i & ^
%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 4 1998
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Strategy for A —1 *>--J-— ^ —
Assistant Administrator^
it Administrator
FROM: Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator^
Office of Water - . j/l _ '
Steve Herman, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
TO:
Interested Parties
We are pleased to provide the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft Strategy
for Addressing Environmental and Public Health Impacts from Animal Feeding Operations
(AFOs). The draft AFO Strategy is the product of extensive discussions with our Federal and
State partners, and livestock, environmental, and public interest groups. This draft AFO Strategy
is among the key action items called for in the Clean Water Action Plan. The Clean Water
Action Plan, announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore on February 19, 1998,
provides a blueprint for finishing the job of restoring and protecting the nation's rivers, lakes and
coastal waters. We are requesting input on the draft Strategy by May 1, 1998.
The draft AFO Strategy sets forth EPA's short-term and long-term efforts to
comprehensively address the environmental and public health problems associated with AFOs.
Animal feeding operations, singularly or in combination with other AFOs or pollutant sources in
a watershed, have been shown to cause significant environmental and public health problems,
including nutrient enrichment of surface waters, contamination of drinking water supplies, fish
kills, and odors. The draft Strategy marshals the full range of voluntary, technical and financial
assistance, and regulatory and enforcement tools available, and relies on the coordinated
participation of all levels of government, the animal agriculture industry, environmental and
public interest groups.
Description
The draft AFO Strategy includes specific short-term and long-term activities that EPA
will undertake to substantially expand existing efforts to minimize the environmental and public
health threats of AFOs. The draft Strategy establishes five overall objectives:
Recycled/Recyclable .Printed with Vegetable OH Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Post consumer)
-------
2
~ Expand Compliance and Enforcement Efforts: EPA will work with States to expand
the use of compliance assistance and enforcement to ensure that existing Clean Water Act
(CWA) requirements are implemented. Today, EPA's Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) is releasing the Compliance Assurance Implementation
Plan for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), the first product identified
in EPA's draft AFO Strategy.
~ Improve Clean Water Act Permits: EPA will work with States to significantly expand
the number of facilities that currently have CWA permits, and to permit
conditions that address water pollution problems associated with animal manure
management.
~ Focus on Priority Watersheds: EPA and States, with the assistance of USD A and other
partners, will summarize data on the location of AFOs and CAFOs to identify watersheds
that are a priority for action.
~ Revise Existing Regulations: EPA will work with States, the regulated community, and
citizens to revise both the CWA permit program regulations and the existing effluent
limitations guidelines for feedlots.
» Increase EPA/USDA Coordination: EPA, USDA, and other partners will coordinate
more closely on the full range of AFO-related activities.
During the next few months, EPA will pursue opportunities for dialogue with interested
groups to reach a better understanding of key issues and perspectives. While seeking input on
this draft AFO Strategy, EPA is also moving forward with immediate actions to improve existing
implementation and enforcement efforts. In addition, USDA and EPA will also focus on
development of a draft unified national strategy (July 1998) as called for in the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Comments
Thank you in advance for your interest and input on this important subject. The draft
Strategy and additional information will be available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/owm.
You may also contact Ruby Cooper Ford, 401 M Street, SW, Mail Code 4203, Washington,
D. C., 20460, or by E-mail: ford.ruby@epa.gov. Please submit written comments on this draft
AFO Strategy by May I, 1998, to Ruby Cooper Ford at the above address.
Attachment
-------
EPA's Draft Strategy on Animal Feeding Operations
On February 19, 1998, at Baltimore's Inner Harbor, President Clinton and Vice
President Gore announced the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan to finish the
job of cleaning up America's rivers, lakes and coastal waters to protect the environment
and health of all Americans. A key element of that Plan called for a strategy to control
water pollution coming from animal feeding operations - release of this Strategy is the
first key action implemented under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Background
Animal Feeding Operations, or AFOs, are agricultural facilities that confine
feeding activities, thereby concentrating animal populations and manure. Animal
waste, if not managed properly, can run off farms and pollute nearby water bodies.
Agricultural runoff, rich in nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, has been linked to
dangerous toxic microorganisms such as Pfiesteria piscicida. Pfiesteria is widely
believed to be responsible for major fish kills and disease events in several mid-Atlantic
staes and may pose a risk to human health.
There were about 450,000 animal feeding operations in 1994. About 6,600 of
ttyese operations fall in to the largest category and are referred to as Concentrated
Ahimal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, which confine larger numbers of animals,
therefore posing a greater threat to the environment and public health.
