
density in the Nation (15).
Upper Conestoga River Basin. Pennsylvania: Forty percent of the wells sampled in the
carbonate and agricultural areas of this basin had nitrate concentrations greater than 10 mg/1.
Researchers concluded that nitrate occurrence in the area is closely associated with
16
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPAJState
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
agricultural practices. The livestock and poultry density in the area averages 2 animal units
per acre (15)
Coastal Study in Maryland: USGS researchers examined nitrate levels in the coastal plain in
Maryland and found that ground water at sites with agricultural land uses had the highest
median nitrate levels. Moreover, the researchers found that sites with livestock had the
highest median values in comparison to sites near other agricultural sources (39, 43).
Boone St. Joe Aquifer. Arkansas: Researchers examined this shallow aquifer to identify the
extent to which agricultural production affects the levels of nitrates and other substances in
ground water. Researchers found that the aquifer was particularly vulnerable to
contamination from surface recharge through fractures and solution openings. Nitrate and
chloride were consistently found at a significantly higher level under intensively farmed sites
compared to samples taken beneath forested control sites. Although land use was the only
major difference between sites, fecal coliform and fecal streptococci were significantly higher
in the farmed sites than in the control sites. Correlation of nutrient levels with sodium and
chloride concentrations suggests that the source of these contaminants is animal waste,
which has been applied as fertilizer in the area (44).
V. NATURE OF IMPACTS FROM ANIMAL WASTE
A. Human Health Implications
At least two human health effects may result from livestock waste pollution. Each is
discussed in more detail below.
1. Methemoglobinemia
Methemoglobinemia (MHG) is a potentially fatal condition that results when excessive
hemoglobin is oxidized to methemoglobin and thereby loses its ability to carry oxygen. While
nitrates do not directly oxidize hemoglobin, they can be convened by gastrointestinal
microflora to nitrite, which can produce MHG. Infants have low concentrations of the blood
enzyme that reduces methemoglobin, and are therefore at risk of experiencing
methemoglobinemia when exposed to drinking water exceeding 10 mg/1 nitrate-N.
Infant deaths resulting from MHG have occurred in the United States as recently as 1986, bul
the incidence of MHG has significantly decreased as residents of most areas with high water
nitrate levels have been informed of the risks of MHG and have been advised to use bottled
water for drinking purposes.
Little is known about possible non-fatal health effects of MHG in adults or children who
ingest nitrates, or in fetuses or breast-fed infants whose mothers drink nitrate-contaminated
water (45).
17
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
2. Acute Symptoms and Diseases from Exposure to Microorganisms
People of all ages can contract up to 150 diseases from the microorganisms in livestock waste
through direct contact with contaminated water, consumption of contaminated drinking water,
or consumption of contaminated shellfish. Illnesses include cryptosporidosis, cholera,
tuberculosis, typhoid fever, salmonella, and polio (24).
Shellfish bed closures due to exposure to coliform bacteria and other pathogens have occurred
in Oregon, North Carolina, and Washington (23,20). Human consumption of contaminated
shellfish can result in the adverse health effects discussed above.
B. Adverse Ecological Effects
Livestock waste can cause ecological disruptions to aquatic ecosystems (rivers, lakes,
ponds, and estuaries) and wildlife populations and contributes to global warming.
1. Fishkills
Numerous fishkills caused by animal waste pollution have occurred in California, Florida,
Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Texas (23, 29, 30, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52).
Fish and other aquatic organisms may die as a result of the toxic effects of ammonia, which is
produced as manure decays (24), or they may suffocate because of insufficient oxygen levels
caused by the oxygen-demanding decomposition of organic matter in the manure.
2. Changes in Water Habitat/Ecosystem
Livestock waste in water also releases nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which
encourage the growth of algae. Once an algal bloom dies off, the algal mats require oxygen
for decomposition. The reduced oxygen levels may result in a fishkill. Furthermore, rates of
eutrophication accelerate when waterbodies accumulate the debris that results from the
decay of algae. Floating algal mats may also prevent sunlight from reaching submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV), which serves as habitat for other organisms. The reduction in
SAV in the Chesapeake Bay is the leading cause of the Bay's decline, adversely affecting
both fish and shellfish populations (45, 53).
3. Wildlife Impacts
Bacteria in livestock waste cause avian botulism and avian cholera, killing thousands of
migratory waterfowl annually (50). Metallic elements/ions in livestock waste such as zinc,
copper, and strontium can contaminate both surface waters and sediments (50). In 1991, the
18
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found levels of zinc, principally derived from livestock waste, in
waters in a Texas wildlife refuge that were higher than the soil cleanup level for hazardous
waste sites (50). Elevated levels of these and other metals in livestock waste adversely
affect fish populations. Bottom-feeding aquatic birds are particularly susceptible to exposure
to toxic constituents accumulated from livestock waste because these birds are attracted to
shallow feedlot waste water ponds and waters adjacent to feedlots (50).
4. Soil Pollution
Soil resources can become contaminated with high levels of minerals/metals (phosphorus,
potassium, copper, cadmium, and zinc) when excessive amounts of animal waste are applied
to land. A decline in soil fertility, increased groundwater pollution, and the deposition of
potentially acid-forming substances have been noted in the Netherlands because of
overapplication of wastes from the country's concentrated livestock production (54). Soil
phosphorus levels far greater than those needed by crops or forage are common in some
areas of the United States (10). Although crop damage due to excessive soil phosphorus
levels is uncommon, when erosion of contaminated soil occurs, surface water pollution may
result.
5. Acid Deposition
The role of ammonia in acidification has only recently been quantified. A study conducted in
the Netherlands indicated that approximately 25 percent of acid deposition in the Netherlands
comes from ammonia and 90 percent of ammonia comes from agriculture (55).
6. Global Climate Change
Methane emissions from livestock waste contribute to global warming. More methane is
produced when the waste is subjected to anaerobic, rather than aerobic, conditions. Methane
absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas. Furthermore, methane present in
the troposphere can react with other chemical species to produce ozone, which is also a
greenhouse gas. Tropospheric ozone-forming reactions actually contribute to depletion of
ozone in the stratosphere, where ozone blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation.
Methane accounts for 15 percent of the expected global warming from the greenhouse effect
(56). Methane production from livestock waste management systems constitutes 7 percent
of global methane production, while methane produced directly by ruminant animals
constitutes another 20 percent of global methane production (56).
19
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
VI, COSTS OF LIVESTOCK WASTE POLLUTION
The costs of livestock waste pollution are significant. For instance, pathogens from animal
waste may enter the waters overlying shellfish beds; valuable shellfish resources will be
closed when pathogen counts exceed acceptable limits. Dairy waste pollution has limited the
use of Oregon's Tillamook Bay, a resource that would otherwise have supported a $1.5
million annual shellfishing industry. Tillamook Bay has recently reopened to shellfishing, but
it was closed for a significant period of time. Shellfish beds have also been closed in North
Carolina and Washington because of animal waste pollution.
Waters may also be closed to recreation if pathogen counts exceed health limits. Numerous
ponds, lakes, and estuaries have been closed to swimming and contact recreation because of
livestock waste pollution. The affected States include Louisiana, Maryland, and Maine.
Local economies may lose revenue when recreational waters are closed. Dairy waste in
Tillamook Bay, near Portland, Oregon, was identified as the primary cause of contamination
that resulted in the loss of 70,000 visitor-days per year (57).
The cost associated with remediation of underground drinking water supplies (to reduce the
concentration of nitrate to safe levels) is very high and would be uneconomical for individual
well users and small rural community suppliers. Thus, affected communities must bear the
cost of searching for alternative sources of water or treating the water they draw. The salt
load into the Chino Basin from local dairies is 1,536 tons/year, and at the current cost of $320
to $690 for every ton of salt removed by treatment, the annual treatment cost would be more
than $1 million just to maintain the current ground water nitrate levels (41).
VII. REGIONAL DATA AND REGIONAL COMPARISON OF FEEDLOTS AND OTHER
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Tables 4 through 8 give the Workgroup's estimates of the percentages of water use
impairments caused by CSOs, storm sewers/runoff, and feedlots in each Region. Tables 9
through 13 show the percentages of assessed waters impaired by CSOs, storm
sewers/runoff, and feedlots in each Region. Estimated feedlot impairments are greater than
the National average rate of feedlot impairments for inland waters in Regions 4, 6, 7, 8, and
10, and for estuaries in Regions 4 and 10.
Estimated CSO impairments are greater than the National CSO impairment rate for inland
waters in Regions 1, 3, and 5, and for coasts/estuaries in Regions 1, 2, and 10.
Estimated storm sewer/runoff impairments are above the National storm sewer impairment
rate for inland waters in Regions 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10, and for coasts/estuaries in Regions 1, 2,
4, and 10.
In addition, it is estimated that feedlot pollution affects at least as many river miles as either
CSOs or storm sewers in all but Regions 1, 2, and 9 and more lake acres in Regions 7 and 8.
20
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
REGIONAL FINDINGS
PERCENTAGE OF WATER USE IMPAIRMENTS CAUSED BY CSOs, STORM
SEWERS, AND FEEDLOTS
Table 4. Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and Feedlots in U.S. RIVERS in Regions 1-10
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
CSOs
13
2
3
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
36
3
6
16
10
14
9
2
11
14
Feedlots
0
0
9
23
13
28
88
7
4
17
Table 5. Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and Feedlots in U.S. LAKES in Regions 1-10
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
CSOs
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storm
Sewers/RunofT
41
2
18
75
23
0
20
10
1
4
Feedlots
0
0
0
35
2
0
50
17
0
0
Table 6. Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and FeedloLs in the GREAT LAKES in Regions 2 and 5
Region 2
Region 5
CSOs
3
10
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
3
8
Feedlots
0
0
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
Table 7. Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm Sewers/
Runoff, and Feedlots in U.S. ESTUARIES in Regions Having Estuaries
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 6
Region 9
Region 10
CSOs
29
47
0
0
0
No data
10
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
43
42
5
70
0
No data
30
Feedlots
0
0
0
9
0
No data
11
Table 8. Percentage of Water Impairments Caused by CSOs, Storm Sewers/Runoff,
and Feedlots in U.S. COASTS in Regions Reporting Data on Non-Estuarine Coasts
Region 2
Region 4
Region 9
CSOs
17
0
0
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
0
83
0
Feedlots
0
0
0
Table 9. Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and Feedlots in U.S. RIVERS in Regions 1-10
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
CSOs
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
3
0
2
5
3
5
6
1
8
8
Feedlots
0
0
3
7
3
10
59
2
3
9
22
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Table 10. Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and Feedlots in U.S. LAKES in Regions 1-10
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
CSOs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
8
1
3
25
7
0
7
4
0
2
Feedlots
0
0
0
12
1
0
16
7
0
0
Table 11. Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and Feedlots in the GREAT LAKES in Regions 2 and 5
Region 2
Region 5
CSOs
3
2
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
2
2
Feedlots
0
0
Table 12. Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and Feedlots in U.S. ESTUARIES in Regions Having
Estuaries
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 6
Region 9
Region 10
CSOs
5
12
0
0
0
no data
6
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
7
11
4
15
0
no data
17
Feedlots
0
0
0
2
0
no data
6
23
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Table 13. Percentage of Assessed Waters Impaired by CSOs, Storm
Sewers/Runoff, and Feedlots in U.S. COASTS in Regions Reporting Data
on Non-Estuarine Coasts
Region 2
Region 4
Region 9
CSOs
9
0
0
Storm
Sewers/Runoff
0
10
0
Feedlots
0
0
0
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The Workgroup's analysis of the magnitude of feedlot pollution indicates that feedlots cause 7
percent of all impairments in U.S. lakes and 13 percent of all impairments in U.S. rivers.
Nationally, estimated feedlot pollution is comparable in magnitude to pollution from CSOs or
storm sewers/runoff. This analysis indicates that feedlot pollution affects at least as many
river miles as CSOs or storm sewers in seven Regions. Feedlot pollution does impact U.S.
coasts and estuaries, but CSOs or storm sewers are significantly greater impacts to these
coastal waters. Furthermore, the relative impacts from feedlots versus these other two
sources varies from Region to Region, and indeed from State to State.
IX. FURTHER ACTION BY THE FEEDLOT WORKGROUP
The Feedlot Workgroup recommends further study of the policy issues concerning feedlots.
This effort will be aimed at developing strategies and guidance for reduction of feedlot
pollution utilizing tools available to the Agency under NPDES, nonpoint source, and
groundwater protection programs. The subgroups involved in developing these documents
should also include representatives of the USDA. Since the degree of feedlot impact varies
among different geographic areas, a watershed or Regional approach to the solution of feedlot
problems will be considered.
24
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
LITERATURE CITED
(1) U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistic Service. 1990, Cattle on
Feed. Washington, D.C.
(2) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1987. Census of Agriculture,
Volume 1, Part 51. Washington, D.C.
(3) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1987. Census of Agriculture,
Volume 2, Part 1. Washington, D.C.
(4) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Budget and Policy Analysis, Draft Report.
1992. Progress and Status of Livestock and Poultry Waste Management to Protect the
Nation's Waters.
(5) DPRA Incorporated. 1992. Economic Impact Analysis of Coastal Zone Management
Measures Affecting Confined Animal Facilities. Draft report prepared for Nonpoint
Source Control Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
(6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, January 1992. Managing
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act (1989).
(7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1990. National Water Quality
Inventory: 1988 Report to Congress.
(8) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. 1982
National Fisheries Survey.
(9) White, William C., 1989. Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus, Fertilizer Research
Project for USEPA. Washington, D.C.
(10) Peterson, Todd A. and Michael P. Russelle. 1991. "Alfalfa and the Nitrogen Cycle in
the Corn Belt." Journal of Soil and Water Conser\>ation. May-June 1991, pp. 229-235.
(11) Sims, J.T., 1991. "Environmental Management of Phosphorus in Agricultural and
Municipal Wastes." NFERC-TVA Bulletin X-XXX, 1991. pp. 10-15.
(12) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Study performed by Tetratech for the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division.
(13) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Feedlots Point
Source Category.
(14) IEC, Inc. 1991. Clean Water Act Reauthorization Study: Preliminary Report on
Combined Sewer Overflows. Prepared for the Office of Science and Technology, Office of
Water, U.S. EPA.
(15) United States Department of Agriculture. 1991. Water Quality Hygrologic Unit Area
Work Plan for the Pequea and Mill Creek Watershed, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
(16) Swift, David R., Cathy Anclade and I.H. Kantrowitz. 1987. "Algal Blooms in Lake
Okeechobee, Florida, and Management Strategies to Mitigate Eutrophication.".
National Water Summary, pp. 57-64, USGS USGPO Denver, Co.
25
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
(17) No author given. 1992. "Lake Ponchartrain Cleanup Covers Number of Fronts." U.S.
Water News. Volume 8, Number 12. p. 4.
(18) Sefton, Donna, Clean Lakes Coordinator. 1992. EPA Region 7. , Kansas City, Kansas.
Personal communication. Kansas City, Kansas.
(19) Shuyler, Lynn R. 1992. "The Chesapeake Bay Experience." National Livestock,
Poultry and Aquaculture Waste Management: Proceedings of the National Workshop.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 100-105.
(20) Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. The 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan. Seattle, Washington, p.344.
(21) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. "Waste From Single Farm Harmful to
MD Lake." EPA News-Notes May 1992, # 21, p. 18. Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
(22) Berkas, Wayne R., Suzanne R. Femmer, Thomas O. Mesko, and Bruce W. Thompson.
1987. Surface-Waier Hydrology of the Little Black River Basin, Missouri and Arkansas,
Before Water-Land Improvement Practices. USGS Water Resources Investigations
Report 97-4076. Rolla, Missouri, p. 54.
(23) North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1985. Animal Operations and
Water Quality in North Carolina. Report No. 86-05. p.28.
(24) U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Water Quality Indicators Guide: Surface Waters.
(25) Anton, Edward C., Jeffrey L. Bamickol, and Dean R. Schnaible. Nitrate in Drinking
Water Report to the Legislature. State Water Resources Control Board, Report No. 88-
11 WQ: Sacramento, California, 1988.
(26) Steward, B.A., F.G. Viets, G.L. Hutchinson, and W.D. Kemper. "Nitrate and Other
Water Pollutants Under Fields and Feedlots." Environmental Science and Technology.
Vol.1. September. 1967. pp. 736-739.
(27) Texas Water Commission. 1989. Ground-Water Quality of Texas: an Overview of
Natural and Man-Affected Conditions. Report 89-01.
(28) Payne, Victor W.E. and James O. Donald. (No date cited). Alabama Cooperative
Extension Service, Auburn University. Poultry Waste Management and Environmental
Protection Manual. Circular ANR-580. p.37.
(29) Iowa 1990 305(b) Report.
(30) Nebraska 1990 305(b) Report.
(31) Oregon 1990 305(b) Report.
(32) Missouri 1990 305(b) Report.
(33) Pennsylvania 1990 305(b) Report.
(34) Krider, James N. 1987. "Assessing Animal Waste Systems Impacts on Groundwater:
Occurrences and Potential Problems." Rural Groundwater Contamination. Elsevier
Science, p.l 15-128.
(35) Keeney, D.R. 1980. Prediction of Soil-Nitrogen Availability in Forest Ecosystems—A
Literature Review. Forest Science, 26(1 ):159-171.
26
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
(36) Exner, Mary E., and Roy F. Spalding. 1985. Ground Water Contamination and Well
Construction in Southeast Nebraska. Ground Water. Volume 23, number 1.
(37) Ritter, W.F., and A.E.M. Chirnside. 1990. "Impact of Animal Waste Lagoons on
Ground-Water Quality," in Biological Wastes, vol.34, pp.39-54. Elsevier Science.
(38) Jackson, Gary, Dennis Keeney, Dave Curwen, and Bruce Webendorfer. (no date)
Agricultural Management Practices to Minimize Groundwater Contamination.
Published by the Environmental Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Extension.
p. 33.
(39) U.S. EPA. 1992. Another Look: A National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water
Wells—Phase II Report. EPA579/09-91-020.
(40) Anton, Edward C., Jeffrey L. Barnickol, and Dean R. Schnaible, 1988. Nitrate in
Drinking Water Report to the Legislature. State Water Resources Control Board,
Report No. 88-11 WQ: Sacramento, California.
(41) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 1990. Dairies and
Their Relationship to Water Quality Problems in the Chino Basin. Riverside, California.
(42) Ritter, W.F., F.J. Humenick, and R.W. Skaggs. 1989. "Irrigated Agriculture and Water
Quality in the East." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. ASCE. Vol.115,
No. 5. pp.807-822.
(43) U.S. Geological Survey. 1984. Nitrate in the Columbia Aquifer, Central Delmarva
Peninsula, Maryland. Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4322. Towson,
Maryland.
(44) Steele, Kenneth F. and James C. Adamski. 1987. Land Use Effects on Ground Water
Quality in Carbonate Rock Terrain. Arkansas Water Resources Research Center.
Department of Geology University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Publication No. 129, June
1987.
(45) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Draft Nitrogen Action Plan. Office of
Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
(46) Schnagel, Rudy. California Water Quality Control Board. 1992. Personal
communication.
(47) No author given. "Consumers Said Losing Patience with Agriculture." Agriculture.
April 15, 1991. page .
(48) No author given. "Dairy Farmer Blamed in Fish Kill" Agriculture. August 5, 1991.
page .
(49) No author given. "Manure Seen as Fish Threat." Agriculture. July 15, 1991. page
(50) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Contaminants in Buffalo Lake National Wildlife
Refuge. Texas.
(51) Florida 1990 305(b) Report.
(52) North Carolina 1990 305(b) Report.
(53) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3. 1988. Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint
Source Program. Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD.
27
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
(54) Brussard, W., and H.M.J Haerkens. 1992. "Manure as a Legal Problem." Law as a
Resource in Agrarian Struggles. Benda-Beckmann, F. von and M. Van der Velde
(editors). Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen Studies in Sociology, 33,
Wageningen.
(55) Jongbreur, Aad. 1990. "Mechanization for Slurry Management." Proceedings of the 2nd
Meeting of the Full Members Conclusions and Recommendations, Opening Session I,
New Mechanization for Protecting the Agricultural Environment. Bologna, 7-8
November 1990. Club of Bologna. Volume 2. pp. 32-46.
(56) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. 1992. Global
Methane Emissions from Livestock and Poultry Manure.
(57) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch. 1990. Rural
Clean Water Program.
28
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
APPENDIX A
METHOD OF ANALYSIS USED TO DETERMINE MAGNITUDE OF FEEDLOT,
CSO, AND STORM SEWER/RUNOFF POLLUTION
The results of this analysis are determined by the three basic steps given below:
Step One: Using data from the section 319 summary report, calculate the percentage
of agriculture impacts that are caused by feedlots.
Step Two: Using data from the section 305(b) summary report, calculate the
percentage of all water quality impacts that are caused by agriculture.
Step Three: Multiply the results of Step One and Step Two to calculate the
percentage of all water quality impairments caused by agriculture.
Summary data for each State were obtained directly from the most recent section 305(b) and
319 summary reports, respectively titled National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to
Congress and Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress (1989):
Appendix A. The summary section 319 report gives the following useful data: amounts of
assessed waters that partially support or do not support uses and have as sources all
agriculture, feedlots, animal holding areas, and unspecified agriculture. The summary section
305(b) report gives the following useful information: the amounts of assessed waters; the
amounts of assessed waters impaired by agriculture, storm sewers/runoff, and combined
sewers; and the amounts of impaired waters.
The method of analysis outlined below is used to determine the magnitude of feedlot impacts
for the Nation as well as for each State and Region. In each case, all data from the
appropriate set of States (a set of States is one State for a State estimate, all States that
make up a Region for Regional estimates, and all States for a National estimate) are used.
Of the two summary reports, only the summary section 319 report gives feedlot-specific data.
Therefore, section 319 data are used to calculate the percentage of agricultural impairments
that are caused by feedlots. However, in the section 319 data, only about 40 percent of use
impairments ascribed to agriculture are further ascribed to a specific agricultural source such
as irrigated crops or feedlots. It is reasonably expected that feedlots cause a fraction of the
nonspecified agriculture impacts. Assuming that the specified agricultural sources are a
statistical sample of all agricultural sources, the percentage of agriculture impairments that
are caused by feedlots is calculated by the following method.
For each set of States, impairments from feedlots and animal holding areas (reported in the
section 319 summary assessment) that cause nonsupport or partial support of designated
uses are summed (impairments caused by animal holding areas and feedlots are added since
29
-------
Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste: An Analysis The Report of the EPA/State
of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution Feedlot Workgroup
there is concentrated manure deposition in both of these sources and animal waste is the
cause of pollution from these sources).1 The sum is designated as A. The ratio of A:B is
determined, where B = (the sum of all impairments attributed to specified agriculture
categories). B is the sum of "all agriculture" impairments from the section 319 summary data
minus the sum of all "unspecified agriculture" impairments from the 319 data. Thus, ((A:B) X
100%) is the percentage of specified agricultural impairments caused by feedlots.
The 305(b) report includes data for all sources (point and nonpoint) of water pollution, and
use of 305(b) data is thus necessary to calculate the fraction of all water use impairments
caused by feedlots and thereby provide a basis of comparison between feedlots and other
(point) sources of pollution.
It is assumed that the waters assessed in the 305(b) report are representative of all waters.
The percentage of water use impairments caused by agriculture can be calculated solely from
305(b) data. The percentage of water use impairments caused by CSOs and storm sewers
can also be calculated from 305(b) data. The total amount of waters not supporting or
partially supporting designated uses due to a particular source are summed and divided by
the total amount of waters not meeting designated uses. A final result for the percentage of
impairments caused by feedlots is obtained by multiplying the percentage of impairments
caused by agriculture (as obtained from 305(b) data) by the percentage of specified
agriculture impairments caused by feedlots (obtained from 319 data).
To determine the percentage of assessed waters that are impaired by a particular source, the
percentage of impairments caused by that source is multiplied by the total amount of impaired
waters and divided by the total amount of assessed waters.
The section 319 summary data include complete data for three levels of impairment: threatened,
nonsupport, and partial support of designated uses. The section 305(b) summary report provides complete
data only for impairments that cause nonsupport and partial support of uses. Our analysis excludes
section 319 data on threatened waters and thereby "levels the field" between section 305(b) and section 319
data.
30
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of
Selected States
-------
FEEDLOTS CASE STUDIES OF
SELECTED STATES
September 1993
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 31
1. Program Status 32
2. Permitting Process 33
3. Enforcement 36
4. Program Costs and Benefits 38
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION WASTE CONTROL SURVEY
RESULTS 42
I. PROGRAM STATUS 42
A. Arkansas 42
1. Regulatory Authority 42
2. Types of Permits 42
3. Permit Coverage 43
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 43
5. Resources for Program Administration 44
B. Indiana 45
1. Regulatory Authority 45
2. Types of Permits 45
3. Permit Coverage 46
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 46
5. Resources for Program Administration 46
C. Iowa 47
1. Regulatory Authority 47
2. Types of Permits 47
3. Permit Coverage 47
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 48
5. Resources for Program Administration 48
D. Kansas 49
1. Regulatory Authority 49
2. Types of Permits 49
3. Permit Coverage 50
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 50
5. Resources for Program Administration 51
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
E. Nebraska 51
1. Regulatory Authority 51
2. Types of Permits 51
3. Permit Coverage 52
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 52
5. Resources for Program Administration 53
F. EPA Region VI 53
1. Regulatory Authority 53
2. Types of Permits 54
3. Permit Coverage 54
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 54
5. Resources for Program Administration 55
G. Washington 55
1. Regulatory Authority 55
2. Types of Permits 55
3. Permit Coverage 55
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 56
5. Resources for Program Administration 56
H. Wisconsin 56
1. Regulatory Authority 56
2. Types of Permits 57
3. Permit Coverage 57
4. Number of Permitted Facilities 57
5. Resources for Program Administration 57
n. PERMITTING PROCESS 59
A. Arkansas 59
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification 59
2. Screening Tools 59
3. Public Comment Provisions 59
4. Inspection Requirements 60
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
B. Indiana 61
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification 61
2. Screening Tools 61
3. Public Comment Provisions 61
4. Inspection Requirements 61
C. Iowa 62
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification 62
2. Screening Tools 62
3. Public Comment Provisions 62
4. Inspection Requirements 62
D. Kansas 63
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification 63
2. Screening Tools 63
3. Public Comment Provisions 63
4. Inspection Requirements 63
E. Nebraska 64
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification 64
2. Screening Tools 64
3. Public Comment Provisions 64
4. Inspection Requirements 65
F. Region VI 65
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification 65
2. Screening Tools 66
3. Public Comment Provisions 66
4. Inspection Requirements 66
G. Washington 67
1. Unpermiited CAFO Identification 67
2. Screening Tools 67
3. Public Comment Provisions 67
4. Inspection Requirements 68
IV
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
H. Wisconsin 68
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification 68
2. Screening Tools 68
3. Public Comment Provisions 68
4. Inspection Requirements 69
III. ENFORCEMENT 70
A. Arkansas 70
1. Authority to Levy Fines 70
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 70
3. Penalties 71
B. Indiana 71
1. Authority to Levy Fines 71
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 71
3. Penalties.
72
C. Iowa 72
1. Authority to Levy Fines 72
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 72
3. Penalties 73
D. Kansas 73
1. Authority to Levy Fines 73
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 73
3. Penalties 74
E. Nebraska 74
1. Authority to Levy Fines 74
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 75
3. Penalties 75
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
F. Region VI 75
1. Authority to Levy Fines 75
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 76
3. Penalties 76
G. Washington 76
1. Authority to Levy Fines 76
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 76
3. Penalties 76
H. Wisconsin 77
1. Authority to Levy Fines 77
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations 78
3. Penalties 78
IV. PROGRAM COSTS AND BENEFITS 79
A. Arkansas 79
1. Estimated FTEs Required 79
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues 79
3. Farmer Incurred Costs 80
4. General Versus Individual Permits 81
5. Interagency Coordination 81
B. Indiana 82
1. Estimated FTEs Required 82
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues 82
3. Farmer Incurred Costs 82
4. General Versus Individual Permits 82
5. Interagency Coordination 83
C. Iowa 83
1. Estimated FTEs Required 83
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues 83
3. Farmer-Incurred Costs 84
4. General Versus Individual Permits 84
5. Interagency Coordination 84
VI
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
D. Kansas 85
1. Estimated FTEs Required 85
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues 85
3. Farmer-Incurred Costs 86
4. General Versus Individual Permits 86
5. Imeragency Coordination 87
E. Nebraska 87
1. Estimated FTEs Required 87
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues 87
3. Farmer Incurred Costs 88
4, General Versus Individual Permits 88
5. Interagency Coordination 88
F. Region VI 89
1. Estimated FTEs Required 89
2. Farmer Incurred Costs 89
3. General Versus Individual Permits 89
4. Interagency Coordination 90
G. Washington 90
1. Estimated FTEs Required 90
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues 90
3. Farmer Incurred Costs 91
4. General Versus Individual Permits 92
5. Interagency Coordination 92
H. Wisconsin 93
1. Estimated FTEs Required 93
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues 93
3. Farmer-Incurred Costs 94
4. General Versus Individual Permits 94
5. Interagency Coordination 94
Vll
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States ^____ Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
v. CONCLUSIONS 95
A. Summary Of Surveyed Programs And Cost/Benefit Information.... 95
1. Facilities Covered 95
2. Non-NPDES Programs 95
3. Ground Water Authority 95
4. Manure Application Guidelines 95
5. Enforcement and Compliance 96
6. Program Costs 96
7. Program Benefits 97
B. Necessary Components of a Comprehensive NPDES 97
1. Identification 97
2. Permitting Process 97
3. Permit Components 98
4. Enforcement 98
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 99
A. List Of Interviewees 99
B. Resources 100
APPENDIX A: CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION WASTE CONTROL
SURVEY 103
APPENDIX B: NOTICE OF INTENT 113
APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY 115
Vlll
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to administer a national permit program to regulate point source discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States. In 1974, EPA established the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which prohibits discharges of any pollutant to
waters of the United States from a point source (including concentrated animal feeding
operations) unless the discharge is authorized by a NPDES permit.
Nearly 20 years after the establishment of the NPDES program, many animal feeding
operations continue to discharge significant amounts of livestock wastes into waters of the
United States. Recent sections 319 and 305(b) of the CWA water quality assessments
indicate that there is widespread water impairment due to livestock wastes. In "Water
Pollution From Feedlot Waste: An Analysis of its Magnitude and Geographic Distribution",
the U.S. EPA's Feedlot Workgroup estimated that animal feeding operations cause 7% of
lake impairment and 13% of river impairment.
Although most major livestock-producing States have implemented programs for livestock
waste control, many concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) do not have permits
and continue to pollute surface water and ground water. For example, EPA estimated in 1992
that there were more than 1,000 CAFOs in Region VI that were not covered by a NPDES
permit. States have not successfully regulated CAFOs for a number of reasons, including:
• Limited resources to implement and enforce permitting programs,
• Difficulty in identifying contributing livestock facilities, and
• Difficulty in interpreting and administering EPA's NPDES regulations.
To improve program performance and mitigate the pollution of surface water and ground water
by CAFOs, EPA wants to encourage the consistent use of the regulations and bring CAFOs
into compliance with NPDES requirements. This report summarizes the major components of
selected States' livestock waste control permitting programs and identifies the critical
components of a comprehensive feedlot waste management program. The primary objectives
of this study were to:
• Gather information from various States on the essential components of current
livestock waste control programs;
• Identify the major components of a comprehensive feedlot waste management
system; and
• Identify the costs and benefits of implementing a comprehensive livestock waste
control program;
• Assess the extent of variation in the interpretation of the NPDES feedlot regulations
by States.
31
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Standardized questions about livestock waste permitting programs were asked of officials
from seven States and EPA Region VI. (See Appendix A for a copy of the survey.) These
States and Region VI were chosen for the following reasons:
Arkansas
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Washington
EPA Region VI
• largest producer of broiler chickens
• sixth largest inventory of laying chickens
• noted for high-quality recreational lakes and parks
• second largest State producer of chickens other than broilers
• fourth largest hog-producing State
• concerns associated with increasing urbanization
• largest producer of hogs
• major cattle-producing State
• third largest producer of fed cattle
• second largest producer of fed cattle
• major dairy State
• has devoted substantial resources to controlling livestock waste
• developing a general permit for dairy operations
• developed a N'PDES general feedlots permit for four undelegated States (LA,
NM, OK, TX)
1. Program Status
To determine the status of each State's livestock waste control program, we examined each
program's regulatory authority, permit coverage, types of permits issued, number of facilities
permitted, and the personnel resources dedicated. Table 1 summarizes this information.
Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Washington have State regulatory authority for
CAFOs that are in addition to the implementation of the NPDES regulations. In Arkansas,
for example, this additional regulatory authority is provided in State Regulation No. 5, "Liquid
Animal Waste Management Systems." A liquid animal waste management system is any
system used for the collection, storage, distribution, or disposal of animal waste in liquid form
generated by a confined animal operation. Regulation No. 5 requires any confined animal
feeding operation using a liquid animal waste management system to obtain a no-discharge
permit that prohibits the discharge of process wastewater to the waters of the State at any
time, including periods of precipitation in excess of the 25 year, 24-hour storm event.
States generally require NPDES permits for facilities with more than 1,000 animal units
(AUs) that discharge in instances other than the 25 year, 24-hour storm event. NPDES
permits also are required for facilities with less than 1,000 AUs if there is the potential for
discharges of pollutants into the waters of the Slate at times other than the event of a 25
year, 24-hour storm. However, there are exceptions. Kansas and Wisconsin issue NPDES
permits to all facilities with more than 1,000 AUs, regardless of their discharge potential.
Nebraska, however, focuses on discharge potential rather than size. The State determines
on a case-by-case basis whether a CAFO must have a NPDES permit, regardless of size.
32
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Table 1. Program Status: Summary by Surveyed State
Surveyed
State
Arkansas
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
Region VI
Washington
Wisconsin
Permit Coverage
• All facilities with liquid animal
waste systems
• Facilities with >300 AUs that
discharge, or
• Facilities with >300 cattle, > 600
swine, or >30,000 fowl
• Open feedlots with >1,000 AUs, or
• Open feedlots with >300 AUs with a
manmade discharge device, or
• Confinement operations with anaerobic
lagoons, or
• Confinement operations with >200
A Us using earthen waste storage, or
• Confinement operations with >2,000
AUs using a formed waste storage
tank
• Facilities with >1,000 AU, or
• Facilities that utilize wastewater
controls, or
• Facilities that have the potential to
pollute
• Facilities that violate or threaten State
water quality or State ground water
quality standards, or
• Facilities that discharge into waters of
the State, or
• Facilities that violate the Nebraska
Environmental Protection Act
• Facilities with >1,000 AUs and
facilities with 300 or more AUs
which discharge via a man-made device
or directly into surface waters. Only
facilities that discharge in other than a
25 year, 24-hour storm are considered
• Commercial dairies with >300 AUs,
or
• Any dairy which causes a water
quality violation
• Facilities with > 1.000 AUs, or
• Facilities designated as a significant
Types of Permits
• NPDES,
individual, and
draft general
• State
• NPDES,
individual
• State (approval
letters)
• NPDES,
individual
• State.
construction
• NPDES,
individual
• State (permits
and certificates
of compliance)
• NPDES.
individual
• State
• NPDES, general
and individual
• NPDES,
proposed general
• NPDES
j source of pollution '
Number of
Facilities
Permitted
• 0 NPDES
• 860 State
• 0 NPDES
• 4,000-
5,000
State
• 15
NPDES
• unknown.
State
• 300
NPDES
• 2,472
State
• 213
NPDES
• l',100
State
• <10
• 0
• 43
Resources
Dedicated
• 2.5
FTEs
• 1 FTE
• 1.7
FTEs
• 9 FTEs
• 2.5
FTEs
• 1 FTE
• 6 FTEs
• 5 FTEs
J-TE = Full-time equivalent
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Besides NPDES permits, many States require other livestock waste control or waste control
structure-related permits. The coverage of State-issued construction, operating, and
livestock waste control permits varies greatly by waste management program. The need for
a permit is based on some or all of these factors: feedlot type, presence of a wastewater
control system, and potential to discharge. Kansas and Wisconsin require permits for certain
feedlot capacities (i.e., greater than 1,000 AUs), but these States also have catch-all caveats
that require permits for any livestock facility that has the potential to pollute. Nebraska
requires a permit for any facility that discharges into waters of the State. Any livestock
operation with a wastewater control facility must have a permit in Arkansas and Kansas.
Indiana's State waste control program focuses solely on facility size (see Table 1).
All of the States surveyed and Region VI issue NPDES permits or propose to do so.
Arkansas and Washington are developing NPDES general permits. Region VI has issued a
general NPDES permit in each of its four non-delegated States. These permits become final
on March 10, 1993. Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska also have State
construction, operating, and/or waste control facility permitting programs.
The number of facilities issued permits (or similar legal documents) by surveyed States range
from eight in Washington to approximately 4,500 in Indiana. All surveyed States with
implemented programs have tracking systems to record permit statistics. The more detailed
systems record the number of permitted livestock operations by livestock category and size,
and they keep separate statistics for NPDES and State permits. Other recording systems
aggregate NPDES numbers with State permit numbers.
As shown in Table 1, the number of FTEs (full time equivalent employees) dedicated to
permitting, inspecting, and enforcing livestock waste control regulations ranges from one in
Indiana to nine in Kansas. In most cases, the lack of personnel was identified as the primary
impediment to effective implementation of State waste control programs. Permitting staff
from surveyed States reported these problems caused by insufficient staff: the inability to
identify unpermitted facilities, backlogs of permit applications, inability to make scheduled
facility inspections, and the inability to enforce permit conditions and pursue penalty
collection.
2. Permitting Process
Components of a livestock waste control permitting program are outlined in Table 2 and
include: unpermitted CAFO identification, screening tools, public comment provisions, and
inspection requirements. While these components are basically the same for all surveyed
programs, emphasis on particular elements varies by program and, in some cases, by type of
livestock confined.
Depending upon a State's resources and philosophy, unpermitted CAFOs are identified
voluntarily by the operator, by State agencies, or by the public. While some operators are
aware of State and federal requirements for waste control facilities, many are not. In
Arkansas, most of the major swine and poultry contractors require their facility operators to
obtain the necessary livestock waste control permits. Permitting programs in Iowa and
Nebraska rely on the efforts of industry groups (i.e.. pork and beef producer councils) to
34
-------
Table 2. Permitting Process: Summary by Surveyed State
Arkansas
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
Region VI
Washington
Wisconsin
UnpermlttedCAFO
Identification
• Complaints, fishb kill reports,
or contractors
• Fish kill reports, complaints, or
contact with agriculture lenders
• Educational efforts from
industry groups
• Unannounced visits,
complaints, or fish kill reports
• Educational efforts from
industry organizations
• Meetings and public hearings
regarding permit availability
• Complaint-driven
• Informal monitoring network
Screening Tools
• Enforcement tracking list
• Facility location
• Facility size and type, and
type of waste control
system
• Potential to cause human
health effects, aquatic
damage, or nuisance
complaints
• Potential for discharge,
topography, or facility
location
• discharge monitoring
reports, public complaints,
or water quality problems
• Waste storage capacity
acreage available for waste
disposal, and proximity to
surface waters
• Facility size
Public Comment Provisions
• 30-day public comment period
• None for State program
• 30-day public comment period
• 30-day public comment period
• 30-day public comment period
• Approximately 6 week comment
period during general permit
development. No public
comment for individual existing
facilities covered by general
permit.
• New facilities permitted with
individual permits are required
to have a public comment
period.
• 50-day formal public comment
period
• Three series of five public
comment meetings
• 30-day public comment period
Inspection Requirements
• Draft general permit requires
annual inspection by permittee
• None for State program
• NPDES every five years
• Pre-construction site appraisal
• Construction inspection
• Post-construction inspection
• NPDES permitted facilities at least
once per year
• State permitted facilities every 2
years
• On-sile inspections of both new &
existing facilities to determine
need for waste control system
• Large permitted facilities at least
once per year
• Permit requires annual facility
inspection by the permittee.
• Determined at initial site
inspection
• Pre-construclion site inspection
.
e
a,
On
OS
*•
n
»*^
<%
a,
£
ft
i-**.
fft
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
FeedlotsCase Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
educate operators on the necessity of waste controls and permits. Iowa also works with
other State and federal agencies (e.g., SCS and the Extension Service) as well as through
investigation of complaints and pollution incidents. Indiana, Kansas, and Washington rely
mainly on complaint-driven CAFO identification. Examples of identification methods include
nuisance complaints (usually from neighbors), property transfers, fish kill reports, and
unannounced facility visits.
Screening tools help the State regulating agency prioritize unpermitted livestock facilities
targeted for permitting. Facility size and location are two of the more common screening
criteria used by the programs surveyed. For example, if a regulating agency has a backlog of
permit applications, its staff usually try to complete the permitting process on the larger
livestock operations before they begin on the smaller ones. Proximity to creeks, streams, and
other bodies of water and to residences also is frequently used as a screening tool.
Interviewees also cited as screening criteria: facility type (swine, beef cattle, dairy, etc.),
waste control system type (anaerobic lagoon, aerobic lagoon, settling basin, etc.), waste
control system capacity, potential for discharge, potential to cause human health effects, and
topography.
Public comment provisions vary somewhat among the surveyed States. Washington had a
50-day formal public comment period for its draft general permit. Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Wisconsin have 30-day public comment period provisions.
Inspection requirements vary greatly among surveyed programs. Inspections can be
categorized as initial (such as pre- and post-construction inspections) and scheduled (such
as semi-annual, annual, or biennial). Arkansas, Indiana, and Iowa do not require initial
inspections of proposed livestock waste control facilities. Kansas, Nebraska, Washington,
and Wisconsin all require at least one inspection; Kansas requires three. Arkansas, Iowa,
Kansas, Nebraska, Region VI, and Washington have some provisions for scheduled
inspections; Nebraska regularly inspects only large facilities, while Washington sets the
inspection schedule after the initial inspection. The Region VI permit requires annual
inspections by operators, records of which must be kept at the facility and made available
upon request. The Region VI general permit also has provisions for periodic inspections by
qualified staff.
3. Enforcement
Overall, State waste control permitting agencies dedicate only a relatively small portion of
the program's effort and resources to the enforcement of permit conditions. Most regulating
agencies emphasize inspecting and permitting, and do not have sufficient human resources for
the enforcement of permit conditions. Table 3 presents a summary of three enforcement
issues: authority to levy fines, procedures to identify and correct violations, and penalties.
36
-------
Table 3. Enforcement: Summary by Surveyed State
Surveyed
State
Authority to Levy Fines
Procedures to Identify and Correct
Violations
Penalties
Arkansas
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control & Ecology
Scheduled inspections, complaints, or
fish kill reports
Warning letter, fine, moratorium,
permit revocation, contractor contact
Civil: up to $10,000 fine.
Criminal: from 1-year jail sentence and/or $25,000 fine
to 20-year sentence and/or $250,000 fine.
Costs, expenses and damages incurred during
enforcement.
.
c
8:
On
t%
^
SI
«>
«x
On
Indiana
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Complaints, documented violations
Telephone call, restrictions
Formal enforcement actions
Civil penalty: up to $10,000 for violating filing or
reporting requirements
Civil penalty: up to $25,000/day for negligent violation
of permit
Iowa
Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Stale attorney general may request
court system to levy fines
• Complaints,
field investigation, enforcement actions
Administrative penalty: up to $IO,000/day
Civil penalty: up to $25,000/day for negligent permit
violation
Resource damage assessment to cover value of fish kill
Kansas
State attorney general
Staff visits, complaints
Work with operator to resolve
problem
$2,500-$25,000 fine for unpennitted discharges
Civil penalties of up to $10,000 for violations of permit
conditions, water quality standards, filing or reporting
requirements
Nebraska
Region VI
Stale attorney general
Complaints & fish kill reports,
warning letter, enforcement action
Administrative actions, enforcement proceedings
Permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or
terminauon
EPA Region VI
Water quality problems; notices of
discharges; complaints
Civil penalty not to exceed $25,000/day of violation
and/or imprisonment not exceeding one year
Washington
Washington Department of
Ecology
State attorney general
Complaints & site inspections
Informal action, voluntary compliance
Formal enforcement actions
Permit condition modification, revocation andreissuance,
or termination
Administrative order
Civil penalty: $250-$IO,000/day
Resource damage assessments
PC
I*
»•
. TO
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Complaints & site inspections
Notice of Discharge
WPDES permit issuance
Formal enforcement actions
Civil penalty: up to $10,000/day for permit violations
Civil penally: up to $25,000/day for negligent violations
Civil penally: up to $10,000 for violations of filing or
reporting requirements
Resource damage assessments
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
The authority to levy fines lies with the livestock waste regulating agency and/or the State
attorney general. In Arkansas, Indiana, and Wisconsin, fines are levied and collected by the
livestock waste regulating agencies. The authority to levy fines in Kansas and Nebraska lies
with the State attorney general. In Washington, both the State regulating agency and the
attorney general can levy fines against permit violators. In Iowa, the regulating agency has
authority to levy fines. The attorney general may, however, initiate legal action, including
requesting the court system to levy fines.
Most procedures to identify and correct permit violations involve a sequence of actions that
usually begin with the receipt of a complaint and end with an enforcement or corrective action.
All State permitting officials cite complaints and fish kill reports as a way to identify problem
facilities. Except in Indiana and Iowa, inspections or "staff visits" (usually unannounced) are
also used to identify operations in violation. After identifying a violation, most regulating
authorities ask the operator to voluntarily correct the problem. If the operator fails to do so,
formal enforcement actions may be initiated.
Kansas officials point out that after financial penalties are paid, an operator may not have
money available to correct the cause of the violation.
Penalties assessed against permit violators range from administrative actions, permit
modifications, and assessments equal to the value of resource damages (fish kills, etc.) to
civil and criminal penalties of up to $250,000 in fines and/or 20-year jail sentences. Civil
penalties are likely to be higher in cases of willful or negligent discharges. In Arkansas, any
person who purposely discharges and thereby places another person in imminent danger can
be convicted of a felony and subject to imprisonment for as long as 20 years and/or a fine not
exceeding $250,000. In Indiana, the permitting staff attempt to assess several large, highly
publicized penalties each year to encourage widespread compliance.
4. Program Costs and Benefits
The costs and benefits of livestock waste management programs are difficult to estimate
because of a lack of data. Table 4 summarizes four issues associated with program costs and
benefits: estimated Fits required, cost-share funding, farmer-incurred costs, general versus
individual permits, and interagency coordination.
Costs incurred by the regulating agencies are the number of FTEs needed to run an effective
program. While some State agencies could estimate the optimal number of FTEs, others
could not. However, all regulatory agencies report that their waste control programs were
understaffed. Even Kansas, with the largest waste control staff of the surveyed programs
(nine FTEs), attributes the State's four to five month backlog of new permit applications to
insufficient personnel.
Cost-share funding is available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), university grants, State agriculture departments,
and non-point source water pollution abatement programs. Dairy operators historically have
had strong participation in ACP cost-share funding. Operators in Wisconsin and
Washington, major dairy States, received nearly $1.9 and SO.7 million respectively, in ACP
38
-------
Table 4. Program Costs and Benefits: Summary of Surveyed States
Surveyed
State
Arkansas
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Estimated FTEs
Required
• Unknown
• 6-7 FTEs
• Unknown
• 12FIEs
Cost-Share Funding
• $422,705 from ACP for ag waste
facilities
• ACP funds utilized primarily by
daJry operators
• $ 130,456 from ACP for ag waste
facilities
• Grants from Purdue University to
study waste control alternatives
• Permitting staff would limit cost-
share funds to existing operations
• $82, 148 from ACP for ag waste
facilities
• Small amount available from State
Water Protection Fund for existing
facilities
• Permitting staff would limit to
lowest cost projects and to improve
facilities at existing operations
• $9,327 from ACP for ag waste
facilities
• Permitting staff would like to fund
grass filters
• Stale Conservation Commission
funds also are available
Farmer Incurred Costs
• Costs associated with
recordke«ping,
reporting, pollution
prevention plan,
'• • J ' •
monitoring, and permit
fees
• No permit fees
• No permit fees
• Costs associated with
public notice for
NPDES
• Annual permit fee
varies with facility
type and size
• Costs associated with
public notice period
General vs. Individual
Permits
• General permit's
advantage in time
savings
• State programs'
emphasis on site-specific
plans and inspections
give no reported
advantage to general
permits
• State regulations give
IDNR authority to
enforce minimum
requirements on aJi
facilities (permitted or
not), so no reported
advantage in a general
permit
• Little advantage in
general permit due to
state's emphasis on
facility specific plans
and inspections
• Individual waste control
permit requires between
27 hours and 3 months to
process
Interagency
Coordination
• ADPCE_SCS for
technical requirements
• ADPCE_AS&WCD for
management plans
• IDEM_SCS for
technical requirements
and complaint response
• County board of health
and sanitarian for
complaint response
• IDNR Section 3 19
funds to train SCS to
design facilities,
establish on- farm
demonstrations, and
support county-wide
programs
• KDHE_SCS for
technical requirements
• Animal Health
Department provides
health operating
licenses
• Division of Water
Resources issues water
appropriation
construction permits
C/J
TJ
S"
-------
Table 4. Program Costs and Benefits: Summary of Surveyed States (continued)
Surveyed
State
Nebraska
Region VI
Washington
Wisconsin
Estimated FTEs
Required
• 4.5 minimum
• Unknown
• 6.0 FTEs
• 3-5 FTEs
Cost-Share Funding
• $39,000 from ACP for ag waste
facilities
• Permitting officials would like to
have funds for large CAFOs
• Up to $4.5 million competitively
available from Centennial Clean
Water Fund
• Up to $4.5 million competitively
available from State Revolving
Fund loan program
• $720,091 from ACP for ag waste
facilities
• $3 million from Referendum 39 for
Conservation District dairy waste
programs
• $ 1,87 1,637 from ACP for ag waste
facilities
• Farmer's Fund for operators
receiving a notice of discharge
• Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program funds on a
watershed basis
Farmer Incurred Costs
« No permit fees
• Costs associated with
public notice period
• Reporting.
recordkeeping,
training, monitoring,
and pollution
prevention plan
development costs
• $70-$ 1.000 annual
NPDES permit fee
• No permit fees
General vs. Individual
Permits
• No reported significant
benefits of general
permit due to state's on-
site inspection and
construction permit
requirements
• NPDES program for
CAFOs is minor part of
state's total program
• EPA is expected to incur
lower costs with general
vs. individual permit
• General permit
advantage in
administration costs and
time savings
• No reported general
permit advantage due to
small number of large
operations to be
permitted
Interagency
Coordination
• NDEQ_SCS for
technical requirements
• NDEQ_Bureau of
Dairies & Foods for
waste facility location
J
approval
if
• EPA Region VI_USDA
• Region VI_Fish &
Wildlife Service
• WDOE_Conservation
Commission for
compliance plans under
Agricultural
Compliance
Memorandum of
Agreement program
• WDNR_USDAfor
some complaint
investigation
ft>
C/5
I!
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
funding for 1991. The maximum in cost-share funds per operator of $3,500 limits the
usefulness of the ACP program to operators of small facilities. In many States (e.g., Iowa),
however, most livestock producers will not receive assistance due to inadequate funding
levels, the low priority given to cost-share for animal waste controls, and funds being limited
to special project areas.
Farmers incur expenses associated with the implementation of waste management programs.
The most significant expenses are the costs of building or upgrading waste control systems
to meet permit specifications. In addition, operators incur costs associated with
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, development of the pollution prevention plan,
maintenance and operating expenses, employee training costs, and permit fees. These costs
vary with facility type and size, facility condition, and operator experience; they may vary
even by State. For example, permit fees range from $30 per year for smaller facilities in
Kansas to $1,000 per year for large dairy operations (more than 1,000 AUs) in Washington.
A comprehensive feedlot waste management program utilizing general permits may be
beneficial for regulating agencies, livestock operators, the public, and the environment.
General permits allow adequate environmental protection for a large number of similar
livestock operations without the administrative and resource costs associated with issuing
individual permits. General permits can afford the same reporting and monitoring
requirements, limitations, enforcement provisions, and other requirements as individual
permits, while reducing the administrative burden on the regulating agencies. According to
Region VI, Washington, and Arkansas, general permits reduce both the cost and time
associated with implementing the NPDES program for CAFOs. The other States surveyed
did not believe that a general permit would be beneficial for their programs.
In all surveyed States and Region VI, interagency coordination is critical to ensure that the
technical requirements of the waste control permits are met. The regulating agencies work
closely with USDA's Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to fulfill the permit's technical
specifications and requirements. This was especially true during the development stages of
the general permit in Region VI. Other agencies that work cooperatively with State
regulating agencies include the county board of health (Indiana), Fish and Wildlife Service
(Region VI), animal health department (Kansas). State bureau of dairies and foods
(Nebraska), and the conservation commission (Washington).
41
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION WASTE CONTROL
SURVEY RESULTS
I. PROGRAM STATUS
This chapter discusses the status of confined livestock operations waste management
programs and is organized by surveyed State/Region. It addresses such topics as regulatory
authority, permit coverage, types of permits issued, number of permitted facilities, and the
resources dedicated to administer the permitting program.
A. Arkansas
1. Regulatory Authority
The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) has regulatory
jurisdiction over environmental aspects of livestock feeding operations and is authorized to
act as the State water pollution control agency for the purposes of the amendments to the
federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also known as the Clean Water Act). Arkansas
has been authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program and to issue general permits
under the provisions of 40 CFR 122.28. However, the State has neither implemented nor
permitted any livestock waste systems under the NPDES program. The ADPCE has
developed a draft of a NPDES general permit.
Under State Regulation No. 5, "Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems," any confined
animal operation using a liquid animal waste management system must obtain a no-
discharge permit from the ADPCE. The ADPCE regulation prohibits the discharge of process
wastewater from any confined animal operation with a liquid waste management system to
the waters of the State at any time, including periods of precipitation in excess of the 25 year,
24-hour storm event or a series of chronic storm events. Under Regulation No. 5, ground
water is included in the definition of "waters of the State."
Types of Permits
Arkansas's livestock waste permitting program issues one type of permit: a no-discharge
water pollution control permit for any confined animal facility with a liquid waste management
system. State permits are written for individual facilities.
Under Arkansas' draft NPDES general permit program, CAFOs with liquid waste
management systems will be issued two permits. In accordance with ADPCE Regulation
No. 5, a construction permit will be issued prior to the construction of a waste disposal
system. (Existing facilities will already have a construction permit.) Following satisfactory
completion of the facility, the operator must obtain an operating permit. The draft NPDES
42
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
general permit gives operational authority and coverage required by federal and State laws
and regulations. Existing facilities with State-issued construction permits must submit a
Notice of Intent (NOI) within 60 days of the effective date of the NPDES general permit. In
lieu of general permit coverage, an operator may apply for an individual NPDES permit, but
still must first obtain a construction permit.
3. Permit Coverage
All new and existing CAFOs may be covered under Arkansas's draft NPDES general permit.
As provided in 40 CFR Part 122, Arkansas defines CAFOs as animal feeding operations
which stable or confine and feed or maintain more than 1,000 AUs of slaughter or feeder
cattle, mature dairy cattle, swine, or poultry. An animal feeding operation also can be
considered a CAFO if, following an on-site inspection by Department personnel, it is
designated by the ADPCE director as a significant contributor of pollution. While 40 CFR
122 Appendix B defines operations with less than 300 AUs that discharge through a man-
made device as CAFOs, the provisions of ADPCE Regulation No. 5 prohibit the construction
or operation of any man-made device for discharging pollutants into waters of the State.
State Regulation No. 5 prohibits the construction or operation of any hog, poultry, or dairy
operation or other confined animal operation using liquid animal waste management systems
until the owner has obtained a no-discharge water pollution control permit. Thus, the
Arkansas permitting program focuses on issuing permits to all facilities with liquid waste
systems regardless of facility size.
4. Number of Permitted Facilities
As of July 1990, there were 14 beef feedlots, 159 dairies, 573 hog operations, 40 broiler, fryer,
and roaster operations, and 74 layer and hatchery operations with State permits for liquid
waste systems, according to the ADPCE. The following table summarizes the total number
of confined animal operations with over 300 AUs and the number of confined animal
operations that have liquid animal waste system permits in Arkansas. The ADPCE does not
keep records of the size of livestock operations that have been issued permits. Thus, the
number of operations with liquid animal waste system permits may be greater than the
number of operations with more than 300 AUs (i.e., dairy and swine), because some State
permitted facilities are likely to be smaller than 300 AUs.