Less than 25 percent of these larger operations currently have Clean Water Act
permits to control the amount of wastes that run off into waterways. This reflects the
historical focus of the Act to first control pollution from industrial facilities and sewage
treatment plants rather than problems caused by agricultural and urban runoff.
The Strategy: Protecting the Environment and Public Health
The strategy will protect our rivers, lakes and coastal waters from polluted runoff by:
Setting new national standards for allowable levels of pollution in runoff from
from poultry and swine facilities by December, 2001 and from cattle and dairy
operations by 2002.
Issuing permits to limit pollution from runoff for the largest CAFOs by 2002, and
from all other large feeding operations and priority facilities in impaired
watersheds by 2005.
• Improving compliance and enforcement of existing regulations by working with
states to inspect those facilities that present the greatest threats to the
environment and public health within three years and all large feedlot operations
within five years.
-------
Focusing enforcement and permitting efforts on those watersheds most
vulnerable to pollution from animal feeding operations.
Expanding the scope of permitting through Administrative actions in the near
term and through regulatory changes by 2001, to include for the first time,
national efforts to manage pollution associated with the land application of
manure.
• Continuing dialogues with the animal agricultural industries, environmental
organizations, and community organizations.
• Preparing a unified national strategy under EPA and USDA leadership to control
pollution from feedlot operations by November 1998.
Environmental Benefits
The new strategy will result in the following environmental improvements.
• Reductions in manure runoff will decrease the amount of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen,
phosphorus) entering water bodies. Excessive nutrient levels have been
responsible for hypoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen) and anoxia (absence of
dissolved oxygen) in surface waters throughout the United States, including the
"Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, and elsewhere, and
linked to pflesteria.
Reductions in leaching from manure storage lagoons will protect groundwater
resources from nitrate or pathogen contamination. Protection of both surface
and ground water resources will also protect drinking water systems throughout
the United States.
• While a definitive conclusion has yet to be reached, many scientists believe that
high levels of nutrients led to the Pfiesteria piscicida outbreaks in North Carolina
and Maryland and Virginia tnbutaries to the Chesapeake Bay. Addressing
manure runoff from AFOs will minimize one identified source of nutrients to these
waters.
-------
FOR RELEASE: THURSDAY, MARCH 5,1998
EPA TO BETTER PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT FROM ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Robin Woods 202-260-4377
"In its first action under the Clinton Administration's new Clean Water Action Plan to
finish the job of cleaning up the nation's rivers, lakes and streams, EPA is releasing for public
comment a draft strategy to minimize the public health and environmental impacts from animal
feeding operations (AFOs). The strategy calls for new water pollution control requirements and
immediate inspections and increased enforcement for large animal feeding operations to reduce
animal waste runoff into waterways.
"Last month, President Clinton pledged to finish the job of cleaning up America's,
waterways, and today we are taking a major step to make good on that pledge by controlling
runoff from animal feeding operations - a major source of water pollution," said EPA
Administrator, Carol M. Browner. "Rural and urban runoff account for more than half of all
water pollution, and runoff from animal feeding operations in particular has been associated with
threats to human health and the environment."
Animal feeding operations are livestock-raising operations, such as hog, cattle and
poultry farms, that confine and concentrate animal populations and their wastes. Animal waste, if
not managed properly, can run off to nearby water bodies and cause serious water pollution and
public health risks. There are approximately 450,000 AFOs in the United States. About 6,600 of
these operations are fall into the largest catagory and are referred to as Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
The draft strategy calls for agressive enforcement of Clean Water Act permit
requirements and an increase in facilities permitted. It also calls for the implementation of an
expanded range of regulatory and permitting tools by EPA and the states. It is intended to foster
a dialogue with the regulated community and other members of the public on how to better
protect public health and
(more)
-------
R-26
-2-
the environment around these facilities and to encourage voluntary actions
Agricultural practices across the United States are estimated to contribute to the
degradation of 60 percent of the nation's surveyed nvers and streams that are impaired. Feedlots
alone are estimated to adversely impact 16 percent of waters that are impaired from agricultural
practices.
Although some concentrated animal feeding operations have been regulated under the
Clean Water Act since the early 1970s, the concentration of animals at larger feeding operations
and the availability of new waste management technologies and runoff controls have heightened
awareness that additional controls are needed. Increasing incidences of animal waste discharges
into waterways have led to drinking water contamination, fish kills, nuisance odors and other
environmental problems.
Reductions in animal waste runoff will decrease the amount of excess nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus) entering surface water bodies. While a definitive conclusion has yet
to be reached, many scientists believe that high levels of nutrients have led to the toxic
microorganism "pfiesteria" outbreaks in North Carolina and in the Maryland and Virginia
tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. Excessive nutrient levels also have been responsible for lower
oxygen levels in surface waters throughout the United States, including the Dead Zone in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Protection of surface and ground water also protects drinking water resources throughout
the Umted States. Reductions in leaching from manure storage lagoons will protect groundwater
resources from nitrate and pathogen contamination.
As part of this strategy, EPA also is releasing a final enforcement strategy, the
"Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations."
The plan provides for increased targeted CAFO inspections based on environmental risk: states
and EPA regions will inspect all high priority CAFOs in three years with the remainder in five
years. In addition, the final enforcement strategy provides for increased compliance assistance
through EPA's Compliance Agricultural Assistance Center in Kansas City; increased
enforcement, especially against those CAFOs that are discharging in violation of an existing
permit, development of state-specific compliance/enforcement strategies; a national enforcement
initiative, and increased support to regions and states in the form of inspector training, targeting
assistance and development of enforcement tools.
The draft strategy calls for a significant increase in the number of CAFOs that are
regulated and permitted under the Clean Water Act. It sets goals for EPA and the states to fully
regulate and issue Clean Water Act permits to the largest CAFOs by 2002 and to fully regulate
and permit all other CAFOs and priority facilities in impaired watersheds by 2005. Currently,
only about a quarter of the CAFOs have permits
-------
R-26
(mere)
- 3 -
EPA and states will expand efforts to ensure that all permits include comprehensive waste
management requirements, including land application conditions, and will revise regulations to
support this effort by December 2001. In addition, EPA will revise national environmental
guidelines for allowable levels of waste flowing from poultry and swine facilities by December
2001 and national guidelines for cattle and dairy facilities by December 2002.
In 1999, EPA w iii lUvuuly and list priority watersheds at greatest risk from AFOs.
The draft strategy also calls for increased cooperation among federal agencies and states
to provide funding, public involvement, educational and technical support; a research and
development program and use of state-of-the-art technologies; and a program to apply
non-regulatory, innovative approaches, whenever possible. It will serve as a basis for a unified
EPA/USD A joint national strategy later this year.
The draft strategy was compiled with help from other federal agencies, state agencies,
environmental and citizens' groups, industry and farm groups.
Copies of the draft strategy are available from EPA's Water Resource Center at
202-260-7786 or on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/owm. Written comments will be
accepted until May 1,1998, and may be submitted to Ruby Cooper-Ford, U.S. EPA, Mail Code
4203, Washington, D. C. 20460, or by e-mail: Ford.Ruby@epamail.epa.gov.
Copies of the final enforcement strategy, the "Compliance Assurance Implementation
Plan
for CAFOs," will be available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/OECA/agbranch.html, or
by contacting Michelle Stevenson at 202-564-2355.
R-26
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency Washington. DC 20460 March 1998
Strategy for Addressing Draft
Environmental and Public
Health Impacts from
Animal Feeding Operations
-------
U.S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Preface
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to address environmental and public health
problems related to Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs) date back to the 1970s. In addition to issuing Clean Water Act permits to
some large AFOs, EPA has encouraged livestock operators to implement voluntary efforts to
control pollution.
Recent evidence suggests, however, that these regulatory and voluntary efforts have not been
sufficient to address the environmental and health problems associated with AFOs. The problems
persist and, in some areas of the country, have intensified as the size and density of AFOs have
increased with changes m the industry.
The purpose of this draft AFO Strategy is to provide a blueprint for a significant expansion of
EPA's regulatory and voluntary efforts related to AFOs. The Agency's goal in this effort is to
minimize environmental and public health impacts from AFOs. It is important to note that the
Strategy emphasizes water quality because current data indicate that water is the natural resource
most adversely affected by AFOs. EPA will continue to investigate the effects of AFOs on other
media (e.g., air and soil quality), however.
To identify activities for addressing problems related to AFOs, EPA relied on the expertise of
other Federal agencies and numerous stakeholders. Similarly, EPA will depend on the input of a
wide range of organizations and stakeholders to develop the final strategy and ensure successful
implementation. In addition to guiding EPA actions in addressing AFO-related problems, this
Strategy will be critical m meeting Agency water program objectives under the Government
Performance and Results Act.* This Strategy may be revised to reflect USDA's and EPA's
coordinated efforts to develop a unified national strategy as called for in the Clean Water Action
Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters?