43
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Facility Type
Beef
Dairy
Swine
Broiler
Layers, Hatcheries
Total
Confined Animal Operations In Arkansas
Number Of Operations With
Over 300 AUs ] I/
18
19
127
1,257
227
1,648
Number Of Operations With
Liquid Animal Waste System
Permits ~ 21
14
159
573
40
74
860
Department officials could not estimate how many livestock facilities have a liquid animal
waste management system, but do not have a waste management system permit.
Enforcement staff in Arkansas believe that there are many unpermitted facilities that should
have permits.
5r Resources for Program Administration
Arkansas does not have staff dedicated solely to the permitting of liquid livestock waste
management systems; all employees work on other State permitting programs such as the
industrial and municipal permitting programs. Two full-time employees are responsible for
reviewing and issuing permits under the State's waste permitting programs (NPDES, State,
municipal sludge permits, etc.). Another person works half-time on compliance and
enforcement of liquid livestock waste control structures. In addition, the State has 14
NPDES field inspectors who are in charge of all NPDES inspections. ADPCE officials report
that the State's NPDES field inspectors give little priority to inspections of liquid livestock
waste control systems. Instead they focus on the inspection of other industrial waste
facilities and publicly owned treatment systems.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989 (November). 1987 Census of Agriculture. "Beef
corresponds to USDC's "number of farms with cattle fattened on grain & concentrates sold." "Dairy"
corresponds lo USDC's "number of farms with inventories of milk cows " "Swine" corresponds to
USDC's "number of farms with inventories of hogs and pigs." "Broiler" corresponds «o USDC's "number
of farms with sales of broilers and other meat-type chickens." "Layers, Hatcheries" corresponds to
USDC's "number of farms with inventories of hens and pullets of laying age." Because Census of
Agriculture categories do not correspond exactly to the animal unit categories in the NPDES
regulations, the numbers are approximations. For poultry facilities, the numbers from the Census of
Agriculture were adjusted to reflect the fact that, on average, broiler farms produce 5-6 "batches"
of broilers per year. Thus, the figures given here are estimates of the number of animal units in
inventory.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Milestone Report"
1990 (July 13). "Permit Data System—
44
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
B. Indiana
1. Regulatory Authority
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has jurisdiction over
concentrated animal feeding operations. The NPDES regulations pertaining to concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are found in 327 IAC 5-4-3. The State program's
authority is provided in 1C 13-1-5.7 (Confined Feeding Control Law) of the Indiana Water
Pollution Control Law. The State program focuses on eliminating all discharges into waters
of the State. Because the State livestock waste control program is considered a non-point
source program, its primary focus is the elimination of runoff and the optimal utilization of
manure as fertilizer. The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Law (1C 13-1-3) specifies that
the State livestock waste control program protects both the State's surface water and ground
water.
2. Types of Permits
While Indiana has a NPDES permitting program for concentrated animal feeding operations,
IDEM has not issued any NPDES permits to CAFOs. Indiana does have NPDES general
permit authority, but IDEM staff said that individual permits would most likely be issued to
CAFOs.
State regulations require IDEM to approve plans for confined feeding operations, so the state
livestock waste control program focuses on plan review for new and existing livestock
operations. IDEM issues letters of approval in lieu of State operating or construction
permits. IDEM officials believe that, in addition to the NPDES program, a State permitting
program will be in place within the next decade which will add manure management and
reporting requirements to the State regulations.
Applications for State approval of waste control facilities must include detailed descriptions of
the site, the proposed facility, facility design criteria, and land application requirements. The
IDEM letters of approval consist of two sections. One section grants approval to construct a
waste control facility. It expires if construction is not commenced within a year of issuance.
The other section approves the operation of a wastewater control facility at a confined feeding
operation, and it lasts indefinitely. The operating approval section expires only if major
changes are made in the number or type of livestock, or in the acreage available for disposal.
Approvals can be transferred to new owners or operators, as long as no major changes are
made to the facility.
45
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
3. Permit Coverage
A NPDES permit is required of any operation that supports more than 1,000 AUs and
discharges into waters of the State. A NPDES permit is also required for an operation with
more than 300 AUs which discharges, directly or through a man-made device, into waters of
the State.
A letter of approval is required of any operation that meets the State's definition of confined
feeding operation, which is based on size alone: any confined feeding operation of 300 or more
cattle (300 AUs), 600 or more swine (240 AUs) or 600 or more sheep (60 AUs), or 30,000 or
more fowl (300 AUs). Any livestock feeding operation that causes water quality violations,
or that elects to be covered, can also be designated a confined feeding operation.
Construction of a confined feeding operation cannot begin without IDEM approval. The
IDEM must approve the design of the waste control facility to ensure sufficient storage
capacity and to ensure that sufficient acreage is available for the land application of waste.
4, Number of Permitted Facilities
Indiana has issued no NPDES permits to CAFOs. IDEM staff report that no operations in
the State meeting the NPDES size requirements are discharging, and the State's current
livestock waste control program is intended to prevent future discharges from new or
expanded operations.
Approximately 4,500 letters of approval have been issued since the regulation of confined
feeding operations began in 1971. Most approvals are granted to swine operations; poultry
and dairy operations rank second and third. Very few approvals are issued to beef feeding
operations. IDEM staff believe that 60 to 65 percent of the operations that come under the
authority of the regulations have been approved.
5. Resources for Program Administration
One FTE in the central office works exclusively on the State livestock operation approval
program, at an estimated annual cost of $65,000 including salary, benefits and transportation
allowance. The central office staff member handles plan review, site inspection, and approval
letter issuance. IDEM also has 16 inspectors to cover all types of NPDES permits who can
be called on to inspect animal feeding facilities in an emergency.
County boards of health or county sanitariums also can respond to problems with livestock
feeding operations. Department of Natural Resources conservation officers are also available
to respond. The IDEM's emergency response group will react to major incidents such as fish
kills. In the course of a year, these "secondary" resources will cover 25 to 50 percent of the
inspections and other responses.
46
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
C. Iowa
1. Regulatory Authority
The Environmental Protection Division of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
has general authority for environmental protection, including regulation of animal feeding
operations. The IDNR has issued NPDES permits since 1978. The State regulations
covering animal feeding operations are found in Chapter 65 of the Environmental Protection
Commission Section 567 of the Iowa Administrative Code (IAC). There are separate
requirements for open feedlots, in which cattle have no shelter other than natural protection,
and for totally enclosed, confined feeding operations. The State regulations also establish
minimum waste control requirements for all (permitted and non-permitted) animal feeding
operations in the State. The minimum waste control requirement for an open feedlot is the
removal of settleable solids before wastes are discharged into waters of the State. The
minimum waste control requirements for an open feedlot meeting the NPDES permitting
criteria is to control wastes such that no discharge occurs except due to precipitation events
in excess of the 25 year, 24-hour storm event. The minimum waste control requirement for a
totally confined system is no discharge into the waters of the State. The IAC includes ground
water in the definition of "waters of the State."
2. Types of Permits
IDNR issues operating and construction permits. Operating permits are required for animal
feeding operations that meet the requirements outlined below. The NPDES permit and the
operating permit usually are combined if a facility meets the NPDES size requirements and
has the potential to discharge to waters of the State. A facility that is expanding its
wastewater control facilities or constructing new facilities must have a construction permit.
3. Permit Coverage
An open feedlot with more than 1,000 AUs, or more than 300 AUs and discharging through a
man-made drainage system or into waters of the State which flows through the feedlot, must
have an operating or combined operating/NPDES permit. An open feedlot is any livestock
feeding operation that is not completely enclosed. State regulations prohibit any discharge
from totally enclosed operations, so these facilities generally are not required to secure
operating or operating/NPDES permits.
An open feedlot that meets the requirements for an operating permit must obtain IDNR
approval before beginning construction of a waste control project. Construction permits are
also required for completely enclosed confinement operations that utilize an anaerobic lagoon,
that house more than 200 AUs and utilize any other type of earthen waste storage facility, or
that house more than 2,000 AUs and use a formed waste storage tank.
47
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPA/State
Feed lot Workgroup
4. Number of Permitted Facilities
About 15 NPDES permits have been issued to facilities with more than 1,000 AUs. Twelve
of the permits have been issued to beef operations, one to a swine operation and two to beef
and swine operations. Iowa keeps no records on the number of State operating or
construction permits issued.
5. Resources for Program Administration
The IDNR has 1.7 FTEs devoted to the animal feeding operation permitting program: there
are 0.5 FTEs in the central office involved in plan review and permit issuance. The remaining
1.2 FTEs are spread among the six field offices, where they are involved mainly in complaint
investigations and corrective actions.
Facility Type
Beef
Dairy
Swine
Poultry
Other
Total
Confined Animal Operations In Iowa
Number Of Operations I/
with More Than 1,000 AUs2/
340
1
2,557
14
2,912
Number Of Operations
with NPDES Permits 2J
12
---
1
...
2 (swine & beef)
15
I/ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989 (November). 1987 Census of Agriculture. "Beef
corresponds to USDC's "number of farms with cattle fattened on grain & concentrates sold." "Dairy"
corresponds to USDC's "number of farms with inventories of milk cows." "Swine" corresponds to
USDC's "number of farms with inventories of hogs and pigs." "Poultry" corresponds to USDC's "number
of farms with sales of broilers and other meat-type chickens" and number of farms with inventories of
hens and pullets of laying age." Because Census of Agriculture categories do not correspond exactly
to !he animal unit categories in the NPDES regulations, the numbers are approximations. For
poultry facilities, the numbers from the Census of Agriculture were adjusted to reflect the fact that,
on average, broiler farms produce 5-6 "batches" of broilers per year. Thus, the figures given here
are estimates of the number of animal units in inventory.
2/ Some of the operations with more than 1,000 AUs are total confinement systems; State regulations
prohibit discharges from total confinement systems.
y Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1992.
48
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
D. Kansas
1. Regulatory Authority
The State of Kansas has administered the NPDES program for CAFOs since 1974. The
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has regulatory authority over
livestock operations with more than 300 head and livestock operations with the potential to
cause environmental degradation. (While the NPDES program uses the terminology "Animal
Unit" to establish a unit of measurement for CAFOs, Kansas program officials use the term
"head." A head is equal to one animal, regardless of the type of animal discussed.) The
permit program for water pollution control facilities serving livestock operations established
under the provisions of K.S.A. 65-165 is implemented by K.A.R. 28-18-1 through 4 and
K.A.R. 28-l6-56a through 63. Under the Kansas program, waters of the State includes
subsurface waters.
2. Types of Permits
Kansas issues NPDES individual permits to livestock facilities with capacities of more than
1,000 AUs. The State does not have authority to regulate livestock waste control facilities
through a NPDES general permit.
Under State law, the following types of confined livestock feeding operations must be
registered with the KDHE:
• Animal feeding operations with 300 or more head of cattle, hogs, or sheep,
• Livestock operations that use wastewater control facilities,
• Operations that present a potential water pollution problem,
• Commercial poultry houses with flocks of more than 1,000 birds, and
• Any other animal feeding operation whose operator elects to come under State
regulations.
Operations that present a potential water pollution problem can be identified by, but not
limited to, the following:
(a) open lots fenced and located across or immediately adjacent to creeks, streams,
intermittent waterways, or other conveyance channels or devices; and
(b) discharge to a road ditch, creek, or other conveyance channel that precludes the
control of discharged wastewater upon the operator's property.
Once registered, a livestock facility will be issued either a Kansas agricultural and related
waste control permit or a certificate of compliance. Facilities that can control and prevent
49
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
discharges to receiving streams are issued permits for their water pollution control facilities.
Small livestock facilities that do not use control facilities and do not pose potential water
pollution problems are exempt from permit requirements and are issued certificates of
compliance.
3. Permit Coverage
Kansas issues NPDES permits for water pollution control facilities to individual operations
that have the capacity for more than 1,000 AUs.
Any confined livestock feeding operation that uses a wastewater control facility, or that has
capacity for more than 300 head of cattle, hogs, or sheep, or 1,000 head of poultry, or that has
a potential water pollution problem must obtain a Kansas agricultural and related waste
control permit or certificate of compliance.
4. Number of Permitted Facilities
The table below shows the number of livestock operations with more than 300 AUs and the
number of State and/or NPDES permitted operations or operations with certificates of
compliance.
Facility Type
Beef
Dairy
Swine
Poultry
Total
Confined Animal Operations In Kansas
Number Of
Operations With
Over 300 AUs I/
805
24
619
24
1,472
State &/Or Npdes
Permitted Operations
With Over 300 Head 2/
586
19
480
M
1,119
State Permitted Operations (300
Head Or Less) & Operations
With Certificates Of Compliance
366
661
625
1
1,653
I/ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989 (November). 1987 Census of Agriculture. "Beef corresponds
to USDC's "number of farms with cattle fattened on grain & concentrates sold." "Dairy" corresponds to
USDC's "number of farms with inventories of milk cows." "Swine" corresponds to USDC's "number of
farms with inventories of hogs and pigs." "Poultry" corresponds to USDC's "number of farms with sales of
broilers and other meat-type chickens" and "number of farms with inventories of hens and pullets of laying
age." Because Census of Agriculture categories do not correspond exactly to the animal unit cate-
gories in the NPDES regulations, the numbers are approximations. For poultry facilities, the numbers
from the Census of Agriculture were adjusted to reflect the fact that, on average, broiler farms
produce 5-6 "batches" of broilers per year. Thus, the figures given here are estimates of the number of
animal units in inventory.
2/ Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 1992. Includes operations with permits in process. Poultry
operations are based on facilities with over LOCK) head of poultry. While the NPDES program uses the
terminology "Animal Unit" to establish a unit of measurement for CAFOs, Kansas program officials use the
term "head." A head is equaJ to one animal, regardless of the type of animal discussed.
37 Same source as 2J- Includes operations with less than 300 head of cattle or hogs, and less than 1,000 head of
poultry.
50
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Three hundred livestock facilities with capacity of more than 300 head have been issued
NPDES permits. KDHE officials estimate that these 300 NPDES permitted operations
account for about 80 percent of the fed cattle in the State. Because of the financial and
management capabilities of the larger feedlots, most NPDES-permitted operations comply
with their permit conditions. Operations with only Kansas agricultural and related waste
control permits are estimated to be in compliance approximately 80 to 90 percent of the time.
Because Kansas regulations require State permits for commercial poultry facilities with 1,000
head or more (which is less than 300 AUs), poultry operations with permits is greater than
the total number of operations of more than 300 AUs. Kansas requires wastewater control
structures for milking parlors at dairy facilities. Since this also applies to small dairy
facilities, it explains why the number of permitted dairy facilities is greater than the total
number of dairy facilities with over 300 AU.
5. Resources for Program Administration
KDHE has nine full-time employees devoted to the agricultural waste unit. Six work in the
field on inspections and compliance, two work in the central office on permit writing and plan
reviews, and one provides administrative support. Feedlot inspections/investigations, site
appraisals, plan reviews, and permit writing are the most time-consuming aspects of the
permitting process. The agricultural waste unit processed 365 new permits last year and
received about 560 renewal applications.
E. Nebraska
1. Regulatory Authority
The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) has regulated discharges of
livestock wastes into the waters of the State in accordance with the NPDES program since
1974. The NDEQ also has regulatory and permitting authority over livestock waste control
facilities under State Title 130, "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Livestock Waste
Control." Nebraska has authority to regulate discharges to surface and ground water.
2. Types of Permits
Nebraska requires the operators of livestock facilities that require waste control systems to
obtain construction permits before the waste control facilities can be built.
Nebraska has the authority to issue individual NPDES permits to livestock operations for
their waste control systems. Although the State has NPDES general permit authority, it has
not implemented a general permit for CAFOs. Because all livestock operations that require
51
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
waste control facilities must have pre-construction, on-site inspections and must obtain
State construction permits, NDEQ officials believe that a general permitting program for
livestock waste control systems would not yield any significant benefits.
3. Permit Coverage
Nebraska issues NPDES permits only to livestock operations that discharge or have the
potential to discharge animal wastes into the waters of the State. Thus, the necessity for a
NPDES permit is determined case-by-case, after a site inspection is completed. The State
does not issue NPDES permits to operations that do not discharge or have a potential to
discharge into the waters of the State, regardless of their size. One example of a non-
discharging operation cited by Department officials is a 32,000-head beef feedlot that is
located in an area that does not discharge to waters of the State. This type of facility would
not need a NPDES permit. Another example is totally confined livestock feeding operations.
Officials contend that, by design, totally confined operations contain all wastes—either in
structures below the livestock housing units, or in containment areas such as lagoons--and
do not discharge into waters of the State, even in the event of a 25 year, 24-hour storm.
Under State law, a livestock operation must have a waste control facility if the existing or
proposed operation allows livestock wastes to:
• Violate or threaten to violate Nebraska Water Quality Standards (Title 117);
• Violate or threaten to violate Nebraska Ground Water Quality Standards (Title 118);
• Discharge into waters of the State; or
• Violate the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act.
The operator is responsible for requesting an NDEQ inspection of the operation to determine
whether a waste control facility is needed. If the Department determines a waste control
system is necessary, the operator must first obtain a permit before construction starts.
4. Number of Permitted Facilities
A total of 213 livestock facilities have been issued NPDES permits, and approximately 1,100
livestock facilities have been issued construction permits in Nebraska. Department officials
say that there are many livestock operations in the 1,000-5,000 AU range that do not have
NPDES permits because they do not discharge and do not have the potential to discharge.
The following table summarizes the number of Nebraska livestock feeding operations with
more than 300 AUs and the number of livestock feeding operations with more than 300 AUs
that have NPDES permits or have NPDES permits in process. The table does not include the
approximately 1,100 livestock operations that have obtained construction permits because
information on the type and size of these facilities is not available.
52
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Facility Type
Beef
Dairy
Swine
Broilers
Layers
Total
Confined Animal Operations In Nebraska
Number Of Operations With
Over 300 AUs I/
1,754
23
1,907
2
24
3,710
Number Of Npdes Permitted
Operations With Over 300 AUs 2.1
156
3
3
0
0
162
I/ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989 (November). 1987 Census of Agriculture. "Beef
corresponds to USDC's 'number of farms with cattle fattened on grain & concentrates sold." "Dairy"
corresponds to USDC's "number of farms with inventories of milk cows." "Swine" corresponds to
USDC's "number of farms with inventories of hogs and pigs." "Broilers" correspond to USDC's "number
of farms with sales of broilers and other meat-type chickens." "Laying Hens" corresponds to USDC's
"number of farms with inventories of hens and pullets of laying age." Because Census of Agriculture
categories do not correspond exactly to the animal unit categories in the NPDES regulations, the
numbers are approximations. For poultry facilities, the numbers from the Census of Agriculture
were adjusted to reflect the fact that, on average, broiler farms produce 5-6 "batches" of broilers
per year. Thus, the figures given here are estimates of the number of animal units in inventory.
2/ Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
construction permits.
1992. Does not include the 1,100 facilities with
5. Resources for Program Administration
Because the NDEQ recently combined the agricultural and industrial NPDES permitting
programs, the number of staff devoted to the permitting of livestock waste control systems
has declined from 4.5 to 2.5 FTEs.
F. EPA Region VI
1. Regulatory Authority
EPA Region VI developed a NPDES general permit for CAFOs under the authority of the
Clean Water Act, which requires CAFOs with point-source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the United States to obtain a NPDES permit (40 CFR 122.23 and 122 Appendix B).
EPA's storm water program requires facilities with storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity to obtain a NPDES permit. Under this program, published in the November
16, 1990 Federal Register, CAFOs with over 1,000 AUs must obtain NPDES permits as
facilities with industrial discharges that have national effluent guidelines for storm water.
CAFOs with over 1,000 AUs are subject to the effluent guidelines in 40 CFR 412.
53
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
2. Types of Permits
The NPDES general permit applies to existing facilities that notify EPA of their intent to be
covered by and adhere to permit requirements. Notification is accomplished by submitting a
notice of intent (NOI). A NO] form notifies the permitting authority of the permittee's intent
to be covered by and comply with a general permit. A copy of the Region VI form is provided
in Appendix B. Facilities expanding operations beyond the number of animals specified in 40
CFR Part 122 Appendix B(a), will be required to submit a new NOI prior to construction of
the expansion. For new CAFO facilities, there must be a finding of no significant
environmental impact (FONSI) or a completed Environmental Impact Statement for the
facility to gain coverage under the general permit.
EPA Region VI has authority to grant individual permits to CAFOs. The Region intends to
issue individual permits to facilities that request them, or that are required to have them as
determined by EPA, because of water quality standards violations.
3. Permit Coverage
The NPDES general permit may cover all new and existing CAFOs meeting the size and
discharge requirements of 40 CFR 122 Appendix B. This includes the following facilities:
1) More than 1,000 AUs; or
2) 300 to 1,000 AUs that discharge via a man-made conveyance or directly into waters
of the United States.
Only facilities that discharge in other than a 25 year, 24-hour storm event must obtain a
permit.
A general permit was issued for facilities in Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Facilities in Arkansas, which is also in Region VI, are issued permits by the State of
Arkansas, which is authorized to administer the NPDES program.
4. Number of Permitted Facilities
A limited number of facilities are covered by individual NPDES permits in the EPA Region VI
States of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. While up to 150 facilities had been
permitted in the early 1980s, fewer than 10 permits have been administratively continued and
are currently in force. For most of the facilities permitted in the early 1980s, the Region has
no administrative records of reapplications to support the continuation of the expired permits.
Region VI staff estimate that there are approximately 1,000 CAFOs in the four States that
should be covered by NPDES permits.
54
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
5. Resources for Program Administration
EPA Region VI did not have any FTEs officially dedicated to the CAFO NPDES program.
However, approximately one and one half FTEs were used to write the general permit and
approximately four FTES will be used for compliance activities.
G. Washington
1. Regulatory Authority
The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) has regulatory authority for CAFOs, but
has not systematically issued NPDES permits to them. A few individual NPDES permits
issued sporadically in the late 1970s and 1980s have been administratively continued.
WDOE is developing a NPDES general permit for dairy operations. Besides discharges to
surface water, WDOE has authority to regulate discharges to ground water. The authority
for such actions is found in the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW). The
words "waters of the State," when used in the Water Pollution Control Act, include
underground waters (RCW 90.48.020), giving WDOE authority to regulate discharges to
ground water.
On May 6, 1993, Substitute Senate Bill 5849 (SSB 5849) was signed into law. This
legislation establishes a dairy waste management program that combines the issuance of
discharge permits with technical assistance from local conservation districts. Essentially,
those farms meeting the federal definition of a CAFO or discharging directly to ground water
would be required to obtain NDPES/State waste discharge permit coverage. Conservation
District technical assistance is formally made available for dairies to develop a conservation
plan to achieve compliance.
2. Types of Permits
Under the proposed NPDES permit program, most dairy operations that require permits
would be covered by the general permit. However, dairy operators who believe there are
fundamentally different factors in their cases may apply for individual NPDES permits.
3. Permit Coverage
Under Substitute Senate Bill 5849, the NPDES general permit would apply only to
commercial dairies that meet the federal definition of a CAFO or directly discharge to ground
55
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
water. Any dairy with an implemented conservation plan from the local conservation district
would be administratively excused from obtaining general permit coverage, as long as no
future water quality problems occur. Permit coverage will be granted to non-complying
dairies, along with a timetable for taking the actions necessary to gain compliance. In
addition, dairies that inspections show to be in compliance with the general permit provisions
would not have to obtain permit coverage. Farms with relatively minor problems will
continue to be addressed under the Agricultural Compliance Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) program. Under this program, dairies that cause water quality problems are referred
to the local conservation district to develop and implement a conservation plan. Under the
proposed NPDES permit program, these dairies would be required to obtain NPDES permits
only if they stop complying voluntarily with conservation plans.
4. Number of Permitted Facilities
Approximately eight NPDES permits were issued to CAFOs in the late 1970s and early
1980s, and have been administratively continued. The proposed general permit program
would focus on covering up to approximately 750 dairy farms that are not fully implementing
conservation plans, but are required to obtain permit coverage. This represents
approximately two-thirds of the dairies in the State, which produce the majority of the State's
dairy waste.
5. Resources for Program Administration
Six FTEs are dedicated to Washington's dairy waste control program. There are 5 FTEs
among the four regional offices, and 1 FTE in the central office. The staff in the regional
offices investigate complaints, inspect sites, and perform enforcement actions.
H. Wisconsin
1. Regulatory Authority
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has regulated livestock feeding
operations under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) since
1984. The Department has regulatory authority over all operations with more than 1,000 AUs
and smaller operations that are designated as significant sources of pollution. The authority
to regulate CAFOs is contained in Chapter 147 of the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge
Elimination Law; the regulations are contained in Chapter NR 243 of the Wisconsin Water
Pollution Control Regulations. The regulations emphasize that only large operations (>1,000
AUs), or those causing significant pollution are subject to regulation. The regulations state
56
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Fe edicts Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
that it is not the program's intent to require all the animal feeding operations in Wisconsin to
obtain a WPDES permit.
The WDNR has authority to regulate discharges to ground water, as well as to surface
water. The WDNR does not have the authority under Chapter NR 243 to pursue odor or
other nuisance complaints unless a discharge or water quality violation has occurred.
Nuisance suits are a local zoning matter in Wisconsin, and counties and townships are
encouraged to adopt zoning rules to avoid potential nuisances. Any livestock feeding
operation that is following standard agricultural practices in an area zoned for agriculture is
generally shielded from nuisance suits.
2. Types of Permits
Wisconsin has NPDES general permit authority, but it does not have a general permit for
CAFOs; WDNR issues only individual WPDES permits to CAFOs. Because of the small
number of large operations (>1,000 AUs) in the State, and because very few small operations
are designated as significant sources of pollution, WDNR staff do not see any advantage to a
general permit.
3. Permit Coverage
Under State law, all animal feeding operations with 1,000 or more AUs must have permits,
even though there may be no threat of a discharge. Other animal feeding operations may be
permitted if they are designated a significant source of pollution. The designation is made
only after a complaint is registered and required enforcement and compliance methods have
been exhausted.
4. Number of Permitted Facilities
There are 43 WPDES-permitted facilities in Wisconsin. Of that group, 41 are operations
with more than 1,000 AUs, and the remaining two were designated as significant sources of
pollution and permitted as part of a water quality enforcement action. Nineteen of the 41
permits covering the large facilities are issued to a single corporation. The State permitting
staff believe that all operations with more than 1,000 AUs are covered by a WPDES permit.
5. Resources for Program Administration
The annual State budget for the livestock permitting program is 5303,721, which includes staff
salary, fringe benefits, and support expenses. There are approximately five FTEs involved in
57
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
the livestock wastewater control: 1.5 FTEs in the central office, 1 investigator in each of three
district offices, and 1 FTE spread among the other three district offices. In addition, other
WDNR staff (e.g., fish and game wardens) are on call at all hours to respond to emergencies.
58
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
II. PERMITTING PROCESS
This chapter presents the major components of each States' permitting process. They consist
of: unpermitted concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) identification, screening tools,
public comment provisions, and inspection requirements. While the key components of each
program are basically the same, different States emphasize different components.
A. Arkansas
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification
With its limited staff of 2.5 FTEs, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
(ADPCE) generally relies on NPDES inspectors' facility visits, nuisance complaints, fish kill
reports, and the efforts of the major livestock contractors to identify the State's unpermitted
facilities. ADPCE staff report that dairy facilities are the most common type of confined
livestock operation without liquid waste management system permits. Conversely, large
swine and poultry facilities that are under contract with major processing companies usually
have permits. The major contractors prefer that their producers have liquid animal waste
management system permits; some even specify a permit as a condition of the contract. The
contractors tend to police their own waste control systems to ensure that they remain in
compliance and have the proper permits.
2. Screening Tools
Unlike some State agencies, the ADPCE has not developed screening tools to rank
unpermitted livestock facilities that should be targeted for permitting. However, the
Department's "Enforcement Tracking List" records reported violations and the actions taken
against animal feeding facilities, including violations associated with liquid animal waste
management.
3. Public Comment Provisions
Arkansas will have a 30-day public comment period for its draft NPDES general permit, if and
when it is publicly noticed. During this tune, any person may request a public hearing. All
comments received during the public comment period and public hearing will be considered in
the issuance of the final general permit.
Under Arkansas Regulation No. 5, "Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems," any
operator who plans to submit an application to construct, operate, or modify a confined animal
operation using a liquid waste disposal system must first publish a public notice of the
59
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
application. The notice must be published in a newspaper with circulation in the county or
counties of the proposed operation, and it must appear no less than once per week for two
consecutive weeks. The notice must be published on a form provided by the ADPCE, which
must be provided with a copy of the notice. The ADPCE provides a copy of the public notice
to the county quorum court or to the city zoning authority, whichever is applicable. Applicants
are responsible for all expenses associated with public notices. Each notice must provide the
following information:
• Type of facility to be constructed or operated;
• Type of waste generated, and a description of the waste treatment, handling, or
disposal processes;
• Legal description of all properties to be used in the treatment, handling, or disposal of
wastes; and
• Road and street description of all properties to be used in the treatment, handling, or
disposal of wastes.
If the Department decides a public hearing is necessary, it will schedule one and will notify
the applicant and all persons who submitted comments.
4. Inspection Requirements
Arkansas' draft NPDES general permit does not require an initial facility inspection.
However, new or proposed facilities must submit with the Notice of Intent (NOI) a
certification from a professional engineer or Soil Conservation Service (SCS) representative
that the facility was constructed in accordance with approved plans and specifications and
under the terms and conditions of an ADPCE construction permit. The draft general permit
also has provisions for annual site inspections that must be performed by the permittee.
Records documenting significant observations made during the annual inspections must be
retained by the permittee for at least three years.
The current permitting process usually begins when an interested operator contacts the
ADPCE. The ADPCE sends the operator an application which, among other things, reminds
the operator that designs and waste management plans must be in accordance with SCS
recommendations. A waste management plan must be developed and approved by the SCS,
a professional engineer, or a water quality technician. Construction plans also must be
approved by a professional or SCS engineer. The completed application, along with waste
management, sice management, and construction plans must be submitted to the ADPCE.
Because the Department's staff resources are limited, the application process does not
include a post-construction, on-site inspection of the facility's liquid waste management
system.
Ideally, after livestock facilities obtain liquid waste management system permits, the ADPCE
inspects them every year. Once again, staff limitations (there is one-half FTE assigned to
enforcement and compliance) have prevented the Department from keeping current on
scheduled inspections.
60
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feed lot Workgroup
B. Indiana
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification
Because the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) lacks resources for
inspections to identify unapproved or discharging livestock feeding operations, IDEM must
rely on neighbors and the general public to report compliance problems and discharges. One
IDEM staff member spends about 40 percent of his time on outreach activities to increase
public awareness of the State's confined feeding operation approval program. IDEM staff
have made presentations to insurance companies, lenders, the SCS, extension agents, and
producer groups. The efforts directed at insurance companies and agricultural lenders have
proven to be very effective in bringing unapproved operations into compliance, because most
lenders and issuers now require a letter of approval before granting a loan or insurance
coverage. IDEM staff view these outreach activities as an effective way to achieve
compliance in the face of limited resources.
2. Screening Tools
Indiana issues letters of approval to livestock operations. Letters of approval are issued
based on the size of a facility and its location. The issuing office has determined how far a
facility must be from bodies of water, wells, neighboring residences, and public areas before
the approval letter will be issued. It will be flexible about the separation distances, if a
facility's neighbors approve. The office is even more flexible about separation distances
required of existing facilities.
3. Public Comment Provisions
Because the Indiana confined feeding operation approval program is not a permitting program,
it has no public comment provisions.
4. Inspection Requirements
There is no scheduled inspection program. Inspections are conducted in response to
complaints or water quality violations (i.e., fish kills). Surprise inspections of unapproved
facilities are made only occasionally. Inspections are not integral to the program because
peer pressure is responsible for bringing most operations into compliance. Operators who are
in compliance often report neighbors who are not. The high level of public awareness about
the program means that local residents are also likely to report operations that are
candidates for inspection.
61
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
C. Iowa
L. Unpermitted CAFO Identification
Because it lacks resources, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) must depend
on voluntary compliance by operators. Because of resource limitations and political concerns,
IDNR staff do not look for non-permitted or discharging facilities. The IDNR relies heavily on
the educational efforts of producer organizations to inform operators of the necessity of permit
coverage. Iowa livestock producer organizations have become very active in trying to bring
their members into compliance. For example, the Iowa Pork Producers Association devoted a
portion of its magazine's November 1992 issue to environmental issues affecting hog
operations, including a description of the animal feeding operation regulations. The IDNR has
developed close working relationships with producer organizations at the national and State
level, and believes that producer groups have realized the importance of protecting the
environment and will no longer defend a producer who is not in compliance.
2. Screening Tools
Operating permits are issued based on the size and type of the facility and the type of waste
control system it uses. Iowa issues NPDES permits to facilities that meet the size
requirements or that have a history of discharges.
3. Public Comment Provisions
The State operating and construction permits do not have public comment provisions.
NPDES permits have a 30-day public notice period. Applicants must post notices in public
places near their livestock facilities and publish notices in local newspapers and periodicals.
A public hearing will be held if there is significant public interest during the public notice
period.
4, Inspection Requirements
Because of staff shortages, there is no scheduled inspection program for CAFOs in Iowa.
Operations holding NPDES permits are inspected every five years when the permit is
renewed. Unpermitted operations are inspected only as the result of a complaint or a water
quality violation.
62
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
D. Kansas
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification
By law, any livestock facility that uses a wastewater control structure, discharges, or has the
potential to discharge livestock wastes into waters of the State, must have a permit.
Identifying these types of unpermitted livestock facilities can be difficult. Officials in the
agricultural waste unit usually rely on unannounced visits to unpermitted facilities, nuisance
complaints, and fish kill reports to identify livestock operations that are not in compliance.
2. Screening Tools
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) believes that many livestock
facilities in the State require permits but do not have them. The Department suggests that
its inspectors consider such criteria as facility size, location, potential for discharges,
distances to water resources and residences, and complaints when assigning priorities to the
identification and permitting of unpermitted livestock operations. Unpermitted operations that
have the potential to cause or are currently considered to cause human health effects, aquatic
damage, or nuisance complaints are generally given top priority in the permitting process.
3. Public Comment Provisions
The KDHE places draft agricultural waste control permits on public notice for 30 days. The
Department will not issue a permit or give approval to start construction until the 30-day
notice period has expired. All proposed NPDES permits are also placed on public notice for
30 days. Upon request, a public hearing may be held to consider significant objections.
4. Inspection Requirements
The agricultural waste control permit procedure in Kansas usually begins with the applicant's
request for information on the design and permitting of confined livestock operations. A site
appraisal by the KDHE follows and if approved, the applicant then submits a registration and
permit application with the appropriate fee. If required, releases from adjacent residents
giving their permission for the applicant to construct livestock feeding and water pollution
control facilities also must be submitted to the KDHE. The submission of a general
information and operation plan to the Department is the next step in the permitting process.
Construction plans are then presented for KDHE review and approval. The KDHE makes the
draft permit available for public comment for 30 days. After the comment period, the
Department issues the permit and gives its approval for facility construction. Upon
completion of the waste treatment facility, it conducts a post-construction inspection. This
63
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
inspection ensures that the waste structure(s) was built according to approved plans and
provides the Department with an accurate record of existing waste-control and operational
structures. After the completion of a satisfactory post construction inspection, the facility is
approved to begin operating.
Kansas has a scheduled inspection program for livestock feeding facilities that depends upon
the size of operation, type of permit, and compliance history. NPDES-permitted livestock
facilities are normally inspected once a year, more often if a problem is identified. If a
NPDES-permitted facility has a poor compliance history, it may be inspected every six
months; facilities with good compliance records may be inspected only every two years.
State permitted livestock operations are inspected every two years unless a problem occurs;
then the inspections increase to once a year. Livestock operations with certificates of
compliance are inspected every four years, and inactive permitted operations are inspected
every five years.
E. Nebraska
1. Unpcrmitted CAFO Identification
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) staff do not seek unpermitted
concentrated animal feeding facilities. Instead, they concentrate on processing permit
applications and enforcing livestock waste control permit requirements. Unpermitted CAFOs
are usually identified by livestock producer organizations, which are the operator's primary
source of livestock waste control information. Such organizations have helped to increase
awareness of the permitting process and the importance of permits in Nebraska.
2. Screening Tools
Criteria used to assign priorities to the permitting of livestock waste control systems in
Nebraska include the potential for a facility to discharge wastes, topography, and location of
the facility in respect to waters of the State. In general, new NPDES permits are issued
based on an individual facility's potential to discharge animal wastes into waters of the State.
In Nebraska, the potential for discharge is usually determined by an on-site inspection.
3. Public Comment Provisions
Every NPDES application and resulting decision to issue or deny the permit must be put on
public notice. Notices must appear in a daily or weekly newspaper that circulates in the area
of the proposed livestock waste control facility. Copies of public notices will be mailed to
applicants and other persons who request them. There is a 30-day public comment period in
64
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
which individuals or groups can submit written comments or request a public hearing
concerning the proposed livestock waste control facility.
Public comments and other information received during the 30-day period that appear to raise
substantial issues concerning a permit may persuade the Department to prepare a new draft.
In this instance, the new draft permit will be republished for additional public comment. If no
major issues are raised and the NDEQ issues a NPDES permit, the Department must
respond in writing to all the public comments received.
4. Inspection Requirements
As previously noted, any livestock operation that needs a waste control facility must obtain a
construction permit from the NDEQ. The need for a waste control facility is determined by an
on-site inspection of new and existing facilities. This is the only required inspection for the
issuance of a State construction permit in Nebraska.
"Large" livestock operations issued NPDES permits are usually inspected every year, but
they can be inspected two or more times per year depending upon the operator's compliance
record.1 Facilities with compliance problems are inspected frequently until the problems are
corrected. In 1991, the NDEQ conducted 298 inspections of livestock feeding operations'
waste control systems. Officials report that a more structured inspection program may
develop as the agricultural waste control program is integrated into the industrial and
municipal waste control programs. This integration would allow all types of NPDES
inspections in an area to be completed in a single trip. The Department does not have a
scheduled inspection program for small livestock facilities.
F. Reeion VI
1. Unpermitted CAFQ Identification
EPA Region VI does not have a specific agenda for identifying unpermitted CAFOs.
However, throughout the development of the general permits, a series of public meetings
were held regarding permit provisions.
Neither Title 130 nor Nebraska NPDES permits have provisions for post-construction inspections.
However, interviewees with the NDEQ report that "large" livestock operations are inspected regularly but
they declined to define "large".
65
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedict Workgroup
2. Screening Tools
No formal screening tools or criteria will be used by Region VI. However, the Region
believes that violations of water quality standards covered by unauthorized releases from
CAFOs will be reported by the public. Furthermore, the States in Region VI have compliance
tracking and inspection systems, and they are expected to provide EPA with information
concerning water quality violations.
3. Public Comment Provisions
EPA received considerable public comment about the general permits (issued on February 8,
1993) since public notice of the permits first appeared in July, 1992. A series of public
meetings were held in the States to be covered by the proposed permits, and public
comments were accepted by the Agency for at least six weeks. In fact, the public comment
period was extended in some areas, and public comments were still being received after the
formal comment period ended.
Some CAFO facilities—which will not be covered by the general permits at the discretion of
EPA or at an individual operator's request—will be required to obtain individual permits.
Prior to individual permit issuance, there will be a public comment period of at least 30 days.
4. Inspection Requirements
The NPDES general permits include no requirements or provisions for site inspections prior
to permit coverage for existing facilities. However, EPA does require that access to
permitted facilities be granted for inspections at reasonable times. Inspections will likely
result from reports of violations by operators, water quality problems, and complaints from
the general public.
Although there are no provisions for specific periodic (e.g., annual) inspections by EPA, one
of the permit requirements is that the operator conduct an annual inspection. This inspection
should verify that the description of potential pollutant sources is accurate, that the drainage
map kept on site reflects current conditions, and that the controls specified in the pollution
prevention plan are adequate. Records documenting the inspections and the findings must be
kept on site and made available upon request.
66
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
G. Washington
1. Unpermitted CAFO Identification
Under the proposed NPDES general permit program, all Washington commercial dairies that
meet the definition of a CAFO, directly discharge to ground water, or support more than 200
mature animals would be required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) requesting general
permit coverage. Those farms supporting less than 200 mature animals would be permitted if
a site inspection determines that they are a significant contributor of pollutants to surface or
ground water.
2. Screening Tools
WDE has developed a complaint-driven screening process to determine which dairies need
permit coverage. Five full-time Regional staff positions are dedicated to complaint response
activities. WDE receives 250 agricultural water quality complaints each year. The majority
of these complaints concern commercial dairy farms. In addition, ambient and intensive water
quality survey data, watershed plans, and other sources of information may trigger site
inspections without the receipt of a formal complaint.
Under a CWA Section 319 grant, Soil Conservation Service staff are completing a survey of
dairy farms in the State's most heavily dairied counties to assess farm-specific dairy
conservation planning and implementation. This screening mechanism is providing valuable
baseline data regarding dairy waste management.
3. Public Comment Provisions
Washington has received much public input since it began to develop the general permit.
Copies of the draft permit were sent to all commercial dairies in the State, along with meeting
announcements and other related information. Display ads published twice in nine
newspapers announced the public meetings which were held across the State. Five public
informational meetings concerning the draft permit were attended by 800 people, and the draft
permit was presented to the annual Washington State Dairy Federation conference. The
State revised the draft permit in response to the comments received at the public meetings
and submitted it to EPA for review. After EPA approval, the proposed NPDES general
permit had a formal 50-day public comment period from July 1, 1992 to August 19, 1992. An
announcement of the comment period and additional public hearings was sent to all 1,200
commercial dairy farmers, interested government agencies, Indian tribes, adjacent States, and
the Canadian province of British Columbia. A copy of the revised permit was mailed to all the
commercial dairy farmers and interested panics, and display ads were published twice in nine
newspapers across the State. Five formal public hearings were held to discuss the revised
permit, and based on the response, additional public hearings are scheduled for 1993.
67
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
4. Inspection Requirements
Currently, there is no scheduled inspection program for dairies using wastewater control
facilities. Under the proposed general permit, the inspection requirements would be site-
specific, based on the resources available to WDOE.
H. Wisconsin
1. Unpermitted CAFQ Identification
Because there are few large animal feeding operations in the State, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) does not have a formal process to identify
unpermitted CAFOs. DNR staff maintain an informal monitoring network with other State
and county agencies, university staff, and environmental consultants to keep up-to-date on
potential large operations. The WDNR staff also monitor local newspapers' announcements
of the construction of large livestock feeding operations. State permitting staff believe that all
operations with more than 1,000 AUs are covered by a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (WPDES) permit.
2. Screening Tools
WDNR does not use a formal screening tool to rank the environmental threat posed by an
animal feeding operation. The WPDES permitting program applies to any operation with
more than 1,000 AUs. WDNR has been able to issue permits to all livestock operations
meeting the size requirement because there are few large livestock operations in the State.
3. Public Comment Provisions
All WPDES permits are subject to a 30-day public notice period before issuance. A public
hearing will be scheduled if WDNR staff believe there is enough interest, or if at least five
people request a hearing during the public notice period. The public hearing is handled by
WDNR legal counsel, and any objections raised at the hearing are answered by the
permitting staff. If necessary, changes are made to the permit requirements in response to
concerns raised at the hearing.
68
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
4. Inspection Requirements
WDNR does require a site inspection before the construction of a CAFO can begin.
However, WPDES permits do not have inspection requirements, and WDNR does not have a
scheduled inspection program for CAFOs. CAFOs are inspected by a district investigator if
a complaint is registered, or at the discretion of the local USDA or county representative.
WDNR staff estimate that about 75 percent of the CAFOs holding WPDES permits are
inspected every year.
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
III. ENFORCEMENT
Authority to levy fines, procedures for identifying and correcting permit violations, and
penalties vary among the programs surveyed. This chapter addresses these general
enforcement issues.
A. Arkansas
1. Authority to Levy Fines
In accordance with the provisions of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act (Act
472 of 1949, as amended, ARK. Code Ann. 8-4-101 et seq.), and the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), NPDES-permitted CAFOs are prohibited from discharging
process wastewater. As specified in Arkansas's draft NPDES general permit (Pan III(B)),
criminal and/or civil penalties can be assessed against any person who violates any provision
of Act 472.
Section 8-4-103 (b) of Act 472 authorizes the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology (ADPCE) to institute civil actions to compel compliance with any rules, regulations,
orders, or permits associated with the Act. The ADPCE also has the authority to assess
civil penalties for each violation of the Act. Furthermore, the ADPCE is authorized to recover
payment to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission for any loss or destruction of wildlife,
fish, or other aquatic life.
2, Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations
The ADPCE primarily relies on scheduled inspections, complaints, property transfers, or fish
kill reports to identify violations of liquid animal waste management system permit
conditions. If an operator is found in violation of permit conditions, formal corrective actions
generally are initiated immediately. A warning letter is usually mailed to the operator. It
specifies a specific number of days in which the waste facility must be returned to compliance.
If the letter fails to produce satisfactory results, a fine will be levied and collected by the
Department. The ADPCE maintains an extensive "Enforcement Tracking List" that provides
information on facility permit numbers, types of violations, inspection dates, dates and types
of actions taken, operators' responses, and dates that the violations were resolved. The
November 1992 Enforcement Tracking List shows that actions for violations of Act 472 were
initiated against 59 facilities.
Besides levying fines, the ADPCE has instituted moratoriums on the issuance of new liquid
animal waste management system permits in certain watersheds until existing facilities
comply with permit conditions. The Department has also threatened to revoke livestock
operating permits and has notified contractors in attempts to remedy some permit violations.
70
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
3. Penalties
Part III(B) of Arkansas' draft NPDES general permit lists two types of penalties for
violations of permit conditions.
Criminal penalties of imprisonment for up to one year and/or a fine of $25,000 can be imposed
on anyone who violates any provision of Act 472 (misdemeanor). Imprisonment of up to 5
years and/or fines of up to $50,000 can be imposed on any person who knowingly violates any
provision of Act 472 thereby creating a substantial likelihood of adversely affecting human
health, animal or plant life, or property (felony). Any person found guilty of purposefully
causing pollution not permitted by law, and thereby placing another person in imminent
danger, is subject to imprisonment for up to 20 years and/or a fine of up to $250,000.
Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation can be assessed against any person violating
any provision of Act 472. The Department can also recover all costs, expenses, and damages
that any State agency may incur while enforcing the Act.
B. Indiana
1. Authority to Lew Fines
Indiana Code section 13-1-5.7 (6) gives the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) authority to impose penalties for violations of Chapter 5.7 (Confined
Feeding Control Law) of the Water Pollution Control Law. Formal enforcement actions are
administered through the court of competent jurisdiction by the IDEM enforcement section.
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations
To maintain compliance with the approval program, IDEM depends on operators to abide by
the terms of the approval letter they sign. If an operator violates the terms of the approval
letter or causes a discharge, IDEM depends on grassroots actions for enforcement. For
IDEM to identify a violation, a complaint must be registered by a neighbor or other affected
party. Complaints usually are received by the county board of health or county sanitarium,
who refer them to IDEM's central office. IDEM has even responded to a situation reported
by a television news crew covering a fish kill. To document a violation, IDEM staff refer the
complaint to the county sanitarium, the local conservation officer, or to the IDEM emergency
spill group, if appropriate. Once the problem is documented, the IDEM livestock program
staff become involved. IDEM staff report that in most cases a phone call will resolve the
problem. Sometimes, however, a site inspection is warranted and may result in restrictions
being placed on the operation of the facility. If a second inspection reveals that the violation
is continuing, stronger enforcement actions follow.
71
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
In general, the IDEM grants amnesty to existing operations that voluntarily come under the
approval program and to unapproved, existing operations identified by unannounced site
inspections. However, in the case of a water quality violation, enforcement begins
immediately for the violation and for the lack of an approval letter. IDEM has also taken
actions to prevent the construction of facilities that are proceeding without State approval.
3. Penalties
Indiana Code section 13-7-13 specifies civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for any
violations of the provisions of the Environmental Management Act. Anyone who
intentionally or negligently violates the Act commits a Class D felony, which is punishable by
a fine of between $2,500 and $25,000 a day. A subsequent conviction for negligent violation
carries a maximum fine of $50,000 per day of violation. Any person who makes a false
statement on an application or report, or who tampers with a monitoring device, is subject to
a fine of up to $10,000. In 1992, two operations were fined $18,000 each. IDEM staff believe
that four well-publicized enforcement actions per year (one in each corner of the State) are
effective in encouraging widespread compliance.
C. Iowa
1. Authority to Levy Fines
Iowa Code section 455B.109 authorizes the assessment of administrative penalties for minor
violations of the Iowa Environmental Quality Act or any rules, orders, or permits issued
pursuant to it. The administrative penalties are processed through the legal services division
of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). In addition, IDNR may ask the
attorney general to institute legal proceedings to enforce the civil penalty provisions provided
in the water quality section of the Iowa Environmental Quality Act (1C 455B.191). The
attorney general also may take independent legal action for violations of State water quality
standards.
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correctine Violations
Because of staff shortages, there is no scheduled inspection program for CAFOs in Iowa.
Operations holding NPDES permits are inspected every five years when the permit is
renewed, but other operations are inspected only as a result of complaints or water quality
violations. The IDNR receives about 450 complaints a year relating to animal feeding
operations; they are investigated by IDNR staff located in six field offices or by county
sanitariums. The IDNR's small field staff, which is responsible for all environmental
72
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
programs limits, the number of successful actions that are brought for animal waste rule
violations.
3. Penalties
The IDNR can levy administrative penalties of up to $10,000 a day for minor violations of
livestock wastewater permit provisions. IDNR staff report that assessing even a small
administrative penalty is very effective in bringing an operation into compliance. Civil
penalties of up to $5,000 a day may be levied for permit violations. In the case of a violation
caused by negligence, the maximum penalty is $25,000 for each day of violation and/or
imprisonment for one year. The maximum penalty for a subsequent conviction of negligent
violation is $50,000 per day of violation and/or two years imprisonment. In addition, the
fisheries bureau may also issue a fine if a discharge causes a fish kill.
D. Kansas
1. Authority to Levy Fines
Under the Kansas Wastewater Discharge Control Law section 65-170, it is the duty of the
director of the Division of Environment within the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) to investigate and report all matters relating to the pollution of the
waters of the State that come before the Secretary of Health and Environment for
investigation or action. Suits under the provisions of the Kansas Wastewater Discharge
Control Law are brought by the attorney general.
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations
Agricultural waste unit employees generally rely on staff visits, complaints, and property
transfers to identify livestock facilities that are violating waste control permit conditions.
While the Department can initiate investigations and report permit violations to the State
attorney general, officials prefer to work with the livestock operators to resolve problems. In
many cases, fines levied for noncompliance leave the operator with little money to correct the
problem.
73
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
3. Penalties
Under the Kansas Wastewater Discharge Control Law (Section 65-167), penalties of not
less than $2,500 and not more than $25,000 will be assessed against anyone convicted of
willfully or negligently discharging sewage 2 into any waters of the State without a permit.
Any person found guilty of knowingly making a false statement, representation, or
certification in any document filed or required to be maintained under the provisions of K.S.A.
65-161 to 65-17 Ih, will be fined between $25 and $10,000.
Civil penalties of up to $10,000, in addition to any other penalties provided by law, can also be
levied for violating the following:
• Sewage discharge permits,
• Effluent or water quality standards,
• Filing requirements,
• Reporting, inspection, or monitoring requirements, or
• Orders or requirements from the secretary of health and environment.
Every day a violation continues is considered a separate violation carrying a maximum
penalty of 510,000.
E. Nebraska
1. Authority to Levy Fines
Chapter 15 of the Nebraska Livestock Waste Control Regulations specifies that failure to
comply with livestock waste control regulations may be grounds for enforcement proceedings
or injunctive relief by the county attorney or State attorney general. According to Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) officials, the State attorney general's office
has a staff member assigned to pursue cases at the State or county levels for the
Department.
§65-164(b) Defines "sewage" as any substance thai contains any of [he waste products or excrementitious
or other discharges from the bodies of human beings or animals, or chemical or other wastes from
domestic, manufacturing or other forms of industry.
74
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Fee dipt Workgroup
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations
The NDEQ relies primarily on complaints and fish kill reports to identify livestock facilities
that are violating their waste control permits. Operators of livestock facilities that violate
their permits are usually first sent a letter of warning, in which they are asked to remedy the
violation(s) and resubmit waste management plans for review. In most instances, this is all
that is necessary to return permitted livestock facilities to compliance. However, if these
measures do not work, the problem is turned over to the attorney general's staff for
enforcement action.
Under State Title 130, the NDEQ may also revoke, modify, or suspend construction permits
for any of the following:
• Allowing a discharge of livestock wastes into waters of the State, unless NPDES
permitted;
• Violation of State surface water quality or ground water quality standards;
• Obtaining approval by misrepresentation or failure to disclose all relevant facts;
• Refusal to allow the NDEQ access to the livestock waste control facility or to sample
waste sources or surface or ground water; or
• Failure to operate and maintain facility as specified in permit.
3. Penalties
Specific monetary penalties are not addressed in Nebraska's Livestock Waste Control
Regulations, Ground Water Protection Act, or NPDES Permit Regulations. Nebraska's
NPDES permit conditions specify that the failure to comply with permit requirements may be
grounds for administrative action, or enforcement proceedings including injunctive relief.
Furthermore, permittees who violate any terms or conditions of their permit or obtain their
permits by misrepresentation may have their permits modified, revoked and reissued, or
terminated.
F. Region VI
1. Authority to Levy Fines
The authority to pursue civil and criminal enforcement actions, including levying fines against
operators who violate their permits, is granted under Section 309 of the CWA. Section 309
provides authority for both civil and criminal actions against operators violating the provisions
of their permits.
75
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations
Permit violations will likely be brought to EPA's attention primarily by operators, public
complaints, and instances of water quality degradation. Region VI has no specific plans for
routine inspections to identify violations, although such plans could be developed in the
future.
3. Penalties
The CWA provides that any facility operator who willfully or negligently violates permit
conditions or limitations is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000 per
day of violation and/or by imprisonment for not more than one year. The Act also provides
that an operator who knowingly makes any false statements or representations in any record,
report, or other document, may be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation
and/or by imprisonment for not more than six months.
G. Washington
1. Authority to Levy Fines
Washington's Water Pollution Control Law (Chapter 90.48 RCW) authorizes the
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) to enforce the State and federal water pollution
control laws, with the assistance of the State attorney general. WDOE can issue notices of
violations and administrative orders and can assess civil penalties for violation of Chapter
90.48 RCW or regulations or orders issued under its authority. This same authority will be
utilized to require compliance schedules under the general permit and to levy fines under
Washington's proposed NPDES general permit program.
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations
The process of identifying violations under the proposed general permit program will be
largely complaint-driven. The method for undertaking formal and informal enforcement
actions will follow WDOE's standard enforcement procedures. Formal enforcement actions
are undertaken if voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, or if the violation was significant.
Formal enforcement responses may include a notice of violation (NOV), administrative order,
civil penalty, resource damage assessment, and referral for court action. Other innovative
approaches, such as mediation, environmental audits, mandatory education, consent orders or
decrees, and compensatory actions may be applied when appropriate. WDOE favors informal
76
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
enforcement in cases of insignificant or infrequent violations. Informal enforcement actions
are intended to bring voluntary compliance within a certain period. Formal and informal
enforcement actions involving dairy farms have increased significantly since Regional dairy
waste inspector positions were created in 1989.
Under the current Agricultural Compliance Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) program,
violations are identified by site investigations following complaints. If a violation of the State
Water Pollution Control Act occurs, dairy operators are given an opportunity to return to
compliance. Once the violation is confirmed by WDOE, the operator is referred to the local
conservation district to develop a comprehensive conservation plan. The operator is given six
months to develop the plan and 18 additional months to implement it to correct the problem.
If the situation is critical, or if cooperation ceases, WDOE investigates the circumstances and
initiates appropriate formal enforcement actions.