EPA Strategic Plan, U S Environmental Protection Agency, 1997
On October 18,1997, Vice President Gore announced a new initiative to tackle our Nation's most senous
remaining water quality problems The Vice President directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop and submit a Clean Water Action Plan within 120
days The Clean Water Action Plan was announced by the President and Vice President or February 19,
1998
i
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Acknowledgments
This draft document represents the efforts of numerous people from EPA Headquarters and
Regions, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency,
and the States. Their devotion to investigating, addressing, and resolving the potential
environmental and public health consequences of Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) has been
exemplary. Over a long period, they have been relied upon to contribute not only their time but
also their individual perspectives developed during many years of public and private service. The
creation of this draft AFO Strategy has resulted from the willingness of these individuals to share
their experience. I would like to commend the following n. " " - Is for their participation:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Steve Ainsworth, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Paul Bangser, Office of General Counsel
Gregory Beatty, Office of Wastewater Management
Paul Berger, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
A1 Havinga, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Anna Kinney, Office of Science and Technology
John Kosco, Office of Wastewater Management
Ira Linville, EPA Region 4
Kristen Martin, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Roberta Parry, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Joe Roberto, EPA Region 10
Kurt Roos, Office of Air and Radiation
Susan Shaw, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Eric Strassler, Office of Science and Technology
Ralph Summers, EPA Region 7
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Craig Cox, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Barry Kintzer, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Richard Reynnells, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
Peyton Robertson
I would also like to thank all of the participants in the State Round Table and stakeholder
meetings for their input. We look forward to continuing to work with each of you as this AFO
Strategy evolves.
Ruby Cooper-Ford
National AFO Program Manager
Office of Wastewater Management
u
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy March 4, 1998, Draft
Table of Contents
Preface i
Acknowledgments .. ii
I. Introduction 1
Environmental Impacts of AFOs 1
Existing Regulatory Definitions of AFOs and CAFOs 3
Industry Trends 4
Current Efforts to Minimize Environmental and Public Health
Impacts of AFOs 5
II. EPA's Draft AFO Strategy 8
Draft AFO Strategy Development Process 8
Overview of Draft AFO Strategy 9
AFO Strategy Components 10
Communication and Coordination Activities 10
Research and Development Efforts and Innovative Approaches 11
Data Collection Activities 12
CAFO Compliance and Enforcement Activities 13
Regulatory Review and Implementation Activities 14
Voluntary Program Review and Implementation Activities 17
Performance Measurement Activities 18
Public Review Process 22
lii
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Sample Distribution of Animal Feeding Operations in the Umted States 4
Figure 1-2: Industry Consolidation of Cattle, Dairy, Hog, Broiler, Layer, and Turkey
Animal Feedmg Operations 5
List of Tables
Table I-1: Major Sources of Impairment of Surface Water Resources in
the United States 2
Table II-1: Draft AFO Strategy Short-Term Activities 19
Table II-2: Draft AFO Strategy Long-Term Activities 21
IV
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
I. Introduction
Agricultural practices and their impacts on the environment and public health have
received increased attention from the Administration Congress, the public, and
industry. Public concern regarding these issues has been heightened by incidents across
the country, including contamination of drinking water, fish kills, shellfish contamination,
swimming advisories, and nuisance odors, and the links of some of these incidents to agricultural
practices.
Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) are one of the agricultural activities that can ly
impact environmental and public health.1 AFOs are facilities that confine animal feeding
activities, thereby concentrating animal populations, animal manure, and animal mortality. AFO
activities can cause a range of environmental and public health problems, including oxygen
depletion and disease transmission in surface water, pathogens and nutrient contamination m
surface and ground water, methane emissions to the air, and excessive buildup of toxins, metals,
and nutrients in soil.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially responded to these problems by
developing regulations m the early 1970s that required certain AFOs to obtain permits under the
Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition, EPA has promoted voluntary programs designed to
encourage environmentally sound management of animal manure and byproducts. This draft
AFO Strategy represents an Agency-wide effort to coordinate and expand regulatory and
voluntary activities related to AFOs with the goal of minimizing environmental and public health
impacts from AFOs.
This draft AFO Strategy lays out a comprehensive plan of action for addressing the current and
potential environmental and public health impacts from AFOs. EPA has identified in the draft
Strategy a number of short-term activities for improving implementation of and compliance with
CWA requirements for AFOs. The Agency also proposes a number of longer term activities that
rely on a full range of tools (e.g., regulatory, voluntary, and partnership) for addressing
environmental and public health issues associated with AFOs.
EPA is distributing this draft AFO Strategy to all interested parties to solicit comments and
suggestions for improvements.