3. Penalties
Violation of any provision of the Water Pollution Control Law (RCW 90.48) or any provision
of a regulation or administrative order issued pursuant to RCW 90.48 can result in civil
penalties of up to $10,000 a day (90.48.144 RCW). The minimum civil penalty that can be
assessed is $250, and additional assessments (RCW 90.48.142) can be made for quantifiable
damages to public resources (e.g., fish kills). In 1992, 14 dairy farms were subject to formal
enforcement action. Eighteen individual actions were taken including issuance of seven
Notices of Violation, four Administrative Orders, and seven penalties totaling $20,000.
If a violation relates to discharges from agricultural activities on agricultural land, WDOE
must consider whether the enforcement action will contribute to the conversion of the land to
non-agricultural uses. The Water Pollution Control Law (RCW 90.480.450) provides that the
conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses must be minimized.
H. Wisconsin
1. Authority to Levy Fines
Chapter 147.21 of the Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination Law authorizes the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to initiate civil actions for a violation
of the Law, any rule promulgated under the Law, or any term or condition of a WPDES permit
issued under the Law. A person who knowingly makes a false representation in an
application or report required by a WPDES permit, or who tampers with a monitoring device
can face a fine and a prison term of up to six months. WDNR also can assess a penalty to
cover the costs of investigating a violation which results in a civil penalty.
77
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
2. Procedures for Identifying and Correcting Violations
The process of identifying and correcting violations in Wisconsin is somewhat cumbersome.
First, a complaint is registered with the WDNR. The complaint may be filed by anyone
except the livestock permitting officials, including other WDNR staff. The complaint is then
investigated by a field investigator from the district office, by a local USDA staff member (Soil
Conservation Service, County Extension), or by the county sanitarium. If a high potential for
discharge exists, a letter of warning is issued and the operation is monitored. If a discharge
can be documented, the WDNR will issue a notice of discharge (NOD), which allows the
operator from 60 days to two years to correct the problem. If the NOD expires and no effort
has been made to resolve the problem, the WDNR will issue a short-term (usually six-
month) WPDES permit that contains a strict compliance schedule with a timetable. If the
operator has not met the compliance schedule at the expiration of the WPDES permit, the
WDNR can turn the matter over to the Department of Justice. Several cases are pending, but
because of the length of time needed to complete the process, no fines have been collected for
permit violations. (The WDNR keeps an extensive record of all complaints, including the
eventual resolution of the complaint.)
3. Penalties
Fines for violating the conditions of a WPDES permit range up to $10,000 a day. If the
violation is willful or negligent, the maximum penalty is 525,000 a day and can include up to
six months imprisonment. After the first conviction, the maximum fine for a willful or
negligent violation is $50,000 a day and/or one year imprisonment. The fine for making a false
statement in an application for a WPDES permit, or in any report required by a permit, ranges
from $10 to $10,000. The same fine applies to a person who tampers with a monitoring
device required by a WPDES permit.
The animal waste control regulations also make provisions for assessing fines for discharging
without a permit. A fine may be levied immediately if the discharge was deliberate, if the
operation had been issued a NOD and another flagrant violation occurs, or if there is a fish
kill. In the case of a fish kill, the livestock operator can also be required to pay clean-up
costs. WDNR staff estimate that fewer than five operations a year are fined.
78
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
IV. PROGRAM COSTS AND BENEFITS
Estimating livestock waste management program costs and benefits is difficult because of a
lack of data. In general, the permitting agencies surveyed indicated that programs are largely
underfunded, but they could not provide information about the resources necessary to improve
administration of the permitting programs. Furthermore, there is little data regarding
improvements in water quality resulting from livestock waste management programs.
Consequently, much of this chapter's discussion of costs and benefits is qualitative in nature.
Topics covered include: estimated FTEs required, cost-share funding issues, farmer-incurred
costs, general versus individual permits, and interagency coordination.
A. Arkansas
1. Estimated FTEs Required
Officials of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE) found it
difficult to estimate how many FTEs they would need to run the livestock waste control
permitting program most effectively. Arkansas has only 2.5 FTEs to review plans, write
permits, and enforce permit conditions.
Staff report that they spend a significant portion of their time in public hearings and receiving
complaints about odors from livestock operations (although they have no authority to deny
permits on the basis of odor alone).
2, Cost-Share Funding Issues
The USDA's Agricultural Conservation Program 1991 Fiscal Year Statistical Summary
shows that $422,705 was awarded to 109 Arkansas farms for agricultural waste control
facilities, an average cost-share of $3,878 per operation. Arkansas permitting staff report
that, to their knowledge, only small dairy operations use USDA's Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP) waste management cost-share funding. Apparently, dairy operators
historically have had strong participation in the ACP's cost-share funding. This was also the
case in several other surveyed States. ASCS, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and State
permitting staff believe that dairy industry efforts to increase farmers' awareness of ACP
funding has been a primary reason for this strong participation.
USDA has a national policy entitled "Involuntary Performance of ACP Practices Policy", that
was issued on February 1, 1991. This policy prohibits agricultural operators from receiving
ACP funds when the installation of a practice (i.e., wastewater control facility) is required on
an involuntary basis. An example of an involuntary practice is when a regulatory agency
notifies the producer in writing that a specific action, such as a fine, will be taken. Thus,
79
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
livestock operators are not eligible for ACP funds if a specific written enforcement order has
been issued. This applies equally to all States.
3. Farmer Incurred Costs
Under the draft general permit, Arkansas farmers can expect to incur various expenses
associated with recordkeeping and reporting, developing their pollution prevention plans,
monitoring and reporting, and permit fees. While some of these expenses are likely to be
relatively significant, quantitative estimates are not available.
The draft general permit requires that the following records be maintained at the facility and
made available upon request: calculations required for land application rates and retention
capacity, date log indicating monthly inspection of retention facility, date log indicating weekly
inspections of wastewater level in retention facility (freeboard), and date log of waste
removal from the facility including date of removal, name of hauler, and the dry tons removed.
Additional reporting provisions in the draft general permit require that waste and/or
wastewater applied to the land must be analyzed for pH, ammonium nitrogen, potassium,
total nitrogen, phosphorus, and percent solids at least once a year. Samples of the soil to
receive waste and/or wastewater must also be analyzed annually for pH, phosphorus,
potassium, and nitrates. Results of the waste and soil analyses, the locations of land
applications, volumes and nitrogen applications rates for the previous year, methods of land
application, and types of crops grown on each application site also must be submitted to the
ADPCE yearly.
Farmers also will incur costs to develop pollution prevention plans. Under the draft general
permit, a facility operator must develop and implement a pollution prevention plan within one
year after the effective date of the permit. The following specific requirements must be
addressed in the plan:
• Pollutant Source Identification. A site or topographic map outlining the drainage
area of the CAFO, each existing pollution control structure, all surface waters, a list
of significant spills or leaks of toxic pollutants, and all existing discharge data must
be supplied;
• Wastewater Management Controls. Documentation supporting the management
controls used to contain wastewaters and storm waters, logs of quarterly structural
control inspections, construction criteria for all retention facility embankments,
compaction test certification by a registered professional engineer, a dewatering
schedule, and a log of all measurable rain events must be provided;
• Liner Requirement. Documentation that no hydrologic connection exists between
ground water and contained wastes must be provided or a liner must be installed.
Documentation must be certified by a professional engineer or qualified ground water
professional;
80
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
• Preventive Maintenance. A schedule to ensure compliance with conditions of the
general permit is required. Involves inspection and maintenance of all management
devices, as well as inspecting and testing equipment and systems;
• Sediment and Erosion Prevention. The plan must identify areas that have a high
potential for significant soil erosion and must identify measures to limit erosion; and
• Employee Training. Training dates must be identified in the plan. In addition to the
training requirements contained in ADPCE Regulation No. 5, employees will be
instructed on the components and goals of the pollution prevention plan.
Finally, under Arkansas's draft NPDES general permit for CAFOs, operators will be
responsible for the annual permit fee of $200 which must be remitted to the ADPCE along
with of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to be covered by the general permit.
4. General Versus Individual Permits
Although Arkansas has not implemented the NPDES program for confined animal facilities,
the State has received authority to administer the NPDES program, including the issuance of
general permits to all categories of dischargers. ADPCE staff believe that one of the greatest
advantages of a general permit is the time that will be saved issuing a general permit instead
of individual permits. The current State permitting program requires individual permits to be
issued to confined animal facilities with liquid waste management systems—a time-intensive
process. (See Chapter II, "Arkansas' Inspection Requirements" for the steps involved in the
individual facility permitting process.) Under the NPDES program, the Department may
issue a single general permit to a category of point sources located within a geographic area
where discharges warrant similar pollution control measures.
5. Interagcncv Coordination
Interagency coordination is crucial to ensure that the technical requirements of a liquid waste
management system permit are met. With many permit applications, the ADPCE works
closely with the SCS and the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation District (AS&WCD) to
fulfill the requirements of the permitting process.
The ADPCE requires that designs and waste management plans meet SCS technical
specifications. Permit components that must conform to SCS specifications include the timing
of the land application of wastes, liner requirements, and measures to minimize off-site
offensive odors. Livestock facility operators must have all construction plans, specifications,
and design calculations signed and approved by a State registered professional engineer or an
SCS engineer. Management plans also must be signed and approved by the SCS, a State
registered professional engineer, or an AS&WCD water quality technician.
81
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
B. Indiana
1. Estimated FTEs Required
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) staff say they would need an
additional six to seven FTEs to operate the State approval program effectively. The program
would be structured with three to four environmental scientists to perform first-stage plan
review and on-site inspections, and to pursue enforcement actions. One environmental
manager would manage the environmental scientists and do the final plan review and permit
issuance, while a senior environmental manager would manage the entire program and would
be responsible for maintaining the extensive publicity campaign.
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues
Cost sharing funds are available from the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service's (ASCS) Agricultural Conservation Program. In 1991, 33 participants received a
total of $130,456 for the construction or improvement of agricultural waste control facilities.
Technical assistance to design wastewater control facilities is available from the SCS. In
addition, grants are available to producers through Purdue University to study specific
wastewater control alternatives. IDEM staff report that SCS and ASCS assistance is most
effective for existing facilities that need to upgrade wastewater control facilities. IDEM staff
believe that the cost of coming into compliance is the major barrier for operators of existing
facilities that have not yet obtained State approval.
3. Farmer Incurred Costs
No permit fees are associated with the Indiana confined feeding operation approval program.
The State program has no recordkeeping, monitoring, or reporting requirements, so operators
will not incur any direct costs in participating in the confined feeding operation approval
program. The State program applies mainly to new facilities, so the only cost a farmer would
incur would be the cost of building a facility that does not discharge instead of building one
that does. IDEM staff report that intensifying industry competition is requiring operators to
manage waste efficiently, so non-regulatory factors are causing facilities to be constructed
and operated in a manner consistent with livestock waste regulations.
4. General Versus Individual Permits
Although Indiana has general permit authority, IDEM would issue individual NPDES permits
to any confined feeding operation that meets the definition of a CAFO. Because the State's
82
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
approval program requires inspections and approvals for new facilities, IDEM staff believe
there would be little advantage to covering the operations with a general permit.
5. Interagencv Coordination
The program now relies on county sanitariums or SCS staff to respond to complaints, even
though they are not trained to inspect livestock feeding facilities. Complaints usually are
received by the county board of health or the county sanitarium and are referred to the IDEM
central office. IDEM staff refer the complaint to the county sanitarium, the local conservation
officer, or to the IDEM emergency spill group, if documentation is appropriate.
C. Iowa
1. Estimated FTEs Required
The primary limitation of the State livestock permitting program is a lack of staffing.
However, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) staff were not willing to estimate
the number of additional FTEs necessary to operate the current program at a reasonable
level, because they believe it is unreasonable to expect an increase in resources for staffing.
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues
Cost-sharing funds are available to build wastewater control facilities through the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service's (ASCS'S) Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP). The program will cover 50 percent of the cost of approved materials and
operations, subject to the approval of the county ASCS board. In 1991, 19 participants
received $82,148 under both annual and long-term programs for the construction of animal
waste control facilities.
Cost-share funds are also available from the State Water Protection Fund, administered by
the Soil Conservation Division of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship.
The Division uses its portion of the lottery-funded Resource Enhancement And Protection
(REAP) money for projects to improve the State's water quality. The REAP program began
in FY 1990 as a 10-year program, with initial funding of $20 million which was expected to
increase to $30 million. Instead, the level of funding has decreased to $10.6 million in FY
1993, and will decrease further to $7 million in FY 1994. The Soil Conservation Division's 20
percent share of REAP money is distributed through the 100 local soil and water conservation
districts, which received about $5,000 each in FY 1993. The money is used for a variety of
programs at the discretion of the local board, but because of the low level of funding and the
high cost of animal waste control facilities, relatively little is available for livestock operators.
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Last year, only 5 to 7 projects received any funds. Funds are available to pay for 50 percent
of the cost of projects to correct animal waste (solid, liquid, and runoff) problems at existing
facilities. No funds are available to purchase equipment, or to expand existing operations.
IDNR officials believe that more operations could participate in programs if the funds were
restricted to the lowest-cost projects and practices. Any costs above the most basic design
would be borne by the operator. Staff maintain that cost-share funds should be available only
for the most cost-effective designs and practices. Because new livestock feeding operations
generally incorporate adequate wastewater control measures in the overall design, cost-
share funds are most effective if used only to upgrade existing facilities.
3. Farmer-Incurred Costs
No permit or application fees are associated with the State construction, operating or NPDES
permits. Costs directly associated with the livestock permitting program are for record-
keeping, monitoring and reporting, and the expense of building or renovating a livestock
operation to conform to permit conditions. However, the entire cost of achieving compliance
at an operation cannot be attributed to the permitting program. IDNR staff maintain that the
industry trend towards larger, more efficient operations is causing livestock waste
management practices to become more advanced. Facilities are gradually coming into
compliance with the State livestock waste regulations as a matter of survival, and not as part
of an attempt to conform to permit conditions.
4. General Versus Individual Permits
Iowa has no general permit for animal feeding operations. Because Iowa's animal feeding
regulation includes enforceable minimum waste control requirements for all confined livestock
operations, IDNR staff see no value in covering a number of operations (non-discharging by
definition) with a general permit.
5. Intcragcncv Coordination
The IDNR has provided Section 319 funds to enable the SCS to upgrade its policies and
procedures for assisting operators in developing wastewater control facilities and to train
field engineers and technicians working on animal waste control facilities. Currently, the SCS
is only minimally involved in designing livestock wastewater control facilities, and its
expertise in livestock waste control system design has decreased. The aim of the training
program is to increase the proficiency of SCS technicians so that they can more efficiently
develop plans for animal waste control. IDNR staff believe this upgrade in training can be
very effective in controlling animal waste discharges.
84
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
The IDNR is also working with other agencies and producer groups on a variety of projects
designed to inform and educate livestock producers on proper animal waste management
practices. Section 319 funds have been provided to ISU Extension to establish a statewide
network of farms on which different waste management systems for open feedlots can be
observed, and Section 319 funds are also being used to support a county-wide livestock
management program in Carroll County. In addition, various State and federal agencies and
livestock producer groups are cooperating with IDNR to distribute a booklet explaining
Iowa's animal waste control regulations, and many of these same groups will participate in a
series of six regional waste management meetings for pork producers later in 1993.
IDNR staff believe greater success can be achieved by coordinating their efforts with other
programs and producer groups to increase the environmental responsibility of animal feeding
operations rather than by making the permitting requirements more stringent. IDNR staff are
focusing on providing environmental protection with fewer resources, because they believe
that there will be no increase in resources for the program in the future.
D. Kansas
1. Estimated FTEs Required
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) officials report several weaknesses
in the Kansas permitting program, however, the primary weakness is the lack of sufficient
staff in the animal waste unit and in the legal (enforcement) system. Because of the lack of
adequate permitting staff, there is a four- to five-month backlog of new permit applications
awaiting processing. Staff also indicated that rapidly changing livestock inventories, in
addition to changes in feedlot sizes in response to differing economic conditions and personal
situations, make it difficult to keep up-to-date on facility statistics in Kansas.
Officials in the agricultural waste unit would like to have three more FTEs, for a total of 12, to
run the animal waste control program properly. Kansas staff prefer to work on an active,
rather than on a reactive, basis (i.e., they want to educate feedlot operators on how to install
proper waste control systems before construction, instead of policing their insufficient waste
control systems after construction). With additional staff, officials believe the program could
be more active and could focus on education and program upgrades. The permitting staff
believes that education should be an important part of the permitting system.
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues
A total of $9,327 in cost-share funding was awarded to seven participants for wastewater
control systems in 1991. Despite this relatively low funding level, ASCS representatives
believe that more than half of all Kansas livestock producers participate in the ACP program
at one time or another. Besides additional funding. State permitting officials feel that making
85
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot 'Workgroup
grass filters eligible for cost-share grants, especially for small operations, would make the
ACP cost-share program more effective.
Additional cost-share funding is available from the State Conservation Commission, which
administers two programs: the State Water Resources Cost Share Program and a non-point
source pollution control fund.
3. Farmer-Incurred Costs
The KDHE bases livestock waste control permitting fees on the size and type of the
livestock operation. Annual permit fees for confined animal feeding operations in Kansas are:
• Cattle, hogs, and sheep
- - < 1,000 head, no fee
-- 1,000 to 4,999 head, $30
- - 5,000 to 9,999 head, $75
- - 10,000 head and over, $150
• Dai ry
- - < 500 cows, no fee
- - 500 cows and over, $30
• Poultry
- - < 10,000 fowl, no fee
-- 10,000 to 49,999, $30
- - 50,000 to 99,999, $75
- - 100,000 fowl and over, $ 150
Besides the annual permit fees, the livestock facility operator is responsible for all expenses
associated with the permitting process's 30-day public notice period.
4. General Versus Individual Permits
Kansas permitting officials believe that implementing a general permit program would be
difficult because of the State's emphasis on site-specific plan review and control measures.
Furthermore, they do not believe that a general permit would save time since permit issuance
is the last step in the permitting process and is a minor part of the States' overall waste
management program.
However, the State's current method of permitting individual livestock facilities is not without
faults. Officials told interviewers that an individual State permit requires a minimum of 27
hours of staff time to process. Ordinary delays can increase the processing time to three
months (not including 30-day public comment period) once the waste management plans
86
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
have been prepared. This estimate assumes that there are no complications in the permitting
process, so it is possible that the process could take even longer for some applicants.
5. Interagencv Coordination
Besides the KDHE, at least two other State agencies regulate livestock operations in
Kansas. The Animal Health Department provides operating licenses to feedlots with over
1,000 AUs, and the State Board of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, issues water
appropriation permits for facilities with over 1,000 head and construction permits for
impoundments with capacities greater than 30 acre-feet.
In 1991, the SCS provided some degree of technical assistance for 200 animal waste control
plans. Of these 200, approximately 125 were developed into final plans that year. Final
plans include construction drawings and specifications, operation and maintenance plans, and
waste utilization plans. The SCS engineering staff develops the majority of the plans
submitted to KDHE for approval. Both KDHE and SCS field personnel attempt to coordinate
site visits, and technical issues are frequently discussed by the two agencies at the State
level. The department does not require that plans be developed by the SCS, but KDHE does
encourage producers to obtain technical assistance from the SCS, the Cooperative Extension
Service, or qualified engineers and consultants.
E. Nebraska
1. Estimated FTEs Required
Nebraska permitting staff do not know how many FTEs would be necessary to run the
State's livestock waste permitting program most effectively. The director of the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) recently combined the industrial waste
permitting program with the agricultural waste permitting program and reduced the number of
FTEs devoted to the agricultural program from 4.5 to 2.5. At a minimum, agricultural staff
would like to have 2 additional FTEs to inspect waste control systems.
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues
In 1991, 17 participants received an average of $2,300 each in cost-share funds (539,100
total) to help with the construction of animal wastewater control systems. Funds to build or
operate livestock wastewater control facilities may also be available from the States' 23
Natural Resource Districts (NRDs). Decisions to provide cost-sharing funds for livestock
waste control facilities are made case-by-case at the NRD level and must be justified by
water quality concerns.
87
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
State permitting officials report that a large portion of the livestock feeding operations in
Nebraska cover more than 10 acres or have complex designs, making them ineligible for SCS
technical assistance. They believe that a federally funded program is needed to help
operators of large CAFOs develop sufficient livestock waste control systems.
3. Farmer Incurred Costs
The NDEQ does not charge an initial application fee, and it does not charge annual,
modification, or ownership transfer fees for NPDES permits. There is also no fee associated
with the State-issued livestock waste control system construction permit.
4. General Versus Individual Permits
As discussed in Chapter I, the NDEQ has NPDES general permit authority, but has not
implemented this program for agricultural waste control. Because livestock operations with
waste control systems must be inspected and must obtain State construction permits,
Department officials do not believe that there are significant benefits to a general permit. In
Nebraska, individual NPDES permits for animal waste control systems are a relatively minor
pan of the State's total permitting program.
5. Interagencv Coordination
The Nebraska livestock waste control construction permit requires coordination between the
NDEQ and at least two other State agencies. The waste control facility must be designed by
the SCS (or other qualified persons) in compliance with minimum design requirements set
forth in Title 130 "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Livestock Waste Control."
Information gathered in the pre-construction, on-site inspection by NDEQ staff is shared
with SCS engineers for use in the design process. The agencies generally cooperate at other
points throughout the construction permitting process.
The Nebraska Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Dairies and Foods is also involved in
the permitting process. Title 130 requires dairy operators to have the location of their
proposed waste facility reviewed by the Bureau. Bureau approval must be noted on the
construction application form that is submitted to the NDEQ.
88
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
F. Region VI
1. Estimated FTEs Required
Estimates of the number of FTEs that would be necessary to administer the program are not
available, although Region VI personnel believe that one to two FTEs may be committed to
the program. The adequacy of this potential commitment of staff is unclear. It depends in part
on the number of potential violations (and associated inspection and enforcement
requirements) that will be incurred by the estimated 1,000 facilities that may be covered by
the general permits.
2. Farmer Incurred Costs
CAFO operators will incur a variety of reporting, recordkeeping, training, and monitoring
costs associated with the provisions of the general permits. The cost of developing a
pollution prevention plan will include expenses for various recordkeeping requirements such
as developing a description of potential pollution sources, preparing and updating a site
topographical map, and describing the waste management controls implemented at a facility.
Facility operators must also develop and update documentation regarding all calculations
used to support the design, construction, and sizing of waste control facilities. Operators
must have, in lieu of liners to ensure that there are no discharges to ground water, a study
completed by a qualified ground-water scientist indicating that there is no hydrological
connection between the waste storage facilities and surface water. Operators also will incur
costs to develop plans for waste handling and land application of CAFO wastes, a preventive
maintenance plan and plans for spill prevention and response procedures.
Besides the required documents associated with the pollution prevention plans, on-going
operating costs will be incurred, including employee training. Periodic site inspections also
must be conducted by designated facility personnel, who must complete reports for every
inspection. For any discharges, operators are required to maintain rainfall records and have
discharge constituents analyzed. Such discharges must be tested for fecal coliform bacteria,
biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, and pesticides which the operator has
reason to believe could be in the discharge. Finally, operators must keep records indicating
that the land application of wastes is made in accordance with permit provisions.
3. General Versus Individual Permits
Region VI anticipates that costs to farmers will not differ significantly between general and
individual permits because the requirements are essentially the same for both types.
However, the Agency is expected to incur lower costs with the general permits. Developing
individual permits is very resource intensive, and use of a general permit is expected to
89
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
reduce overall administrative burdens. Significant cost savings are expected in permit
development and review, adhering to public notice requirements, and permit issuance.
4. Interagencv Coordination
Developing the general permits has required substantial interagency coordination. USDA
personnel have assisted with defining siting requirements and reasonable technical and
operation requirements. Facility operators will likely require on-going assistance from
USDA personnel in developing pollution prevention plans to meet SCS standards for their
waste management facilities.
The Agency also coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in developing the
general permits. As a result, requirements to mitigate potential harm to endangered species
and migratory birds are included. The Agency also will report to the Fish and Wildlife Service
any fish kills resulting from facility discharges.
G. Washington
1. Estimated FTEs Required
The major problem facing the dairy waste control program is a lack of staffing. Washington
Department of Ecology (WDOE) officials estimate that the regional staff could be doubled
from the current 4.5 FTEs to 9 FTEs. This would allow WDOE to more effectively operate
the present Agricultural Compliance Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) program and handle
the additional workload associated with the proposed general permit program.
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues
Cost-sharing funds are available to Washington dairy farmers from several sources. WDOE
administers the Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF), which provides at least $4.5 million
annually for all types of nonpoint source projects, including dairy waste. The funds pay for
technical assistance and education. In addition, 50 to 75 percent cost-share grants may be
awarded from the CCWF for agricultural best management practices (BMPs), including
waste storage lagoons. Applications for cost-share funds to implement agricultural BMPs
are based on a water quality management plan that is approved by WDOE. The plan must
include a characterization of the watershed that describes the beneficial water uses, water
quality trends, biological assessments, etc.
WDOE also administers the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program which provides
approximately S4.5 million annually for all categories of non-point source projects, including
90
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
dairy waste management. These funds are available for government agencies to provide as
loans for the implementation of agricultural BMPs, including waste storage lagoons.
Both the CCWF and SRF are awarded on a competitive basis (i.e., dairy wastewater quality
projects must compete with other projects for funds). Since 1989, a total of $2.6 million
CCWF and SRF funds have been awarded for dairy waste management projects. Of this
total, approximately 1 million in SRF funds have been awarded to implement dairy waste
BMPs.
Three million in State Referendum 39 monies was recently made available to the Washington
Conservation Commission for disbursement to local Conservation Districts to augment
existing dairy waste management programs. The distribution and exact use of these funds
has not yet been determined.
3. Farmer Incurred Costs
Under the proposed general permit program, Washington dairy farmers will incur several
types of costs including permit fees, monitoring and reporting costs, and the costs of
achieving compliance. By State law (RCW 90.48.465), the fees collected for permits must
cover the costs of administering the permitting program. The current annual fees for dairies,
established by WAC Chapter 173-221 A, range from $100 to $1,000 per year, based on the
size of the dairy. The fees proposed under the NPDES general permit would be reduced by
30 percent to reflect the lower cost of administering a general permit program. Based on 1991
dairy farm herd size data, WDOE estimated the annual permit revenues would total
$198,940. The table below shows the sources of those revenues.
Dairy Herd Size
0- 199
200 - 399
400 - 599
600 - 799
above 800
Totals
Number of Farms
922
304
82
56
33
1,397
Fee
$70
5175
5350
5525
5700
—
Annual Revenue
$64,540
$53,200
$28,700
$29,400
$23,100
$198,940
This estimate assumes that all Washington dairy farms will be covered by the general permit,
but at this point it seems likely that most dairies will not be covered by the general permit. If
that becomes true, WDOE staff believe that the proposed permit fees will have to be
increased to cover the cost of the general permit program.
Washington has reduced the monitoring and reporting requirements of the proposed general
permit in response to industry concerns. The permit will be revised prior to additional public
review. Under the original draft, the operator was required to record the application rate of
wastewater and solids, an estimate of the crop nitrogen needs, the soil nitrogen content, and
the names of those who accept animal waste from the dairy. The annual recordkeeping
91
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
requirements are limited to facility identification information and summaries of system upsets,
failures, and discharges. Written reports must be submitted to WDOE within five days of a
discharge and must describe the volume and duration of the discharge, the receiving water
body, and any steps taken to correct the problem that caused the discharge.
A preliminary draft Small Business Economic Impact Statement (SBEIS) estimated the
potential economic impact to dairy farms of various herd sizes in both eastern and western
Washington. The cost estimates ranged from about S5/cow/year for a farm currently in
compliance to about $100/cow/year for an operation totally out of compliance. The WDOE is
revising the estimates of compliance costs with assistance from the Dairy Federation, the
SCS, and the permit Advisory Committee.
4. General Versus Individual Permits
WDOE officials initially estimated that the cost of administering a general permit program
will be about 30 percent lower than the cost of administering a program using only individual
NPDES permits. The initial estimate assumed that most dairies would be covered by the
general permit. However, because changes in the proposed program will reduce the number
of dairies covered by the general permit, the WDOE expects that the cost to operators will be
higher. Administering the general permit program will still be cheaper than administering an
individual permit program, but the cost will be borne by fewer operators.
5. Intcragency Coordination
Depending on the final configuration of the general permit program, WDOE may continue to
coordinate with the Washington Conservation Commission on compliance and enforcement
actions. Under the current MO A program, dairy operators causing water quality violations
are referred to local conservation districts to develop comprehensive conservation plans. The
operators initially are given two years to voluntarily implement the conservation plans in
order to achieve compliance. If cooperation ceases at any point, WDOE initiates formal
enforcement, if appropriate, to achieve compliance. This arrangement with the Conservation
Commission would continue under the Washington State Dairy Federation proposal for
implementing the general permit program. On the other hand, WDOE's proposed
implementation plan would eliminate the collaboration with the Conservation Commission.
WDOE officials regard the policy of referring operators to the Conservation Commission as a
buffer to full compliance.
92
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
H. Wisconsin
1. Estimated FTEs Required
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) officials cite a lack of sufficient staff
for permitting and for compliance monitoring and enforcement as a major problem.
Specifically, three to five additional FTEs would allow the permitting program to be
adequately applied to large operations in the State. Additional permitting staff would allow
follow-up visits to new sites and the elimination of the application backlog. The addition of
enforcement and compliance (field) staff would allow an annual, scheduled inspection program
and would allow livestock permitting staff to be more involved in complaint investigation.
2. Cost-Share Funding Issues
Several cost-sharing programs target manure management. Through the USDA's
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), the ASCS administers funding, and the SCS
provides waste management technical support to operators. The ASCS will fund up to 50
percent of the costs of implementing certain manure management measures, with an annual
cap of $3,500 per operator. In 1991, ASCS awarded $270,034 in cost-share funding to 105
participants for wastewater control under the annual program and $1,601,603 to 151
participants under long-term agreements.
For operators receiving a notice of discharge (NOD), funds are available from the Wisconsin
Farmers' Fund, administered by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection. Funds are available to cover up to 70 percent of the cost of capital
improvements, with an upper limit of $20,000 for waste storage facilities. There is no upper
limit on the funds available for feedlot runoff control projects. Because a significant number of
discharges are caused by poor management practices, the program also coordinates with
county land conservation programs to provide technical assistance for improved management
practices. A small but significant number of operators elect not to participate in this program
after receiving an NOD. State permitting authorities interpret their non-participation as
unwillingness to come into compliance and respond by stepping up their enforcement actions.
Cost-share funds are also available through the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement
Program. Operators in a watershed may be eligible for cost-share funds to offset certain
capital improvements if a water quality inventory reveals impaired water quality. All of the
farms in an affected watershed are placed in one of three categories to determine eligibility for
funds. A certain number of Category I farms (those determined to have a critical impact on
water quality) must volunteer to participate in the program in order for the watershed to be
eligible for funds. If the required number of Category I operations participate, funds are also
available to operations designated Category II. Operations designated Category III are not
eligible for cost-share funds through this program. In general, funds are available to offset up
to 70 percent of capital improvement costs, with a cap of $20,000 for animal waste control
facilities. In the 1992-93 fiscal year, $11.5 million was budgeted for the program, with about
50 percent directed towards livestock waste control. Participation in the program is strictly
93
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
voluntary, and participation rates have risen to 70 percent in recent years. In return for cost-
share funds, the operator must follow strict management practices. The program is very
comprehensive; the management practices can include requirements for crop rotation, contour
farming, or the implementation of buffer strips to retard runoff.
WDNR staff report that the biggest problem with the cost-share programs is that
participation in the most effective program (the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement
program) is strictly voluntary. An operator with the highest potential to cause water quality
violations in a watershed may opt not to participate, even though all of the neighboring
operations have signed up. In addition, to avoid the appearance of punishing operators who
decide not to participate, the WDNR does not investigate potential dischargers discovered
during visits associated with the watershed program.
3. Farmer-Incurred Costs
No permit fees or application fees are associated with the WPDES permitting program.
Operators incur expenses associated with recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting, and the
cost of building or renovating facilities to comply with permit provisions.
4. General Versus Individual Permits
Wisconsin has NPDES general permit authority, but it does not have a general permit for
CAFOs. Because of the small number of large (>1,000 AU) operations in the State, WDNR
staff do not see any advantage to a general permit.
5. Interagencv Coordination
WDNR uses the equivalent of one FTE from USDA or other local staff in advisory roles for
complaint investigation in three of its district offices. The use of other agencies' staff means
that the network of field staff is very strong; someone familiar with livestock operations is
located within 45 minutes of any site in the State. In addition, other WDNR staff (e.g., fish
and game wardens) are on call at all hours to respond to emergencies.
94
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
V. CONCLUSIONS
A. Summary Of Surveyed Programs And Cost/Benefit Information
1. Facilities Covered
State programs use two criteria to determine whether a facility is a concentrated animal
feeding operation (CAFO) and must be covered by a National Pollutant Discharge and
Elimination System (NPDES) permit: the facility size and its potential to discharge. Kansas
and Wisconsin use facility size (1,000 AUs or more as outlined in 40 CFR 122 Appendix B)
as the sole criterion for determining whether a NPDES permit is required. The six other
surveyed programs regard the effect of the 25 year, 24-hour storm event exemption of
Appendix B as lessening or negating the importance of the size requirements. For example,
Indiana requires NPDES permits for livestock operations that both meet the size
requirements and discharge into waters of the State. Nebraska ignores the size distinctions
and determines case-by-case whether CAFOs must have permits based upon their
discharge potential.
2. Non-NPDES Programs
Whether a facility must have a State permit usually has nothing to do with whether or not it
must have a NPDES permit. Five of the eight surveyed States have State livestock
permitting programs and NPDES programs. Coverage under the State permitting programs
depends on such criteria as facility size, potential for discharge, type of facility, and method of
waste control. The State livestock permitting programs, which often expand and supplant the
NPDES requirements, tend to receive more agency attention and resources than do the
NPDES programs.
3. Ground Water Authority
The federal NPDES regulations for CAFOs do not include authority to regulate discharges to
ground water. The States discussed in this report, however, have been given express
authority by their legislatures to regulate discharges to ground water. In practice, however,
the surveyed programs emphasize preventing discharges to surface water.
4. Manure Application Guidelines
All of the surveyed programs interpret in the same way their authority to regulate conditions
for manure application under a NPDES program; they view it as limited to specifying that
95
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
manure must be applied at agronomic rates, under soil and weather conditions that will not
cause runoff. The Iowa and Indiana programs have additional State authority to include
manure application guidelines as permit conditions. However, most regulatory agencies do
not include specific waste application recommendations in permits.
5. Enforcement and Compliance
All of the surveyed programs lack sufficient resources for enforcement and compliance.
Consequently, waste control programs are forced to rely on voluntary cooperation, nuisance
complaints, and a few significant, well-publicized penalties to maintain compliance.
However, programs do not always view the of lack enforcement resources as a shortcoming.
Also, Kansas program staff suggest that operators should be encouraged to spend money on
correcting the causes of the violations.
6. Program Costs
Permitting agencies and the facility operators incur costs associated with effective livestock
waste control programs. These costs are difficult to quantify because of a lack of data.
Costs incurred by the regulating agencies include the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs)
needed to run their programs effectively. While some State agencies could estimate the
optimal number of FTEs they require, others could not. However, all regulatory agencies
report that their waste control programs arc understaffed. Even Kansas, with the largest
waste control staff of the surveyed programs {9 FTEs), reports that a personnel shortage
contributes to the state's four- to five-month backlog of new permit applications.
Operators incur costs for permit fees, operation and maintenance, recordkeeping and
monitoring, employee training, and building or renovating facilities to comply with their
NPDES permits. Usually, the burden of permit fees, recordkeeping and monitoring costs, and
employee training costs is relatively light. Operators' major expense is the cost of bringing
facilities into compliance with permit conditions. In some cases, cost-share funding to aid
with capital improvements may be available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA's) Agricultural Conservation Program and from non-point source water pollution
abatement programs. The cost of compliance seems to be the major obstacle keeping
operators from voluntarily seeking permits. However, officials in most surveyed states
indicated that producers are constructing and operating their facilities in ways that lead to de
facto compliance with permit conditions as a matter of good business practices.
96
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
7. Program Benefits
Directly measuring the benefits of a livestock permitting program is also difficult because data
are unavailable. Program staff identify water quality improvements as one measure of a
program's benefits. Officials in Arkansas, Nebraska, and Iowa noted improvements in
general water quality, although it is not possible to determine how much improvement
resulted from livestock permitting programs. In Wisconsin, improved water quality was
documented for a number of livestock facility sites. The number of fish kills attributable to
animal feeding operations has decreased in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, as has the number
of water quality violations caused by confined feeding operations in Indiana.
B. Necessary Components of a Comprehensive NPDES
Feedlot Waste Manaccment Program
1. Identification
Identifying unpermitted CAFOs is the first step in any comprehensive NPDES feedlot waste
management program. Because of resource shortages, most of the surveyed programs rely
on voluntary or complaint-driven methods to identify unpermitted CAFOs. Several programs
report success in identifying unpermitted CAFOs through voluntary measures that rely on
educational efforts by the private sector. In Iowa and Nebraska, for example, producer groups
have educated operators about permit requirements and have encouraged compliance. In
Arkansas, large-scale poultry and swine contractors often require their facility operators to
obtain permit coverage as a condition of their contracts.
2. Permitting Process
Components of a permitting process may include:
• Site inspections to assess and describe the facility's environmental impact, or
document that it causes no significant impact, and to establish appropriate pollution
control practices;
• Permit applications or notices of intent (NOls) to obtain permit coverage, along with
appropriate provisions for public comments;
• Waste system design and plan review to verify that the facility will conform to the
applicable regulatory specifications.
97
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
3. Permit Components
The necessary permit components in a comprehensive feedlot waste management program
include coverage, prohibitions, waste disposal requirements, pollution prevention plans,
monitoring and reporting requirements, signatory requirements, and standard conditions.
• Coverage including the permit area, eligibility, limitations, and authorization;
• Prohibitions, requirements, and other conditions including discharge prohibitions,
settling basin and holding pond requirements, and prohibitions on unauthorized
substances;
• Waste disposal requirements such as the need for waste and site management plans,
land application requirements, and waste disposal recordkeeping and reporting
requirements;
• Pollution prevention plans specifying the minimum measures needed to reduce or
eliminate the potential for pollutants to be discharged from the facility;
• Monitoring and reporting requirements such as provisions for discharge notification,
land application reports, sampling, retention of records, and availability of reports; and
• Standard conditions including the duty to comply, penalties for permit violations,
proper operation and maintenance, need to halt or reduce activity not a defense,
property rights, inspection and entry, a reopener clause, and permit fees.
4. Enforcement
Permit conditions can be enforced in a number of ways, including provisions for voluntary
compliance, a complaint-driven approach, or a rigorous CAFO inspection schedule with strict
civil penalties for violators. A strong enforcement component is important to maintain the
credibility of a permitting program.
98
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. List Of Interviewees
Agena, Ubbo. Staff Engineer, Water Quality Section, Environmental Protection Division.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, 900 East Grand
Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa, 50319-0034. (515) 281-6402.
Angelo, Bob. Water Quality Unit. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Forbes
Field, Topeka, Kansas, 66620. (913) 296-5570.
Cain, Mark. Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Wastewater Management, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster St., P.O. Box 7921, Madison,
Wisconsin, 53707-7921. (608) 266-9456
Carlson, Don. Chief, Industrial Program Section. Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas, 66620. (913) 296-5570.
Crocker, Phil. Water Quality Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VI, First Interstate Bldg., 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
(214) 653-6644.
Drown, Steve. State Permitting Coordinator. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, P.O. Box 9583, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72219. (501) 562-7444.
Evans, Diane. Water Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI,
First Interstate Bldg., 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
(214)655-6677.
Giese, John. Chief, Environmental Preservation Division. Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, P.O. Box 9583, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72219. (501) 562-7444.
Harrison, Ben. Regional Counsel. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, First
Interstate Bldg., 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
(214)655-2139.
Heitmann, Dennis. Supervisor of Groundwater, Water Quality Division. Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 98922, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68509.
(402) 471-4239.
Hess, Larry. Head, Agricultural Waste Unit. Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas, 66620. (913) 296-5570.
Johnsey, Paulette. Permits. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, First
Interstate Bldg., 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
(214)655-7152.
KauzLoric, Philip. Nonpoint Source Specialist, Water Quality Program. Washington
Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olyrnpia, Washington, 98504-7600. (206)
438-7092.
Lamb, Brad. Nonpoint Source Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI,
First Interstate Bldg., 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
(214) 655-6683.
99
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Lemmons, Roger. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, State Office, 2601 Anderson, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502.
(913)539-3531.
McCurdy, Jim. Land Application Group, Office of Water Management. Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, 105 S. Meridian, P.O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, Indiana,
46206-6015. (317) 232-8731.
Mercurio, Frank. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, State Office,
760 South Broadway, Salina, Kansas, 67401. (913) 823-4534.
Palla, Robert. Staff Engineer, Wastewater Permits Section, Environmental Protection
Division. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, 900
East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0034. (515) 281-8868.
Pena, Hector. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, First Interstate Bldg.,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. (214) 655-2260.
Porath, Harold. Environmental Engineer, Central Region. Washington Department of
Ecology, 106 S. Sixth Avenue, Yakima, Washington, 98902-3387.
Rodenberg, Jerry. Biological Unit Supervisor, Industrial Wastewater Section. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster St., P.O. Box 7921, Madison,
Wisconsin, 53707-7921. (608) 266-7715.
Smith, W. Clark. Supervisor of Water Permits and Compliance Section, Water Quality
Division. Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 98922, Lincoln,
Nebraska, 68509. (402) 471-4239.
Solaimanian, Jamal. Engineer Supervisor, Water Division. Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology, P.O. Box 9583, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72219. (501)
562-7444.
Strieker, James. Environmental Specialist, Field Office V, Environmental Protection Division.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Building, 900 East Grand
Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa, 50319-0034. (515) 281-8915.
Wagner, Walt. Agricultural Waste Unit. Kansas Department of Health and Environment,
Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas, 66620. (913) 296-5570.
B. Resources
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 1990 (July 13). "Permit Data
System — Milestone Report."
Lamb, Ken. 1993 (February 9). Personal Communication. Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Quinn, Richard H. 1993 (January 25). Personal Communication. Assistant Chief, Water
Division. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Starr, Gale. 1992 (November). Personal Communication. Nebraska Association of
Resource Districts, Lincoln, Nebraska.
100
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Stevenson, Gordon. 1992 (November). Personal Communication. Bureau of Wastewater
Management. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992 (January). Agricultural Conservation Program. 1991
Fiscal Year Statistical Summary.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. Agricultural Statistics 1991.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1989 (November). 1987 Census of Agriculture. U.S.
Summary and State Data. Washington, D.C.
101
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
APPENDIX A
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION
WASTE CONTROL SURVEY
103
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
1. Identification
Name:
- Title:
Agency:
Phone:
General Program Overview
2. Which State departments/agencies have regulatory jurisdiction over environmental
aspects of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in your State? (Discuss
program history.)
3. Are any CAFOs exempted by State policy from being covered under a NPDES permit?
4. Does your State have specific, additional regulatory authority for CAFOs beyond the
control requirements under the federal CWA regulations? If yes, describe. (Please
include descriptions of any ground water-related authorities.)
5. What resources are dedicated to program implementation (i.e., annual budget, FTEs) for
your permitting program? For other programs? Are these resources sufficient to carry
out the federal or State regulatory requirements? If not, how would you propose to
allocate new resources?
104
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
6. Of the resources dedicated, what portions are for permit issuance, field investigation,
enforcement, design assistance, inspection, etc.?
7. Is the current feedlot pollution control program coordinated with any overall storm water
control strategy? What are the advantages or disadvantages of a combined strategy?
8. Describe the primary focus of the State program. Is it primarily to control runoff? Does
the program specify protection of both ground water and surface water? Are
nutrient/manure management guidelines included as part of the program? How are
guidelines included?
9. What weaknesses do you perceive in the effectiveness of the program?
105
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
10. Number of Operations in State:
Beef
Dairy
Swine
Poultry:
Layers
Broilers
Other
Facilities with over 1,000 animal units
Number of operations
Permitted
In Process
Beef
Dairy
Swine
Poultry:
Layers
Broilers
Other
Facilities with les
Number of operations
s than 1,000 but more than
Permitted
300 animal units
In Process
Permitting and Enforcement
1. How many operations with greater than 1,000 AUs are covered by permits in your State?
How many with 300-999 AUs7 With less than 300 AUs? How old are the permits? How
many permits have expired and been extended?
12. Does your State have general permit authority? Is there any type of tracking system that
allows you to know the number of operations covered by a general permit? How many
operations do you cover in a general permit in your State?
106
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
13. Are the feedlot permits issued in your State usually individual permits, general permits,
or both? Why?
14. On what criteria are permits based? Are permits primarily based on facility size,
potential for discharges, or other criteria?
15. Assuming that greater emphasis is placed on permitting facilities perceived to pose
greater ecological risks, what criteria are used to determine high risk facilities (e.g.,
surrounding population, water resources, potential for groundwater discharge to surface
water, soils and topography)?
36. How are case-by-case CAFO designations made in your State? Which of the factors
defined in 40 CFR § 122.23 are most significant (size and location of operation, amount of
waste, means of conveyance, slope, vegetation, rainfall, etc.)?
17. How do State permitting authorities make best professional judgment (BPJ)
determinations for operations with less than 1,000 AUs?
107
-------
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
18. How does your State define a man-made discharging device? Give an example.
19. What type of language/conditions would you include in a model feedlot permit to be used
as a guidance mechanism for EPA Regions or States?
20. How long do you estimate it would take to process an individual permit? Please describe
the process.
21. How long do you estimate it would take to process a general CAFO permit? Please
describe the process.
22. What are the major problems faced in the permitting process itself (e.g. manpower,
enforcement, awareness)?
23. What are the major problems faced in compliance monitoring and enforcement (e.g.
identification of permitted facilities, identification of facilities not covered by permit, lack
of information, limited inspection resources, hard-to-enforce permits)?
108
-------
The Report of (he EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
24. Do you have a scheduled inspection program for CAFOs? Is there a basis for prioritizing
inspections?
25. Are you able to keep current on regularly required or scheduled inspections? (Discuss
why or why not)
26. Have any fines been levied on facilities for noncompliance with the waste control
program? How successful have such actions, if any, been in achieving compliance? Have
any other enforcement tools been considered or implemented?
27. Do you have any indications of program success (decreasing complaints, improved water
quality, etc)?
28. If problems still exist, what do you attribute them to? (lack of regulatory efforts, lack of
manpower, problems with permit program, education, etc.)
109
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Manure/Nutrient Management
29. Is the land application of manure believed to cause water quality problems, such as
ground water or surface water contamination, in any watersheds or geographic areas?
30. According to a recent EPA analysis a number of counties (including counties in your
State) have greater nutrient production from farm animals than land available for
application at agronomic rates. Are there any potential measures to address these
imbalances as far as they exist?
Cost Sharing
31. Are there any cost sharing programs in your State targeted toward manure management
and land application?
32. Are cost-share programs focused on a watershed basis, or are they more general?
33. Of available cost-sharing programs, which are the most effective and why? Besides
additional funding, what can be done to improve cost-sharing effectiveness?
110
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
General
34. What would you change about your program if you could?
35. What would you change about the EPA program if you could?
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI)
13
-------
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
APPENDIX B
NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) to be Covered by the General Permit for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
This notification shall not be made to EPA, Region 6 if prohibited from coverage under Part
I.C. of this permit.
Name and Address of Facility (include County or Parish):
Telephone Number:
Name of Operator:
Name, Address and Telephone of Owner (if different)
Numbers and Type(s) of animals confined at the facility (e.g., feeder pigs, dairy cows, etc.):
Actual acreage occupied by the facility:
Latitude and Longitude Location of the Facility:
LATITUDE degrees
LONGITUDE
degrees
Receiving stream (if known):
State Permit Number (if applicable):
Signature:
minutes
minutes
seconds
seconds
Signature must be in accordance with
Part IV.I of the General Permit
Date Signed
114
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
APPENDIX C
GLOSSARY
25 Year, 24-Hour Storm Event - The maximum 24-hour precipitation event 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.
Agronomic rates - The land application of animal wastes at rates of application which
provide the crop or forage growth with needed nutrients for optimum health and growth.
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 45 days or more 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 and dairy heifers multiplied
by 1.0, plus the number of mature dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4, plus the number of swine
weighing over 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 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 pollution of waters of the United States. Best management
practices also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control
site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
Clean Water Act - Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, also known as the
Clean Water Act, found at 33 USC 1251 et seq.
Concentrated animal feeding operation - An animal feeding operation which meets the
criteria in 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B. or which the Director designates as a significant
contributor of pollution pursuant to 40 CFR 122.23. Animal feeding operations defined as
concentrated in 40 CFR 122, Appendix B are as follows:
1. New and existing operations which 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 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 weighing over 55 pounds;
d. 500 horses;
115
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
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 from a combination of slaughter steers and heifers, mature dairy
cattle, swine over 55 pounds and sheep.
2. New and existing operations which discharge 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, and which 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. 300 slaughter of feeder cattle;
b. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milkers of dry cows);
c. 750 swine weighing over 55 pounds;
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 (from a combination of slaughter steers and heifers, mature dairy
cattle, swine over 55 pounds and sheep).
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.
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 until their
ultimate disposal. This includes the retention of manure, liquid waste, and runoff from the
feedlot area.
Earthen pit - A liquid manure storage structure constructed entirely (except for a concrete
pad or ramp) of natural soil, hauled-in clay or soil and bentonite.
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.
116
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
Land application - The removal of waste water 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 hydrologic
connection between liquids contained in retention structures and waters of the United States.
Liquid manure - A mixture of water and manure, usually less than 10 percent solids.
Livestock Waste - Generally refers to animal waste, but may also contain bedding, feed,
and other by-products of an animal feeding operation.
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 such that periodic cleaning is
necessary.
Open feedlot - (See open confinement, above).
Process wastcwater - Any process generated wastewater directly or indirectly used in the
animal feeding operation (such as spillage or overflow from animal or poultry watering
systems; washing, cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, and manure pits; direct contact
swimming, washing, or spray cooling of animals; and dust control) and any precipitation which
comes into contact with any manure or litter, 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 wastewatcr - 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, barns, 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.
Waste retention pond (or 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.
Waters of the United States
1. All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use
in interstate or foreign commerce.
2. All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands.
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandfiats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa
117
-------
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States Feedlot Workgroup
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 (a) through (d) of this definition.
6. The territorial sea; and
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands)
identified in paragraphs 1. through 6. of this definition.
Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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.
18
-------
The Repo'l'oi the
of Cornoiiance Suborouo
-------
THE REPORT OF THE VERIFICATION OF
COMPLIANCE SUBGROUP
August 1993
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
THE REPORT OF THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE SUBGROUP 119
I. PURPOSE 119
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT 119
III. BACKGROUND 119
A. Regulatory Requirements 119
B. Status of NPDES Control of CAFOs 120
C. Fundamental Difference in Compliance Determination 120
IV. RESOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING 121
A. Limited Field Presence 121
B. Scope of Feedlot Inspection 121
C. Resource Projections 122
D. Compliance Monitoring Approaches 123
1. Animal Inventory Grouping 123
2. Geographic Targeting 124
3. Risk-Based Analysis 125
E. Compliance Monitoring Tools 126
1. Remote Sensing 126
2. Interagency Agreements 127
3. Volunteer Monitoring 127
'£?•
V. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 128
A. Conduct Data Inventory 128
B. Monitor Compliance with General Permits 128
C. Consider Annual Certification 129
D. Develop an Inspection Strategy Based on Targeting 129
E. Conduct Pilot Studies 129
F. Develop Interagency Agreements 130
LITERATURE CITED 131
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
THE REPORT OF THE
VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE SUBGROUP
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to analyze methods of verifying compliance of livestock feeding
facilities with their NPDES permits and to recommend an approach(es) for utilizing these
methods.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Discharges from many smaller feedlots (less than 1,000 animal unit [AU] capacity) with
identifiable pollution problems are usually not regulated by enforceable National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Most holders of permits for larger feedlots
that have typical "no discharge" permits are required to report self-monitoring compliance
data only when a discharge occurs, although some States require annual reporting. In most
EPA Regions and many States, feedlots with typical "no discharge" waste controls have not
been reissued a permit after their first permit expired during the 1970s. Almost all of the
issued feedlot NPDES permits are classified as "minor" pollution sources or are covered by a
general permit; thus, under the present inspection strategy, they are not given priority for
inspection targeting.
EPA does not routinely review all compliance data related to minor permits. Also, the
permits normally do not include limitations or monitoring requirements that address impacts
on ground water. Only a few of the States with a large agriculture base have regulatory staff
assigned to address agricultural waste problems. For example, Kansas has nine full-time
employees (FTEs) involved with feedlot compliance monitoring while EPA, in the entire
NPDES program, devotes less than one FTE.
In reality, many facilities in the universe of feedlots may not constitute a significant source of
pollution. The present Nonpoint Source Coordinator for EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program,
who formerly worked as EPA's agricultural waste expert at the Ada, Oklahoma, laboratory,
has estimated (by impression, not by data collection) that 80 percent of all facilities east of
the Mississippi River and 60 percent west of the River are capable of discharging pollutants
to surface waters. This impression supports the development of a targeting strategy to
effectively manage limited compliance monitoring resources.
III. BACKGROUND
A. Regulatory Requirements
The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
prohibit the discharge of pollutants from a point source into waters of the United States
119
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPAJState
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
except in compliance with conditions of an NPDES permit. Section 502 of the Act defined a
point source to include a "concentrated animal feeding operation" (CAFO). In 1973, NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.23 and Appendix B were promulgated defining CAFOs subject to
permit as a point source as feedlots that (I) feed or maintain more than 1,000 animal units
(AUs) or the equivalent, depending on category, or (2) are designated on a case-by-case
basis as significant contributors of pollution (later regulations were promulgated which
required permits for facilities having 301 to 1,000 AUs which discharge through a man-made
conveyance or directly to waters on the facility).
In 1974, the effluent limitations guidelines for the feedlot point source category were
promulgated at 40 CFR 412, which established best practicable control technology (BPCT) as
no discharge from a feedlot except in the event of a 10-year 24-hour rainfall. The guidelines
defined best available technology economically achievable (BAT) as no discharge except for a
25-year 24-hour rainfall. As the result of the regulations and categorical feedlot standards,
all CAFOs over the 1,000 AU threshold were directed to make application for an NPDES
permit.
B. Status of NPDES Control of CAFOs
A number of NPDES permits were initially issued by EPA to feedlots during the mid-1970s.
For example, in EPA Regions 6, 7, and 8 where most commercial beef feeder facilities are
located, site inspections were conducted by EPA and the States at many feedlots to develop
the requirements in facility-specific NPDES permits. Most individual permits issued during
this period were classified as "minor" permits when compared to other permits issued to
municipalities and industrial sources.
With the NPDES permit authority delegated to many States (39 now approved) after 1974,
the States found that issuing permits to the numerous feedlots was resource intensive and
was not considered to be environmentally significant since the Federal regulations required
no discharge except for a 25-year 24-hour rainfall after July 1, 1977. As the result, many
feedlot permits were never reissued and compliance monitoring was suspended except in
response to complaints. According to the National Permit Compliance System (PCS data
base), only about 1,050 individual NPDES permits have been issued to CAFOs.
Since the 1980s, several EPA Regions (Regions 6, 8, 9, and 10) have issued general permits
estimated to cover more than 1,000 feedlots in seven States (Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Texas); nevertheless, minimal compliance
monitoring was undertaken except in response to complaints.
C. Fundamental Difference in Compliance Determination
Compliance monitoring for the feedlots is fundamentally different from most categories
regulated by the NPDES program because permitted CAFOs use waste management rather
than treatment facilities and thus are not required to record data and submit Discharge
120
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
Monitoring Reports (DMRs) except at times of discharge. Self-monitoring and reporting are
routine requirements of most NPDES permits and provide the primary basis for determining
compliance. Without self-monitoring data, there is little basis for targeting inspection or
enforcement activities except for complaints or as part of special geographic/enforcement
initiatives.