Environmental Impacts of AFOs
Evidence suggests that EPA's regulatory and voluntary efforts to date have been insufficient to
solve the environmental and public health problems associated with AFOs. Agricultural practices
in the United States are estimated to contribute to the impairment of 60 percent of the Nation's
surveyed rivers and streams; 50 percent of the Nation's surveyed lakes, ponds, and reservoirs;
National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress, U S Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Water, 1995
1
-------
US EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
and 34 percent of the Nation's surveyed estuaries (Table I-l).2 Feedlots alone, not including the
potential runoff from farms using manure as fertilizer, are estimated to adversely impact 16
percent of waters impaired by agricultural practices.3 AFOs have also been identified as
substantial contributors of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) in water bodies that have
experienced severe anoxia (i.e., low levels of dissolved oxygen) or outbreaks of microbes, such
as Pfiesteria piscicida.4
Table I-l: Major Sources of Impairment of Surface Water Resources in the United States
Type of Water Body
Total size
Percent
Surveyed
Percent
Impaired
Major Sources of Impairment*
Rivers and Streams
3.5 million miles
17
36
Agriculture (60%)
Municipal Point Sources (17%)
Hydro./Habitat Mod. (17%)
Lakes, Ponds, and
Reservoirs
40 8 million acres
42
37
Agriculture (50%)
Municipal Point Sources (19%)
Urban Runofi/Storm Sewer (18%)
Unspecified Nonpomt Source
(15%)
Estuanes
34,388 square miles
78
37
Urban Runofi7Storm Sewer (46%)
Municipal Point Sources (39%)
Agriculture (34%)
Industrial Point Sources (27%)
* The percentage reflects the relative proportion of surface water affected by each major source of impairment
Source National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress, U S EPA, Office of Water, 1995
AFO manure management systems also contribute to air quality issues. Methane emissions
contribute significantly to potential changes in global climate because methane is extremely
effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere. The amount of methane emitted by manure
management systems is projected to increase from about 10 percent of total U.S. emissions in
1990 to nearly 15 percent by the end of the century.5 In addition, ammonia emissions from these
systems can increase nitrogen (nitrate) concentrations in precipitation, thereby contributing to
overenrichment problems of water bodies.
National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress. U S EPA, Office of Water, 1995 The States survey
surface water bodies every 2 years in compliance with Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act "Impaired" surface
waters occasionally, frequently, or always fail to meet State-designated uses, including fish consumption, primary
contact recreation (e g , swimming), or drinking water supply
National Water Quality Inventory 1994 Report to Congress U S. EPA, Office of Water, 1995
Pfiesteria piscicida is a toxic microorganism that has been found responsible for major fish kills and fish disease
events in Chesapeake Bay tributaries and North Carolina estuaries, coastal areas, and aquaculture operations
Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United Slates Estimates for 1990, Report to Congress, U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 1993
2
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Existing Regulatory Definitions of AFOs and CAFOs
Existing regulatory definitions of AFOs and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
are given at 40 CFR 122.23 and Part 122, Appendix B. These regulations define an AFO as a
facnicy that meets the following criteria:
• 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 penod, and
• Crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal
growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.6
Federal regulations define a CAFO generally as an animal feeding operation that:
• Confines more than 1,000 animal units (AU);7 or
• , Confines between 301 to 1,000 AU and discharges pollutants:
>¦ Into waters of the United States through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or
similar man-made device; or
> Directly into waters of the United States that originate outside of and pass over,
across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the
animals confined in the operation
The existing CAFO regulatory definition also contains an exemption for discharges in the event
of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
Section 502 of the CWA defines CAFOs as point sources, making CAFOs subject to National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements.
In addition, the permitting authority (i.e., EPA or an NPDES authorized State) can designate an
AFO as a CAFO upon determining that the operation is a significant contributor of pollution to
waters of the United States. This determination, which takes a number of factors into account
(e.g., slope, vegetation, and the proximity of the operation to the waters), is based on an onsite
inspection by the agency that issues the permits.8
6 40 CFR 122 23 (b)( 1)
7 The following examples are animal quantities equivalent to 1,000 animal units. 1,000 slaughter and feeder cattle,
700 mature dairy cattle, 2,500 swine each weighing more than 25 kilograms, 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if a
facility uses a liquid manure system), and 100,000 laying hens or broilers (if a facility uses continuous overflow
watering) See 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B
8 40 CFR 122.23 (b)(3)
3
-------
U.S. EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Implementation of NPDES permit requirements relating to AFOs and CAFOs has occasionally
been inconsistent among EPA and State permitting authorities.9 These inconsistencies can
influence the siting or expansion of livestock operations and provide an economic advantage to
facilities in States with less stringent requirements for AFOs and CAFOs. One of the purposes of
this Strategy is to ensure application of nationally consistent minimum requirements for
protecting the environment and public health.