IV. RESOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING
A. Limited Field Presence
Data in the Permit Compliance System (PCS) for the period from 1984 through 1991 showed
that there were 1,250 inspections at feedlots, with none conducted by EPA. In the EPA
Regions, no resources have been used for feedlot compliance monitoring and few resources
for enforcement have been used (i.e., response to complaints) since the efforts of the mid-
1970s. A severe limitation that has affected EPA's compliance inspection program is the
continuing reduction of travel funding for inspectors. Limited resources and travel funds
combined with the minor classification of feedlot permits have been cited by Regions that
were contacted as the reasons for no feedlot inspections by EPA.
As part of the current Feedlot Workgroup efforts, a draft paper entitled "Feedlots Case
Studies of Selected States" has been prepared. Study information is based on interviews
with the regulatory staff in seven States (Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska,
Washington, and Wisconsin); the study noted the following:
"In most cases, the lack of personnel was identified as the primary impediment to
effective implementation of State waste control programs....[creating an] inability to
identify unpermitted facilities, backlogs of permit applications, inability to make
scheduled facility inspections, and the inability to enforce permit conditions and
pursue penalty collection."
According to the study, even in Wisconsin, which claims that all animal feeding operations
over 1,000 AUs are permitted, officials cite the lack of sufficient staff for permitting and for
compliance monitoring and enforcement as a major problem.
B. Scope of Feedlot Inspection
Based on discussions with compliance monitoring staff, the inspection of a feedlot does not
normally involve the collection of wastewater samples, and since few waste control records
are required to be maintained by the feedlot operator, the inspection also does not involve
extensive records review like other NPDES inspections. The inspection focuses primarily on
the waste control systems and the waste management and disposal practices and their
impact on surface and ground waters in the area. The inspection is usually categorized as a
121
-------
The Report of the
Verification of Compliance Subgroup
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
screening, reconnaissance, or complaint follow-up type and requires not more than several
hours onsite. The total effort with travel and report completion amounts to 1 work day or
less. Such inspections are typically performed in conjunction with other routine NPDES
inspections or geographic initiatives to conserve travel and staff time.
C. Resource Projections
Using the 1987 Census of Agriculture (1) data on the number of agricultural operations
confining more than 1,000 AUs in the Nation and applying an inspection resource factor of 1
work day per inspection, annual coverage would require the following resources.
Feedlots Over 1,000 Animal Units
Type of Facility
Beef feedlot
Dairies
Layer chickens
Broiler chickens
Swine
Totals
Number of
Operations
1,700
780
560
520
2.400
5,960
Inspection
Workyears
7.73
3.55
2.55
2.36
10.90
27.09
The following table summarizes the resource projections for inspections of all feedlots based
on a 1-day annual inspection effort.
Feedlot Inspection Resources for 1-Day Annual Inspections
Feedlot Size
Over 1,000
500- 1,000
300 - 500
100 - 300
20- 100
Under 20
Total
Number of
Facilities
6,000
17.000
21,000
163,000
177.000
421.000
805,000
Inspection Work Years
(cumulative)
27
77
95
741
805
1.914
(104)
(199)
(940)
(1,745)
(3,659)
3.659
122
-------
The Report of the
Verification of Compliance Subgroup
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
The 27 WYs needed to annually inspect all larger feedlots (over 1,000 AUs) would be a
significant portion (27 percent) of the resources now used by EPA and approximately 5
percent of resources used by EPA and States combined for all inspections by EPA at NPDES
major permittee, pretreatment programs, and Class I sludge facilities.
Comparing data in the above table shows that inspection resource requirements increase
dramatically as smaller and smaller feedlots are included in the inspection plan. Inspections
down to a 500 AU feedlot size would quadruple the effort; inspections down to 300 AUs
would increase the effort by almost an order of magnitude. Routinely inspecting feedlots
under 300 AUs causes a mushrooming in the demand for resources.
D. Compliance Monitoring Approaches
The resource analysis has demonstrated that annual inspection of any category of feedlots is
a significant task at a time when inspection resources are limited in EPA and the States. Our
analysis also shows that a complaint-driven system has not been effective in focusing
resources. Therefore, different approaches should be considered.
1. Animal Inventory Grouping
We have learned from the workgroup paper, Water Pollution from Feedlot Waste, that about
80 percent of the inventory of beef cattle is on the larger feedlots with over 1,000 AUs and
that about 50 percent of the chicken inventory is at facilities with more than the 1,000 AU
equivalent. A much smaller percent of swine (20 percent) and dairy animals (8 percent) is
confined at the larger operations. Therefore, the large beef feedlots (1,700) should be
surveyed to confirm their waste control/management systems (most are open lot operations)
by literature search or correspondence survey. The chicken operations are almost all housed
facilities, so the concern is disposal of manure and dead birds. The chicken operations should
be inventoried for manure disposal practices in counties where there is a manure surplus.
The following list ranks the States by largest inventory of specific animal types according to
the 1987 Agricultural Census.
Animal Types
Fed beef
Dairies
Layer chickens
Broiler chickens
Turkeys
Swine
Ranking of States in Order
TX, KS, NB, 1A, CO, CA
WS, CA, NY, MN. PA, TX, OH
CA, IN, GA, PA, AR, OH, TX. NC
AR, GA, AL, NC, MS, MD, TX, DE
NC, MN, CA, AR, MI, VA, IN
IA, IL, IN, MN, NB, NC
123
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
To research this approach of targeting areas with large animal inventories and to gather the
necessary data to identify and prioritize them will require an estimated 40 hours of effort or
$2,500.
2. Geographic Targeting
Grouping inspections based on some common factor, such as geographic areas, is a logical
way to conserve resources and focus on specific areas of interest. The largest areas of
interest would be States, and the smallest areas would be counties and watersheds. States
would be ranked based on different feedlot interests. Waste control initiatives in these
States could be expected to have a greater impact on the feedlot problem. The area of
regulatory controls in the following list identifies States that are known to have active
programs for regulating feedlot wastes according to a draft paper for the workgroup,
"Feedlots Case Studies of Selected States." States where EPA general permits are in effect
could be of higher priority for compliance monitoring than States that have no such permits in
effect.
Areas of Interest
Regulatory controls
General permits
Watershed approaches
States (not ranked)
AR, IA, IN, KS, NB, WS
AZ, ID, OK, LA, NM, SD, TX
CO, FL, ID, ME, NM, NC, OK, OR, WS
Counties, watersheds, and ground water aquifers should also be considered as geographic
subgroups for targeting inspections. For example, we know from the workgroup paper,
"Water Pollution From Feedlot Waste: An Analysis of Its Magnitude and Geographic
Distribution," that there are about 28 counties where phosphorus is applied at high rates
(more than 80 pounds/acre) because of animal waste disposal. The same analysis can be run
for nitrogen application to croplands by county using USDA data.
The EPA document entitled "Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples" (2) lays out a
generic approach to ranking and targeting watersheds and waterbodies for special
management attention; the document then gives example targeting systems used in 14
States. All of these systems consider inputs such as ambient data, discharge data, human
health risks, hydrography (including ground and drinking water), habitat, population,
recreation, and special factors (soil, slope, rainfall, etc.). Examples from the 14 States in the
report describe approaches to targeting waterbodies.
The advantages of geographic targeting are that it focuses on water quality improvement; it
will focus on areas of greatest concern; and it supports an integrated approach where other
problems can also be addressed. The disadvantages are that it may target areas where there
are no enforceable feedlot controls; it may require a diversion of limited resources; and the
State may not support it because of other priorities.
124
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
A geographic initiative would require at least one FTE and $50,000 to initiate a geographic
targeting system, conduct compliance reviews, complete 20 inspections, and complete 10
formal enforcement actions.
3. Risk-Based Analysis
To rank potential candidates for inspection, one should evaluate them against some set of
criteria that will characterize their pollution risk. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.23(c) include factors for making case-by-case designation of CAFOs; those and other
important factors are listed below:
• CAFO Pollution Risk Factors
- Size of feedlot (100k, 10k, Ik, 500, 300, 100)
- Amount of waste reaching receiving waters
- Location of feedlot relative to receiving waters
- Means of conveyance of animal wastes and process wastewaters into receiving
waters
- Likelihood or frequency of discharge
- Slope (greater than 2 percent and undiverted runoff)
- Vegetation (no buffer zones or greenbelts)
- Rainfall (retention and diversion systems)
- Other relevant factors (discharges through manmade ditch or flushing device).
• Other Risk Factors Not in Regulations
- Record of complaints and evidence of environmental harm
- Absence of waste handling, treatment, and management systems that only
discharge in the event of a 25-year 24-hour rainfall
- Wastewater retention facilities or holding pens located in the 100-year flood plain
unless flood protection provided
- Poorly managed or overloaded waste control system
- Uncontrolled runoff from manure storage and disposal areas
- Contamination of ground or drinking water
- Problems with contamination from feed and dead animals.
The feedlots can be ranked by assigning weighted values to each of the above factors, then
rating each feedlot against the factors to produce a risk-based score for each facility.
Feedlots with higher scores would be targeted for early or more frequent inspection based on
the risk analysis.
The advantages of a risk-based analysis are that (1) it is the same approach used for most
of EPA's environmental assessments; (2) it uses the selection factors cited in the feedlot
regulations; and (3) it ranks candidates based on their measured pollution potential.
Disadvantages of the risk analysis are that (l)it requires significant data collection and
125
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
analysis; (2) it may be labor intensive; and (3) the analysis will have to be repeated as the
risks at each facility are resolved.
It is difficult to estimate the resources for testing this approach. A pilot study performed to
rank the risk at 100 feedlots or targeted in a small State would require an estimated 500
hours of effort or $30,000.
E. Compliance Monitoring Tools
The previous discussion examined only the conventional targeting mechanisms for feedlot
compliance monitoring using EPA and State resources. Other resources and mechanisms can
be applied to minimize, in some instances, EPA/State expenditures on compliance monitoring.
1. Remote Sensing
The most widely used and least costly remote sensing method for characterizing
environmental problems is aerial photography. Aerial photo coverage of the United States
has been conducted by the Federal government on a 5-year or more frequent basis since
1938. Satellite black/white, color, and infrared photo imaging coverage has occurred since the
1960s. Suitable photographs with third order to first order geodetic control are available from
multisource data banks. EPA has most used such remote sensing capability to characterize
Superfund sites at a cost of $5,000 to $20,000 per survey. Other government agencies have
used aerial photography for decades for mapping, natural and agricultural resource
inventories, and other topographical analyses. EPA studies usually do not require a special
fly-over, but a USDA crop survey for one county the size of Montgomery County, Maryland,
costs about $5,000 to $10,000.
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) in EPA has two laboratories, one in Las
Vegas and one in Vint Hill, Virginia, where contractors (Lockheed and Bionetics,
respectively) are dedicated to photographic interpretation projects. In 1984, Lockheed
conducted a photographic analysis of feedlots in an area of Idaho for EPA Region 10. As a
pilot study to support feedlot compliance, monitoring funds are being requested to update the
1984 Idaho survey and to conduct a photographic survey of a particular feedlot problem. The
cost of the effort (400 hours) will be about $25,000.
The advantages of photographic remote sensing are (l)low cost if used discriminately,
(2) readily available current and historic data for any site in the Nation, (3) demonstrated
successful use in Superfund, and (4) no required fly-overs. Disadvantages include (l)the
large number of feedlots, which make photographic surveys too expensive to be widely used
(cost compares to inspection) and (2) photos that can depict conditions only at the time the
photos were taken.
126
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
2. Interagencv Agreements
EPA has entered into many interagency agreements (lAGs) to address multijurisdictional
issues. Through an agreement with the Minerals Management Service (MMS), EPA now
obtains information from MMS inspections about offshore oil and gas facilities in the Gulf of
Mexico and the Pacific Ocean to determine compliance with NPDES permits. Similar support
for feedlot compliance monitoring can be obtained from the Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Both SCS and FWS have active field technical staffs that can provide EPA with information
about feedlot facilities with pollution problems. The advantages of using lAGs are that
(1) they extend a regulatory presence; (2) they reduce duplications of effort; (3) they educate
the other important authorities about environmental requirements; and (4) in the case of SCS,
they gain more regular contact with feedlot operators. The disadvantages of lAGs are (1) the
other agencies want resources for implementation; (2) SCS is reluctant to change its
relationship with feedlot operators from technical assistance to a regulatory posture; and
(3) successful implementation requires significant guidance, training, and oversight.
Development of lAGs with SCS and the FWS will take at least 2 years and require about one
FTE of effort.
3. Volunteer Monitoring
Volunteer monitoring is growing in use and public involvement. BayKeepers and RiverWatch
groups are active in more than 20 States. The Office of Water in EPA has a volunteer
monitoring coordinator and has sponsored annual workshops since 1990 to promote public
interest and provide guidance on monitoring. A member of the feedlot workgroup has
prepared an article on how to survey feedlot problems for publication in the Volunteer Monitor
newsletter.
As pan of the compliance monitoring strategy for feedlots, volunteer monitoring could be
promoted and supported. Funds will be needed to prepare a brochure or video on the
magnitude of the feedlot problem and how to monitor feedlot waste management. Monitoring
and investigative guidance will be prepared for use in workshops to train the volunteers. It is
estimated that 550,000 and 0.25 FTEs would start the program to develop and pilot guidance,
training, and other promotional tools.
Advantages of the volunteer monitoring are (l)it does not require special equipment or
technical expertise, it taps into a vast monitoring resource; (2) the monitoring resource is
available in most locations where feedlots exist; and (3) it helps highten public awareness.
Disadvantages are (l)the volunteer monitoring data may not be reliable or enforceable;
(2) resources are required to develop guidance and training; and (3) coordination and
implementation are highly variable.
127
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
V. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conduct Data Inventory
Conduct a detailed data inventory before exploring the options for implementing any elements
of the feedlot compliance monitoring strategy. Give notice to the Regions/States that feedlot
inspection data in PCS are grossly incomplete and that all new entries must include the
inspector's organization and the date and type of inspection. All available data sources
should be inventoried and accessed. A first priority should be to inventory the records of
complaints about feedlot problems in the EPA Regions and States. The efficient systems
that provide easy access to these data about complaints should be documented and spread
into other jurisdictions that lack the capability to manage their complaints.
The EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW) maintains the Waterbody
System (WBS) as an automated data base of State water quality assessment data. WBS
serves as an inventory of each State's navigable waters that have been assessed for water
quality and is used as the basis for the 305(b) Report to Congress every 2-years. WBS is
linked to the EPA Reach (stream segment) File and STORET (ambient parametric data),
which include NPDES point source data from the PCS and Industrial Facilities Discharge
(IFD) file. As a voluntary system, WBS is currently being used by about 40 States,
territories, and commissions. There are variations in how States manage and report data.
As the consistency between States improves, so will the usefulness for targeting impaired
waterbodies. The water quality assessment data in the WBS should be inventoried to target
water quality-limited areas with feedlot problems in the 40 States that are now using WBS.
Areas that have geographic initiatives planned or underway should be identified.
Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can be used to target the counties
with nutrient surpluses due to the disposal of CAFO wastes. These areas should then be
matched with or superimposed on the waterbody problem areas. The areas can be ranked by
the inventory of animals and other risk factors, targeting only as many areas as resources
allow.
As part of the data inventory, a directive should be sent to the Regions and States to improve
the compliance data tracking for feedlot inspections. As mentioned earlier in this report, most
(about 75 percent) of the inspection entries in PCS are missing data, such as who did the
inspection and the inspection date.
B. Monitor Compliance with General Permits
The five EPA general NPDES permits for feedlots that are now in place covering the States
of Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Texas should be
targeted for compliance monitoring. Any significant feedlot complaints in these States should
receive compliance review and enforcement action if the problem is not resolved in a timely
manner. At sites with complaints, the waste control systems should be verified. Where the
128
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
general permit requires a Notice of Intent, that requirement should be verified as part of
complaint follow-up. This effort will require one FTE.
An enforcement initiative on one of the general permits should be piloted in one State.
Contract support of $50,000 will be requested to provide compliance review for this initiative,
to evaluate results, and to recommend improvements. Using the results of the pilot initiative,
one or more feedlot enforcement actions should be planned in each of the seven States. A
communication strategy should be prepared as part of the initiative to promote sound
environmental management in the feedlot community.
The advantages of acting on the general permits are the following: (1) clear regulatory
authority exists that covers States with significant feedlot inventories; (2) permit action
sends a message to the regulated community; and (3) such action provides a clear target for
limited EPA/State resources. The disadvantages are that (l)any feedlot initiative diverts
limited resources from other critical areas; (2) the approach is not equitable in that it targets
specific States for action; and (3) the States may not want to support general permit
enforcement because of resource or political constraints.
C. Consider Annual Certification
Explore the use of annual certification by feedloi operators to document the adequacy of their
waste handling, management, and disposal systems. This approach is being adopted to
implement pollution prevention practices for controlling storm water through NPDES permits.
D. Develop an Inspection Strategy Based on Targeting
Use the targeting tools already described to identify watersheds or other geographic areas
with measureable feedlot problems. As a change to EPA/State inspection planning, in FY-
1994 the Regions are asked to plan and coordinate inspections with their States to address
specific problems that may include feedlots.
E. Conduct Pilot Studies
Use Remote Sensing. Update the Idaho photographic survey of feedlots, and target
one or more individual feedlots for photo interpretation.
Promote Volunteer Monitoring. Publish a newsletter article immediately to provide
guidance for volunteer monitoring of feedlot compliance. Begin preparing training
materials for workshops and public outreach. Promote the use of hotlines for
reporting feedlot problems.
129
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
F. Develop Interagcncy Agreements
Negotiate an agreement with the Soil Conservation Service to gather compliance information.
Explore developing similar agreements with other agencies such as the FWS.
130
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Verification of Compliance Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
LITERATURE CITED
(1) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1987. Census of Agriculture.
Volume 1, Part 51. Washington, D.C.
(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. February 1993. Geographic
Targeting: Selected State Examples. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
131
-------
The Report of the Education/
Outreach Subgroup
-------
THE REPORT OF THE EDUCATION/OUTREACH
SUBGROUP
August 1993
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
THE REPORT OF THE EDUCATION/OUTREACH SUBGROUP 133
I. INTRODUCTION 133
A. The Underlying Problem 133
B. Behavior Characteristics of Agricultural Industries 133
II. COMMUNICATION VEHICLES 134
A. Federal Agencies 134
B. State Agencies 135
C. Producer Groups 136
D. Industries 136
ill. APPROACHES FOR EFFECTING CHANGE AND ENCOURAGING
EXCELLENCE 137
A. Education and Information 137
1. Educational Packets 138
2. Monthly Updates 138
3. Speakers and Workshops 139
4. Courtesy Inspections 139
5. Computer Networks 139
6. Case Study 140
B. Incentive Programs 140
1. Awards 141
2. Grants/Loans 141
3. Enforcement 145
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 145
APPENDIX A: WORK LOAD AND COST COMPARISON OF ACTIVITIES WHICH
EPA COULD USE To ENCOURAGE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES To PROMOTE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 146
APPENDIX B: SELECTED LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS IN THE COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK 148
APPENDIX C: COMMUNICATION STRATEGY SURVEY 154
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
THE REPORT OF THE EDUCATION/OUTREACH SUBGROUP
I. INTRODUCTION
An increasing amount of information indicates that animal wastes are contributing to water
quality impairment nationwide. As a result, a State/EPA Feedlot Workgroup is examining
several alternatives to reduce the pollutant loadings associated with animal feeding
operations that cause impairments. The Education/Outreach Subgroup of this Workgroup
focused on different means of encouraging environmentally sound management of these
facilities to help eliminate associated water quality problems. This paper summarizes the
subgroup's efforts by discussing existing communication vehicles, presenting two overall
approaches to improve environmental management, and recommending options for each
approach. Before proceeding, however, an understanding of the underlying problem and the
behavior of the livestock feeding industry is necessary.
A. The Underlying Problem
The subgroup determined that a major problem in regulatory compliance and sound
environmental management is the lack of communication between the Agency and livestock
feeders. Although effluent guidelines for feedlots (i.e., concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) with more than 1,000 animal units) were promulgated in February 1974
and CAFOs were defined as a point source requiring an NPDES permit in 1972, the livestock
feeding industry either has not been very aware or lacks a clear understanding of relevant
regulatory requirements. Although agricultural industries are partially responsible for being
unaware, EPA is also responsible because it has invested few resources in increasing
awareness of environmental regulations that affect agribusiness. Regardless, this lack of
awareness may contribute to practices that cause water quality problems.
In the efforts used by this subgroup to determine what communication problems exist in this
area, it became apparent that the agricultural industry is only distinctly aware of EPA
programs that address pesticide licensing and application. Other regulatory programs are
either not known or vaguely understood. This subgroup determined that EPA's focus on
changing permittee behavior to improve environmental management of feedlots should include
disseminating accurate and current education/information to the regulated community and
providing incentives for proper management, including, if possible, funding for the
implementation of new environmentally sound technologies for point source and nonpoint
source facilities.
B. Behavior Characteristics of Agricultural Industries
Agricultural industries are unique in their close association with one another. Most other
industries are extremely competitive and do not maintain open lines of communications.
133
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
Because agricultural products are essentially sold as commodities, direct price competition
between growers does not strictly exist. Many agricultural prices are set by trading activity
in stock markets. Milk, for example, is primarily sold as a co-operative effort of all the dairy
producers in an area, which gives producers incentives to work together to produce a good
product and to get a good price.
In addition, the pork and poultry industries are dominated by contractor-grower relationships.
The contractor provides the grower with juvenile animals, and the growers feed and tend the
animals to maturity. The grower is paid a set price per animal by the contractor. The
contractor provides technical assistance and testing for the grower. Growers do not compete
with each other for price or numbers of animals.
These organizational and marketing structures have caused the agriculture community to be
considerably more communicative than other industrial groups. Moreover, this industry has
developed several lines of communication among suppliers, associations, contractors, and
grower/producers. EPA could easily use these lines of communication to encourage all
stakeholders in this industry to operate in a more effective environmental manner. Any
education, information, incentive, or enforcement program could be enhanced by using existing
lines of communication with feedlot operators. In addition, EPA can access several other
organizations, summarized in the following section, to disseminate information.
II. COMMUNICATION VEHICLES
When implementing approaches to encourage better environmental management of feedlots,
EPA can use existing communication vehicles, which are highlighted in the following
paragraphs. Appendix A lists organizations within this network. All agencies, producer
groups, member organizations, and industries contacted by the subgroup are willing to use
their communication lines to disseminate information about educational/information and
incentive programs. In addition, the subgroup plans to survey all associations, agencies, and
contract industries to determine all of the potential communication avenues available (see
Appendix B of this report).
A. Federal Aeencies
EPA's section 319 Nonpoint Source (NTS) program supports development and distribution of
information to farmers and producers through various State agencies. EPA also conducts
workshops and provides speakers for information forums as requested. In addition, EPA has
a NPS newsletter and an electronic bulletin board which can be used to disseminate
information.
The USDA and the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) provide technical assistance and
waste management information to producers. They communicate personally with the
producers, as well as through newsletters and seminars.
134
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
In addition, SCS, the technical field "arm" of the USDA, provides education through a wide
variety of workshops/seminars for the agricultural community and provides one-on-one
technical support, developing site-specific nutrient management plans, as well as offering
design service for best management practices (BMPs).
SCS, using an engineering field manual that delineates specifications and standards, designs
approved BMPs. In many States, SCS certifies that the installations and systems meet
State standards set by State water quality agencies. Assistance from SCS is generally in
great demand.
The Farmstead Assessment System (Farm-A-Syst) is a joint EPA/USDA effort piloted at
the University of Wisconsin that allows farmers to assess the potential for contamination of
their drinking water wells from farmstead sources such as feedlots. The Farm-A-Syst
program provides the farmer with a series of worksheets and factsheets that enable the
farmer to evaluate potential sources of farmstead-specific pollutants including animal waste.
As of June 1992, 19 States were in the process of using or modifying the program for their
needs and were providing diagnostic and education modules to farmers. Assessment results
are used to develop voluntary site-specific action plans.
B. State Agencies
State environmental agencies regulate and enforce State requirements (and often the NPDES
program). These agencies generally maintain mailing lists and occasionally hold regulatory
forums for producer education. These agencies occasionally distribute mailings or
newsletters.
State departments of agriculture usually help producer facilities meet their obligations under
State regulatory requirements. These departments usually disseminate information through
regular newsletters and mailings. In addition, they typically provide direct contact with the
producer through agent visits and some seminars.
State health departments normally conduct health inspections of all facilities in their States
and, therefore, have direct contact with the operators, as well as the most current mailing
lists.
University agricultural extension services conduct extensive outreach in all forms:
newsletters, technical journals, seminars and workshops, mailings, and visits by extension
agents. For example, the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center provides weekly
packets to all newspapers in the State and audiovideo tapes for TV stations from its State
offices. From the Parish offices, they provide weekly newspaper articles, newsletters to
Parish groups, and some TV and radio programs. The Department of Agriculture and
Forestry at the university prepares and distributes a monthly newspaper called the Pelican
Press.
135
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
C. Producer Groups
Numerous producer associations provide their membership with several educational and
informational sources. They publish trade journals, send out regular newsletters, mail out
other information as necessary, conduct seminars and workshops, and provide telephone
information/hotlines (800 numbers). These organizations have expressed an interest in
disseminating information that EPA provides.
For example, the Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA) has a weekly newsletter,
provides special mailings, conducts seminars, publishes Cattle Feeders Annual, prepares
research reports, develops and distributes an environmental notebook (summary of
regulations), conducts onsite assessments of facilities, communicates daily with members by
telephone, gives the TCFA Environmental Award, and operates an M-Net satellite computer
link system.
The National Cattlemen's Association (NCA) produces a newsletter, issued approximately
weekly to its members, that focuses on relevant news/updates concerning national legislation
and rulemaking that affect cattle producers. NCA also issues a trade magazine that
occasionally features articles on environmental issues. In addition, NCA has an annual
convention which includes "Cattlemen's College"—an educational seminar series that has
covered environmental issues.
The National Pork Producer's Council (NPPC) has been very involved in educating pork
producers regarding proper environmental controls. For example, in 1993 they published a
handbook for producers called "Environmental Quality in Pork Production." In addition, they
have conducted numerous educational workshops for producers in Missouri, Iowa,
Tennessee, and Indiana, and additional workshops are planned in the future in Illinois,
Wisconsin and South Dakota. EPA has been working cooperatively with NPPC. NPPC is
also supporting a project at the University of Arkansas to summarize all Federal/State laws
that apply to livestock nationwide.
In another effort, EPA entered into an industry/agency cooperative agreement in 1991 with
Southeastern Poultry and Egg Association, the USDA's SCS, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority to disseminate information regarding water quality concerns to the poultry industry.
These groups have formed what has become known as the "Poultry Water Quality
Consortium." The consortium has developed an educational display, conducted a water
quality workshop in the summer of 1993, and is developing a comprehensive water quality
handbook for the poultry industry.
D. Industries
State Farm Bureaus are shareholder-owned companies that help provide farmers with
information and technical assistance. For example, the Texas Farm Bureau publishes a
quarterly newspaper, Texas Neighbor, a twice monthly newspaper, the Texas Agriculture, and
a weekly newsletter; produces a video newsletter; and has TV satellite capabilities, which
they use for special focus shows.
136
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
In addition, numerous agricultural companies and conglomerates and fertilizer companies
communicate with growers and distributors, providing information and technical assistance.
Tyson Foods, for example, provides extensive technical information/assistance to their
growers. They have seminars and newsletters and their technical representatives visit
growers once a week. Seaboard Farms of Colorado, Inc., also informs its growers through
newsletters and training programs.
III. APPROACHES FOR EFFECTING CHANGE AND ENCOURAGING EXCELLENCE
People tend to change their behavior when they learn a better way or they are rewarded for
changing. Therefore, two overall approaches to encourage environmentally sound man-
agement of feedlot operations are: 1) education and information dissemination, and 2)
incentives. The Agency could use information channels discussed previously, as well as
vehicles presented in the following discussion, to provide producers with new or different
ways to operate their feeding facilities in an environmentally sound manner. This information
coupled with an incentive system could initiate change. Appendix A, given at the end of this
report, compares the workloads and costs of the various options.
A. Education and Information
Providing information and education programs to this industry as a whole will be more cost
efficient than similar endeavors with other industries because of the characteristic close
associations and interdependencies. Operator peer pressure and pressure from politically
astute associations or contractor interactions can be subtle tools for environmental change.