Industry Trends
Approximately 450,000 operations nationwide confine or concentrate animals Of these, about
6,600 have more than 1,000 AUs and are considered CAFOs based on the number of animal
units alone.10 As shown in Figure 1-1, these AFOs are located throughout the United States.
Figure 1-1: Sample Distribution of Animal Feeding Operations in the United States
(Data source: Marketplace, Dun & Bradstreet, 1996; contains 8,151 records including cattle, chicken, hog, goat, and horse
facilities. These facilities are anticipated to be among the largest of the estimated 450,000 AFOs in the United States)
In certain States, facilities are subject to State permitting laws in addition to Federal permitting laws.
Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, General Accounting Office,
1995.
4
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
In terms of production, the total number of animal units in the Nation increased by about 4.5
million (approximately 3 percent) between 1987 and 1992. During this same period, however,
the number of AFOs decreased, indicating a consolidation within the overall industry and greater
production from fewer, larger operations (see Figure 1-2). This consolidation continues a trend
that began in the mid-1950s in the poultry industry and is now exhibited in other AFO sectors."
This consolidation could exacerbate environmental and public health problems associated with
AFOs in communities or watersheds in which AFO expansion or new AFO or CAFO
construction is occurring.
400,000
2 300,000
CL
o
Increase in
\nimal I'nits per
Operation
(1978-1992)
100,000
Cattle:
Dairy:
Ho;-
Layer:
Broiler:
'I'll rkev:
~ 1978
¦ 1992
Cattle Dairy Hog Layer Broiler
Animal Feeding Operations
T urkey
56%
93%
134%
1 76%
148%
129%
Figure 1-2: Industry Consolidation of Cattle, Dairy, Hog, Broiler, Layer, and Turkey
Animal Feeding Operations (Note: Numbers in box show percent increase in the average number of animal
units per animal feeding operation, not just the change in the number of operations. Data source: Animal
Agriculture Information on Waste Management and Water Issues, General Accounting Office, 1995.)
Current Efforts to Minimize Environmental and Public Health Impacts of AFOs
EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and other Federal Agencies, States, and the agricultural industry are
addressing environmental and public health problems associated with AFOs through numerous
efforts.
Animal Agriculture Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues General Accounting Office,
1995
5
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
EPA Activities
EPA is currently involved in a number of regulatory and voluntary activities to reduce
environmental and public health problems caused by CAFOs and AFOs.
EPA and approved NPDES States implement and enforce the existing NPDES regulations and
the effluent limitations guidelines through NPDES permits. NPDES permits generally provide
that animal manure storage facilities cannot discharge pollutants to waters of the United States
except under extreme weather conditions. EPA established this limit in the 1970s after
determining that the "best practicable control technology currently available" and the "best
available technology economically achievable" would prevent all discharges except in extreme
rainfall events. EPA currently estimates that only about one-third of the 6,600 CAFOs in the
United States have NPDES permits. Further, EPA believes that most existing permits do not
have adequate management measures to address water pollution problems resulting from land
application of animal manure and other animal waste management practices.
The Agency also provides funding under various CWA authorities for State efforts to prevent
water pollution problems, including problems associated with AFOs.
EPA is cooperating with other entities that provide technical assistance to CAFOs and AFOs.
EPA and USDA work together to operate the Farm*A*Syst program, which develops fact sheets
and work sheets to assist facilities in assessing their operations with regard to water quality. EPA
and USDA also work with the Department of Energy on the AgSTAR Program, which promotes
the capture of methane for use as an energy source for agricultural activities and, subsequently,
reduces methane emissions. In addition, EPA is working actively with livestock and poultry
industry stakeholders to promote the use of best management practices.
Activities of Other Federal Agencies
Other Federal agencies also implement relevant regulatory and voluntary programs, with
particularly extensive technical and programmatic assistance available through USDA. For
example, USDA funds are available to AFOs through the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQEP), which provides technical, financial, and educational assistance on livestock-
related environmental concerns and conservation priorities. USDA has also recently announced
its intent to expand the Conservation Reserve Program, which was originally used to remove
highly erodible land from production, by creating the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) to set aside land to improve water quality. Other activities that have been
carried out include land treatment programs under Public Law 566 specifically for water quality
purposes as well as direct technical assistance to landowners.
NOAA and EPA work with the coastal States to implement management measures for AFOs
through the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
6
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
State Activities
Some States have adopted additional regulatory measures for AFOs. These measures include
requiring the development of nutnent management plans for AFOs and training and certifying
AFO operators m nutnent management. Other States provide technical assistance (e.g.,
developing nutnent management plans) or financial assistance (e.g., granting funds for manure -
storage/treatment facility construction) on a voluntary basis.
7
-------
US EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
II. EPA's Draft AFO Strategy
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that its existing regulatory
programs related to animal waste management are not being implemented consistently and
have not kept pace with evolving technologies or industry practices that have altered the
type and magnitude of related adverse environmental and public health impacts. Industry trends
toward larger Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and geographic concentration in some areas
are already leading to greater challenges m managing animal manure and protecting the
environment and public health.
To date, EPA has not fully used its existing authority either to require proper management of
animal manure or to promote participation in voluntary environmental programs. Altogether,
these conditions have necessitated the development of this draft AFO Strategy, which charts a
course for meeting the Agency's goal of minimizing environmental and public health impacts
from AFOs.
In developing and implementing the draft AFO Strategy, EPA is coordinating its internal
resources and has begun to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), other Federal and State agencies, stakeholder
organizations, and individual stakeholders. This coordination will continue as USDA and EPA
jointly develop a unified strategy as called for under the Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and
Protecting America's Waters.
Draft AFO Strategy Development Process
Several past EPA efforts have addressed the environmental and public health issues associated
with AFOs. As these efforts progressed, it became clear that a broader strategy was needed to
effectively address the wide range of AFO issues. EPA established an AFO Team in June 1997
to develop this Agency-wide draft AFO Strategy.
To develop the draft AFO Strategy, the AFO Team prepared a comprehensive list of specific
activities to address environmental and public health concerns associated with AFOs. The AFO
Team divided these activities into seven key component areas:
• Communication and Coordination Activities
• Research and Development Efforts and Innovative Approaches
• Data Collection Activities
• Compliance and Enforcement Activities
• Regulatory Review and Implementation Activities
• Voluntary Program Review and Implementation Activities
• Performance Assessment Activities
EPA then selected the most necessary and appropriate activities from the list for implementation
and inclusion in this draft Strategy. These specific activities will take place both in the short
term as well as over a longer term.
8
-------
US EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Outreach with interested parties is an important part of development of this strategy. In June
1997, for example, EPA briefed State officials (approximately 150 representatives of State
environmental and agriculture departments) and stakeholders groups (about SO representatives of
environmental interests and about 30 representatives of agriculture interests) to discuss the issues
addressed by the draft AFO Strategy and to solicit their initial input on the Strategy framework.
EPA will continue aggressive outreach activities to solicit ideas and information during
development of the final AFO strategy.
Overview of Draft AFO Strategy
This draft AFO Strategy provides a blueprint of specific short and longer term activities that EPA
will take to substantially expand existing efforts to minimize the environmental and public health
impacts of AFOs. To meet this goal, EPA has identified five overall principles:
1.) Expand Compliance/Enforcement Efforts: EPA will work with States to expand the
use of compliance assistance and enforcement to ensure that existing Clean Water Act
(CWA) requirements are implemented and to support implementation of the AFO
Strategy on a long-term basis.
2) Focus on Priority Watersheds: EPA and States, with the cooperation of USD A and
other partners, will use existing data to identify the location of AFOs and Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), define watersheds that are a priority for action to
reduce impacts of AFOs/CAFOs, and develop State strategies for geographic targeting of
permit issuance, compliance assistance, funding sources (e.g., State Revolving Fund
[SRF]), and enforcement activities on a watershed basis.
3) Improve Clean Water Act Permits: EPA will work with States to significantly expand
the number of facilities that currently have CWA permits. EPA will work with States to
include conditions to address water pollution problems associated with animal manure
management (e.g., land application) in CWA permits. These permit conditions will be
based on new guidance to be developed by EPA in cooperation with USD A.
4) Revise Existing Regulations: EPA will work with States, the regulated community, and
citizens to update and revise both the CWA permit program regulations and the existing
feedlots effluent limitations guidelines.
5) Increase EPA/USDA Coordination: EPA, USD A, and other partners will significantly
increase coordination on activities relating to AFOs, including development of technical
guidance for animal manure management, development of conservation plans that
address comprehensive animal manure management, and targeting of financial and
technical assistance.
In addition to these specific principles, EPA will continue to work with USDA and other partners
to promote research related to AFO issues; work with industry to promote voluntary efforts to
reduce the environmental impacts of AFOs; define performance measures and track progress in
9
-------
U.S. EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
meeting goals; and continue active communication with the animal agriculture community and
citizens.