Most associations and contractor operations are willing to provide EPA with a "vehicle" to
inform operators about proper environmental practices. Currently, the beef, dairy, poultry, and
pork industries are under considerable public pressure to decrease the use of pesticides and
hormones in food products and the environmental impacts of agriculture. Therefore, most
producer associations and produce contractors are anxious to improve the public image of
their industry. Interactions with EPA (e.g., educational programs or producer information)
are one way for these industries to improve their environmental image.
Moreover, in contractor-operator relationships, which exist predominately in the poultry and
pork producing industries, the contractor has a strong position of power and influence with the
grower—the contractor supplies income to the grower for the service of growing the animal.
These contractors are large national companies, with a strong desire to promote a good
environmental public image. Because the contractor's name is so closely linked to the
practices of the grower facilities, all of the contractors contacted in the preparation of this
report (e.g., Tyson Foods, Seabrook Farms of CO., OK Foods) were very willing to provide
their growers with current information from EPA on environmental practices, regulations,
award systems, etc. Because of the unique grower-contractor relationship, this option may
be one of the most effective means for educating and informing operators in the pork and
poultry industries.
137
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
Producer associations are also becoming sensitive to public perception and environmental
responsibilities. Both the beef and dairy industries have been hard hit by newer "health"
concerns about cholesterol and red meat consumption. Previously, these industries simply
had no public image; now they are very active in public relations attempting to improve their
image. Because the strongest members of these associations are often the largest facilities,
the opinions of the association frequently represent a few of the most active members. These
active members are frequently the most politically astute and willing to yield to public opinion.
They understand the benefits of being publicly perceived as environmentally "correct." The
association also has a vested interest in providing the most current information to its
membership, and the members view this as a primary function of the association.
Although education and information cannot directly change the way all facilities operate, they
have always affected the most progressive faction. When a few facilities adopt
environmentally safer ways of operating, others will follow the example. These examples will
exert positive peer pressure and help prevent false information from proliferating through the
industry. One of the most important results of disseminating EPA information directly to the
producers is dispelling environmental myths about practices that may be more harmful than
helpful to the environment. In addition, by providing information to the regulated public, EPA
could emphasize pollution prevention measures and philosophies and would have the
opportunity to enhance the public's understanding of EPA.
The following discussion highlights numerous options that can be taken to implement the
education and information approach.
1. Educational Packets
Educational packets of environmental, funding, and regulation information can be prepared or
updated and provided to all associations and agencies once each year. EPA could consolidate
information from the NPS, permitting, enforcement, and funding programs and make copies
available to other agencies and producers. Information sheets, such as "How to Comply With
an EPA Inspection" and "Wetlands Protection," could be developed for these packets. This
option is beneficial because it is an opportunity to provide comprehensive information.
However, the option could become complicated because different packets would be required
for different types of operations.
2. Monthly Updates
In addition, EPA could give monthly updates on EPA regulations, programs, and funding to all
associations and agencies. These organizations could include the updates as a regular
feature of their newsletters or mailouts. The update could comprise basic environmental
information: impacts of agricultural wastes on the environment, new BMPs that the Agency
supports, latest award recipients (or award criteria), available funds and instructions on how
to apply, addresses for obtaining educational information, and information on organizations
conducting innovative management or treatment. The advantage of this option is that
138
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
information is being disseminated rapidly through established forums that reach numerous
operators. In addition, EPA does not incur the mailing and printing costs. One disadvantage
is that the reports will ultimately be prepared by external sources and may not be ideally
representative of the information EPA provides.
3. Speakers and Workshops
Another option is to provide speaker(s) for functions and seminars that are sponsored by
other agencies and associations. Each Region or HQ could have speakers trained in specific
topics to provide talks to the agricultural community. EPA could also sponsor workshops to
provide an educational forum or institute a program to put on workshops. This option allows
the Agency to emphasize pollution prevention measures and philosophies and to improve
communication with the agricultural community. In EPA-organized meetings, the Agency
would have full control over the content, style, and format of the information being delivered.
If the speakers or EPA-meetings are not polished and informative, however, EPA's
reputation could suffer.
4. Courtesy Inspections
A system of "courtesy inspections" could also be established where inspections are
conducted at facilities to identify any compliance violations strictly for the benefit of the
operator and to inform the operator of proper procedure—not for enforcement purposes. This
type of inspection has already proved beneficial for some State health departments. The
advantages of this option are twofold: EPA develops a benevolent image and operators
receive education specific to their operations. However, this option requires a large time
investment, can only reach a limited number of facilities, and may confuse the public about
EPA's regulatory role.
5. Computer Networks
To reach a larger audience, EPA could enter information, including information sent to
newsletters, on agricultural electronic bulletin boards (computer networks). This information
could be updated daily or weekly so large amounts of the most current information could be
given. Use of electronic bulletin boards is advantageous because the bulletin boards are
readily available, information is delivered rapidly at little cost, and EPA controls the
information. However, procedures must be developed to clear the information, and, because
not all operators have access, EPA must rely on users to disseminate the information
accurately.
139
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPAJState
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feed lot Workgroup
6. Case Study
Many of these options can be and have been implemented during the permitting process. In
the process of developing regulations, technical standards, and permits, the Agency should
use every available opportunity to provide the regulated public information on the regulatory
process and decisionmaking. The public's misconception of the limits on EPA's flexibility,
mandates, and authority causes considerable confusion. This lack of understanding and
confusion often results in resentment. EPA already has ample opportunity to provide
information through the regulatory process and should continue to use this avenue.
For example, Region VI recently issued a general permit for all concentrated animal feeding
operations in the States of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. In the process of
writing, proposing, and issuing the permit, the Region scheduled several meetings with
representatives from the livestock feeding industry. In addition, along with the public hearing
and comment period process, the Region provided workshops with each scheduled public
hearing. Also, personnel from the Region were available to give talks at other workshops
and seminars. This allowed the Region to help the public understand the regulatory process,
as well as how EPA is required to protect the environment. The public got to see first hand
how EPA uses information and data to make determinations about permit conditions. The
results of this intensive outreach effort were obvious. The regulated public and producer
groups expressed their appreciation to EPA for the opportunity to work on a permit in the
formative stages. The producer groups also started immediately to provide compliance
guidance for their members (i.e., putting together model pollution prevention plans,
developing simple sampling guidance, giving instructions to their members on best
management practices required by the permit). Because industrial groups were providing
information on guidance, deadlines, and waste management, the industry, as a whole,
appeared willing to comply. Originally, Region VI had estimated that approximately 1,000
facilities would come under the authority of the general permit. To date, Region VI has
received 1,256 Notices of Intent. It is unusual to receive applications from 100 percent of the
expected permittees; however, it is not surprising considering all the attention that the
industry associations gave this program. Perhaps this attention will encourage permit
compliance by facility operators. The intensive outreach, though costly in work hours and
travel expenses, saved the Agency the expense of defending the permit in court. Because the
industry so fully understood EPA rationale and authority for the requirements placed in the
permit, no legal challenges were made to what was originally considered a very controversial
permit.
B. Incentive Programs
Incentive programs can include awards, grants, loans, or other methods of recognition or
financial incentives. While these financial types of programs may effect change more rapidly
than just providing information alone, they are costly and labor intensive for the Agency.
Several other options that could provide incentive for change should be explored, such as the
use of public opinion and peer pressure. With the relatively noncompetitive nature of this
industry, peer pressure can take a distinctly positive direction.
140
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
1. Awards
The Agency could encourage producer's associations to provide an award system for facilities
that have an outstanding environmental record. Awards could be given, for example, to the
most innovative or environmental dairy farm, pork farm, poultry producer, or beef producer.
The Agency could also award organizations for being proactive and encouraging compliance
among their memberships. Criteria to evaluate facilities would have to be developed. This
option could prove to be a powerful incentive for change and could be a mechanism/tool for
organizations to use to encourage their members toward environmentally sound practices. In
addition, the system could increase compliance with little cost. However, awards would have
to be given carefully to avoid recognizing a facility with problems.
2. Grants/Loans
Although expensive - the required funding would probably have to be appropriated by
Congress - a grant/loan program could be one of the best tools to change environmental
attitudes in the agricultural indusiry. EPA could provide grants/loans for facilities to update
or build better waste management technology, which would have the most direct and
measurable effect on the environment. For example, the replacement of outdated
management systems could greatly improve water quality in some watersheds. Several
programs are already making significant progress, as noted in the following paragraphs.
a. USD A
USDA has encouraged proper management of manure resources by providing livestock
producers with educational programs, technical assistance, and funding for construction of
BMPs. Practice WP4, Agricultural Waste Control Facilities, is a BMP cost-share funded
under the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service's (ASCS's) Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP). The purpose of this practice is to reduce pollution by
agricultural animal wastes where these wastes constitute a significant hazard. The
structures provided under this practice include facilities for storing, handling, and treating
agricultural wastes and controlling surface runoff. Table 1 indicates annual funding levels for
construction of animal waste control facilities through the ACP program. No data are
available to determine the total portion of SCS funding which is directed to animal waste
management programs (SCS field agents generally work in several project areas, including
animal waste management system design, as needed).
141
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPA/State
Feed lot Workgroup
Table I. USDA Agricultural Conservation Program Cost Share for
Animal Waste Control Facilities
Program
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Units Assisted
Counties Farms Structures
618
566
457
604
504
613
722
1 ,636
1,416
1,239
1,677
1,421
1,873
2,269
1,830
1,661
1,314
1,947
1,753
2,348
2,912
Funding
Level
($M)
3.939
3.335
3.125
5.415
5.722
9.448
11.922
Percent of total
ACP
Distributions
2.6
3.0
2.9
3.4
4.2
7.1
9.0
* Constant 1982 dollars
* From USDA, 1992. Agricultural Conservation Program. Statistical Summary: Fiscal Years 1985-1991.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
In 1988, USDA changed its cost-share policy to allow for 10-year, long-term agreements of
up to a total of $35,000 instead of the previous limitation of $3,500 per year per person. With
this change, a substantial portion of the costs of a waste containment facility could be cost-
shared in the construction year; the farmer would not have to carry a large loan. This was an
important step as banks are more likely to provide loans for farm machinery that can be sold
by the bank if there is a default on the loan; animal waste containment structures generally
cannot be liquidated and remain part of the property they are installed on.
The Water Quality Incentives Projects (WQIP) program is another program administered by
USDA's ASCS which provides cost sharing to farmers to help implement various non-
structural practices. This program funds, for example, development of nutrient management
plans which assure proper management of manure from feedlots. This program is funded at
SI8.5 million in FY 94 and will be providing assistance to many watersheds in 1994; EPA
participated in a review panel in August 1993 to select watershed projects for funding.
b. Section 319 Nonpoint Source (NFS) Program
Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act provides assistance to States, Territories, and Indian
Tribes (hereinafter referred to as States) to assist in implementing State NPS management
programs. To date, approximately $190 million dollars have been provided to States under
section 319(h) or about $50 million per year. Section 319 (h) provides assistance for a
variety of NPS implementation activities including animal waste management. Eligible
activities include: information and education programs; technical assistance for installation of
NPS controls such as animal waste practices; cost sharing for implementation of NPS
controls in demonstration projects; and support for development of regulatory programs such
142
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
as animal waste regulations. Table 2 indicates the type and amount of support available to
feedlot operators under EPA programs.
Table 2. EPA Funding Sources for Feedlot Projects
Program
Comprehensive State
Ground Water
Protection Program
Section 319
NPS grants
National Estuary
Program
Chesapeake Bay
Program
Clean Lakes Program
Nitrogen Action Plan
Type of Support
• Education (Farm-A-Syst)
• Education
• Demonstration BMPs
• Education/planning
• Education
- BMPs
- BMPs
• Education
Funding Level (1992)
*Approx. $10 M/yr total program
funding
*Approx. $50M/yr total program
funding incl. min. State match of
40%
*Approx. $15M7yr total program
funding incl. 25% cost share
Approx. 59 M/yr on BMPs alone.
$55 M on BMPs by end of 1992.
incl. 50% State match
*Approx. $7M/yr inc. 50% State
match
No specific funding
Total program funding (includes projects unrelated to feedlots).
c. Other CWA Programs
There are several other CWA programs that support implementation of animal waste
controls. Namely, the Clean Lakes Program under section 314 of the CWA provides cost
sharing for installation of animal waste controls as part of watershed control programs for
specific lakes. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program under section 117 of the CWA
provides substantial cost sharing funds for installation of animal waste controls in the
Chesapeake Bay States of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
d. State Revolving Fund Program
The State Revolving Fund (SRF) program was authorized by the U.S. Congress through Title
VI of the CWA as amended in 1987. Through it, EPA provides capitalization grants to States
to establish their SRF programs. States must provide a 20-percent match for the Federal
capitalization grants. SRFs provide loans, refinance existing debt obligations, guarantee or
purchase insurance for local debt obligations, guarantee SRF debt obligations, and provide
loan guarantees for "sub-state revolving funds." Under section 603(c) of the CWA, SRF
143
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
funds can be used to provide financial assistance for section 212 publicly owned wastewater
treatment works, implementation of an EPA-approved State Nonpoint Source Management
Program established under section 319, and development and implementation of an estuary
conservation and management plan under section 320. Congress has appropriated about
$7.8 billion for the SRF program from FY 1989 through FY 1993.
Within the parameters of certain Federal requirements, States have the flexibility to
establish SRF programs to meet their particular water quality needs. Under the SRF
program, States are required to prepare annual intended use plans (lUPs), which identify how
SRF funds are to be used. Projects to be funded for construction of wastewater treatment
works (section 212 projects) must first appear on a State's priority list developed under
section 216 of the CWA prior to being listed on the I UP. The selection of section 212 projects
from the State's priority list to receive SRF assistance need not be made in priority order.
Activities to be funded under sections 319 or 320 must be consistent with the EPA-approved
State Nonpoint Source Management Program or the Estuary Conservation and Management
Plan, respectively.
i. Eligibility of Feedlots Under the SRF Program. The potential availability of low-cost
funding from SRFs could provide an incentive to feedlot operators to comply with NPDES
permit requirements. SRFs can provide assistance to persons (i.e., privately owned
facilities) to address nonpoint source problems identified in NPS Management Programs.
Unlike grant assistance provided under section 319, SRF assistance to persons is not limited
to demonstration projects.
The status of SRF funding of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) is uncertain
given that they are defined as point sources in the FWPCA and covered under the NPDES
permit requirements. Section 212 privately owned facilities cannot currently receive SRF
assistance. The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) has referred
the issue of feedlot eligibility under the SRF program to the Office of General Counsel.
As part of the CWA reauthorization, Congress is considering options on eligibility of
expanded uses of the SRF to address water quality needs. Senate Bill 1114 (drafted by the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works) includes specific authorization for
feed lots.
ii. State Use of SRF Funds for Nonpoint Sources. Five State SRF programs (California,
Delaware, Maryland, Washington, and Wyoming) are addressing nonpoint source needs. Of
these States, only Delaware is currently developing a mechanism to address discharges from
feedlot operations. Delaware's program establishes a partnership involving State
conservation districts, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS), the Dehnarva Poultry Industry, eight poultry companies, and
thousands of poultry producers to coordinate the available Federal and State funds for
building chicken manure storage and dead bird composting structures.
144
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
e. Other State Funded Programs
About 40 States have non-federally funded State loan or grant programs to finance
wastewater treatment and other infrastructure or environmental projects. Many states have
general NFS cost sharing programs which share the cost with farmers for installing
agricultural BMPs. A few example states include: Wisconsin, North Carolina, Minnesota,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Iowa. Utah also has a State-funded loan program.
3. Enforcement
Enforcement actions are always a strong incentive for environmental compliance for the
regulated facilities. In addition, facilities that are not automatically considered point source
facilities can be designated by the Director if there is sufficient cause. The Agency can use
the potential for designation as an incentive to motivate change in smaller or other previously
unregulated facilities. EPA could stress in its educational programs how facilities can
eliminate themselves as a water quality problem and, therefore, reduce their potential to be
regulated in the future. Moreover, EPA could publicize which types of facilities would be first
priority in the development of new regulations. This would encourage those facilities to be
more aware of their environmental problems and possibly address them to reduce their
environmental "profile."
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee recommends the development of a communication strategy that incorporates
several of the education/outreach strategies discussed in this paper. We recommend that the
Agency concentrate on providing educational packets to the industry through the
associations, agencies, and private organizations that want to participate. This approach will
be the easiest and quickest strategy for EPA to pursue and will require the least amount of
additional funding. Existing NPS programs can also be used to incorporate information about
the regulatory processes.
In addition, the committee recommends that the Agency provide a speaker program. This is
the most efficient way to provide one-on-one contact with the regulated public. Although
more expensive than other options, the committee believes that a speaker program is
important for changing the industry's attitude toward regulation and the Agency.
Lastly, the committee believes that EPA should encourage the industry and professional
organizations to offer environmental awards and courtesy inspections. Information on these
two ideas could be included with the educational packets sent out to these organizations.
This approach provides an incentive program that does not depend on EPA's ability to
generate funds; it also does not confuse the public as to EPA's role as regulator.
145
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Appendix A. Work Load and Cost Comparison of Activities Which EPA
Could Use To Encourage Agricultural Industries To Promote
Environmental Issues
Activity
Work Load
Cost
Provide monthly update on
EPA regulations/programs/
funding to all associations
and agencies which have
mai louts/newsletters.
Organizing the information
and putting together a
monthly bulletin would
probably require 0.3 FTEs
Mailing and paper costs
would be minimal
Put EPA information on all
agricultural electronic bulletin
boards (computer networks).
Organizing the information
and putting together a
monthly bulletin would
probably require 0.3 FTEs.
The person would have to be
computer literate.
The cost of computer time
varies for different bulletin
boards.
Provide educational packets
of environmental, funding and
regulation information to all
associations and
once/year.
agencies
Gathering the information
and organizing it in a user
friendly way would probably
require 0.2 FTEs
Again, mailing and resource
costs would be minimal.
Provide speaker(s) to speak
at requested functions and
seminars that are sponsored
by other agencies and
associations.
If this was addressed at the
HQ level it would take at
least one full FTE to cover
the entire U.S. If this was
addressed Region by Region
it would take 0.5 - 0.25 FTEs
each.
The major expense would be
an extensive travel budget
and minimal costs for slides
and handouts for speaker
materials.
Develop EPA sponsored
workshops to provide an
educational forum.
This would only be practical if
organized by HQ. It would
take at least 2 FTEs to set
up and organize the work
shops.
This would require a lot of
financial support. The cost of
materials, mailings, travel,
conference hall rental, etc.
Provide a "Courtesy
Inspections" system where a
non enforcement inspector
visits facilities and points out
compliance violations for the
benefit of the operator.
This would need to be
addressed on the Regional
level and would require one
FTE per Region.
Would require an extensive
travel budget.
146
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Appendix A. Work Load And Cost Comparison Of Activities Which EPA
Could Use To Encourage Agricultural Industries To Promote
Environmental Issues (continued)
Activity
Work Load
Cost
Provide an award system for
facilities which have an
outstanding environmental
record.
0.1 FTEs per Region for
evaluating facility petitions
and 0.3 FTEs at HQ level to
approve and make awards.
Minimal cost for certificates.
Provide grants/loans for
facilities to update or build
better waste
technology.
management
1 FTE per Region to award
the grants/loans. 1 FTE in
HQ to develop grant/loan
policy.
LOTS OF MONEY!
147
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Appendix B. Selected List of Organizations in the Communications Network
Federal/National Agencies
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
South Agriculture Building
14th and Independence, SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
CTIC (Conservation Technology Information
Center)
1220 Potter Drive, Room 170
Purdue Research Park
West Lafayette, Indiana 47906-6952
(317) 494-9555
Sample Slate Contacts for USD A:
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
South National Technical Center
P. O. Box 6567
Fort Worth, Texas 76115-6567
(817) 334-5242
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
101 South Main Street
Temple, Texas 76501-7682
State Agencies
Sample Stale Contacts:
Texas
Texas Water Commission
Ms. Marilyn Long
Texas Water Commission
Agricultural Section
17th and Congress, 1st Floor
Austin, Texas 78701
Texas State Soil and Water Conservation
Board
31 1 North 5th
P. O. Box 658
Temple, Texas 76503
(817) 773-2250
Texas Department of Agriculture
P. O. Box 12847
Austin, Texas 7871 1
(512) 463-7476
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
303 Agricultural Engineering Building
College Station, Texas 77843-2121
Texas General Land Office
Gary Mauro, Commissioner
Stephen F. Austin Building
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas
148
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service
Gary L. Sherrer, Commissioner Division of Agriculture
2800 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73150-4298 Department of Agricultural Engineering
(405) 521-3864 214 Agricultural Hall
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-0469
(405) 744-5425 or 5427, Telephone,
(405) 744-9693, Fax
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Hal Clark, Commissioner
2800 North Lincoln Boulevard
Room 160
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
(405) 521-2384
New Mexico
State of New Mexico Environment New Mexico State University
Department Box 3AE
Mr. Jim Piatt, Chief Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-0031
Surface Water Quality Bureau
1190 Saint Francis Drive RM N-2050
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502
(505) 827-2795, Fax (505) 827-2836
New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Office of the Director/Secretary
Box 30005, Department 3189
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003-0005
(505) 646-3007
149
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
Louisiana
State of Louisiana Louisiana State University
Department of Environmental Quality Agricultural Center
Office of Water Resources P. O. Box 25203
P.O. Box 82215 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70894-5203
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2215 (504) 388-4161, Telephone,
(504) 388-4143
150
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
Producer Groups
Sample Producer Group Contacts:
National Cattlemen's Association
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D. C. 20004-1701
(303) 694-0305
National Pork Producers Council
P. O. Box 10383
Des Moines, Iowa 50306
(515) 223-2600, Telephone,
(515) 223-2646, Fax
Livestock Marketing Association
7509 Tiffany Springs Pkwy.
Kansas City, MO 64153
(816) 891-0502, 1-800-821-2048
National Milk Producers Federation
1840 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, Virginia 22201
(703) 243-6111, Telephone, (703) 841-
9328
Texas Cattle Feeders Association
5501 West 1-40
Amarillo, Texas 79106
(906) 358-3691, Telephone,
(906) 352-6026
Texas Association of Dairymen
P.O. Box 1115
Stephenville, Texas 76401
(817) 968-5180
Poultry Water Quality Consortium
TVA-HB2C
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402
(615) 751-7297
New Mexico Cattle Growers'
Association
2231 Rio Grande Blvd., N.W.
Box 7517
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
(505) 247-0584
New Mexico Livestock Marketing
Association
Route 3, Box 155T
Stephenville, Texas 76401
(817) 965-2229
Dairy Producers of New Mexico
Box 3AE, NMSU
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003
Louisiana Cattlemen's Association
4921 I-10 Frontage Road
Port Allen, Louisiana 70767-4195
(504) 343-3491, Telephone,
(504) 336-0002, Fax
Montana Stockgrowers Association
420 North California
P.O. Box 1679
Helena, Montana 59624
(406) 442-3420 or (406) 449-5105
Nebraska Cattlemen
204 East 3rd Street
P. O. Drawer 40
Alliance, Nebraska 69301
(308) 762-3005
or
Executive Building
Suite 101
521 South 14th Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
(402) 475-2333
151
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup
Texas Beef Producers
P.O.Box 1355
Sunray, Texas 79029
(806) 948-4163, Telephone, (806) 948-
4502, Fax
Oklahoma Livestock Marketing Association
P. O. Box 5841
Norman, Oklahoma 73071
(405) 360-0605
Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association
P. O. Box 82395
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73071
(405) 235-4391 or 235-3607, Telephone,
(405) 235-3608, Fax
Oklahoma Hereford Association, Inc.
Bill Jacobs, President
Box 160
Elgin, Oklahoma 73538
(405) 492-4315 or 492-4706
Illinois Beef Association
Affiliated with National Cattlemen's
Association
993 Clock Tower Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62704
(217) 787-4280, Telephone, (217) 793-
3605, Fax
Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association
1401 North 24th Street
Suite #4
Phoenix, Arizona 85008
(602) 273-7414
Kansas Livestock Association
6031 S.W. 37th Street
Topeka, Kansas 66614-5128
(913) 273-5115, Telephone, (913) 273-
3399, Fax
California Cattlemen's Association
1221 H Street
Sacramento, California 95814-1910
(916) 444-0845
Industries
Sample Industry Contacts:
Texas Farm Bureau
S. M. True, Jr., President
P. O. Box 2689
Waco, Texas 76702-2689
(817) 772-3030
Oklahoma Association of Conservation
Districts
Billy Wilson, President
P. O. Box 6123
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73146
(918) 768-3542
Seaboard Farms of Colorado
121 West 2nd Street
Julesburg, CO. 80737
(303) 474-3351 Phone, (303) 474-2663
FAX
Koch Agriculture Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 2256
Wichita, Kansas 67201
(316) 832-4007
152
-------
The Report of the
Education/Outreach Subgroup
The Report of the EPAJState
Feedlot Workgroup^
Oklahoma Farm Bureau
2501 North Stiles
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3196
(405) 523-2300
New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau
421 North Water Street
Las Graces, New Mexico 88001
(505) 526-0858, Telephone, (505) 525-
0858, Fax
Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation
P. O. Box 95004
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70895-9004
Tyson Foods, Inc.
P. O. Box 2020
Springdale, Arkansas
(501) 756-4000
ConAgra Broiler Company
422 North Washington
P.O.Box 1997
El Dorado, Arkansas 71731
(501) 863-1600
Growmark
P. O. Box 2500
Bloomington, IL 61702-2500
(309) 557-6000
The Fertilizer Institute
501 Second Street, N.E.
Washington, D. C. 20002
(202) 675-8250, Telephone, (202) 544-
8123, Fax
153
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
Appendix C. Communication Strategy Survey
Dear Survey Participant:
A workgroup of Federal and State Representatives is currently examining ways to
improve communication with producer organizations, contractors, and other Federal and State
agencies. We are assessing the potential for using existing avenues of communication to
provide feeding operators with updated information about Federal regulatory programs,
financial assistance, environmental awards, and appropriate environmental practices.
The attached survey is being conducted to determine the availability of existing
communications lines to operators of animal/feeding production facilities. The workgroup
would like your input to help us ascertain the availability of existing communications
channels, and gather data that will help plan for the best use of those channels.
Please complete the survey and return by to the workgroup. You
may fax your response at the number listed on the survey, or, if you would prefer, please mail
to:
Feedlot Workgroup
c/c Jackie Hanson, Mailcode EN-338
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Thank you very much for your assistance, and we look forward to working with you to
improve communications.
Sincerely.
Paulette Johnsey
Workgroup Chair
Attachment
155
-------
The Report of the The Report of the EPA/State
Education/Outreach Subgroup Feedlot Workgroup
COMMONfCATtQNS SURVEY: ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Please fax this form to the Feedlot Workgroup, fax (202) 260-5282. Thank you!
1. Name of organization, address, and contact person for communications bulletins:
2. Type of organization: n Public company D Member association
D Private bureau D State or Federal agency D Other
3. What written communications strategies does your organization use?
Type Frequency (please circle one)
D Newsletter weekly monthly quarterly annually
D Magazine weekly monthly quarterly annually
n Mailouts weekly monthly quarterly annually
n Technical guidance weekly monthly quarterly annually
D Other (please describe)
4. What types of personal communication does your organization provide to operators/
producers?
Type Frequency (please circle one)
D On-srte visits weekly monthly quarterly annually as needed
D Telephone calls weekly monthly quarterly annually as needed
D Workshops or seminars weekly monthly quarterly annually as needed
D Other (please describe)
5. What types of electronic/video communications does your organization use to
communicate with operators/producers?
D Electronic bulletin boards n Education/information videos
D Video conferencing n Other (please describe)
6. Which of the following information specific to animal feed/production facilities, if provided
by EPA, would be helpful to your members/constituency to operate their facilities in an
environmentally aware manner? (check all applicable items)
D Educational materials on environmental hazards
D Explanation of environmental regulations
D Information/update on loans/grants
D Information/update on environmental awards
D Description of new environmental practices
D Other (please describe)
7. Would your organization be willing to distribute information provided by EPA in your
newsletter, mailouts, technical outreach vehicles, etc?
D Yes D No D Undecided
8. Does your orgnization believe that this approach could influence producers to operate
their facilities in a more environmentally aware manner?
n Yes D No D Undecided
156
------- |