AFO Strategy Components
The range of specific activities that the Agency will implement to accomplish goals and
objectives are described below. Tables II-1 and II-2 summarize the short- and long-term
activities, respectively, for the seven key component areas. Both tables are presented after the
discussion on those activities.
Communication and Coordination Activities
EPA will pool its resources with those of USD A, NOAA, and other appropriate agencies and
organizations at the Federal, State, and local levels and in the private sector to facilitate the final
development and implementation of the Strategy. These partners will work together on resolving
AFO issues and on identifying the most effective mechanisms to protect public health and the
environment.
The tasks to be undertaken, and products delivered, are as follows:
• Stakeholder Coordination: EPA will work closely with all key stakeholder groups to
solicit feedback as part of finalizing the AFO Strategy.
• Discussions with Agriculture: EPA will meet with agriculture sectors (e.g., research
organizations, universities, producers, integrators, and nonprofit organizations) to discuss
opportunities for better manure management and to develop comprehensive
recommendations to protect the environment and public health. For example, EPA and
USDA participated in the National Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production.
Also, EPA Region 3 is taking the lead to work with the poultry industry and other key
stakeholders to identify innovative opportunities and solutions for litter/nutrient
management, research, and other key issues for long-term sustainability and mutual
success.
These efforts will also need to be closely coordinated with other efforts to establish
regulatory and voluntary programs outlined m other parts of this Strategy.
• Compliance Fact Sheets: EPA's Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center will
develop a livestock management focus and coordinate with USDA to develop "plain
language" fact sheets and compliance assistance materials for distribution to groups that
provide information to livestock producers. These documents will be completed by
December 1998.
10
-------
U.S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Research and Development Efforts and Innovative Approaches
EPA will promote implementation of management measures through the use of innovative
technologies and management approaches, demonstration projects, and educational efforts. The
Agency will work with USDA to identify and assess current efforts ongomg at State agencies,
universities, and in the private sector.
The tasks to be undertaken, and products delivered, are listed below:
• Research Technical and Economic Issues: EPA will conduct an initial study of the
AFO industry, m cooperation with USDA (e.g., Natural Resource Conservation Service
[NRCS]; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; National
Agriculture Statistics Service; Economic Research Service) and State partners. In
conjunction with revision of the effluent guideline, the study will evaluate currently used
technologies here and in Europe, and will provide the evaluation results in a report. The
study will also assess the economic incentives and disincentives for protection of the
environment and public health. The findings will be summarized in a report by
December 1999.
• Recognize Successful and Innovative Approaches: The use of successful and
innovative approaches should be encouraged and pursued. Such approaches can range
from proven technology (e.g., rotational grazing) to state-of-the-art technology, such as
satellite imaging to control nutnent application. Other approaches should be used to
control stream bank erosion and animal manure deposition into streams. In conjunction
with USDA, EPA will:
>¦ Expand and improve existing technology transfer mechanisms by December 1999
Initiate an awards program for operators with exceptional operations and
performance.
• Distribute Cumulative Risk Index Analysis: EPA Region 6 has developed a screening
tool called the Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA) to optimize siting of animal
operations by evaluating the environmental vulnerabilities of a watershed. Copies of the
CRIA will be made available through EPA's Agricultural Compliance Assistance Center
to livestock producers and other mterested parties, including county and local level
government officials, by December 1998.
• Evaluate Modification of Animal Diets: EPA and USDA will contribute to the further
evaluation of the effects of applying phytase to certain animal feed. Phytase is an
enzyme that enables swine and poultry to more fully utilize the organic phosphorus in
feed. Since swine and poultry are able to use only 30-40 percent of this naturally
occurring phosphorus, the remainder (60-70 percent) is excreted in the form of phytate
phosphorous. Feed mills presently add inorganic phosphorous to feed to address the
nutritional needs of the animals. Application of the phytase enzyme can enable more
efficient utilization of organic phosphorous by the animal and significantly reduce the
11
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
need to add inorganic phosphorus to feed, thereby reducing the amount of phytate
phosphorous excreted on the soil and potential runoff containing phosphorous into
surface water. EPA and USDA will also contribute to the evaluation of various other
technologies for achieving the same goal. This research will be considered in
development of the revised effluent limitations guidelines.
Data Collection Activities
EPA will gather information on the location, characteristics, and environmental impacts of
AFOs. EPA will coordinate data collection activities with USDA, NOAA, the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), and other Federal and State agencies.
The tasks to be undertaken, and products delivered, are as follows:
• Collect Data for Targeting Strategies: Given the large number of CAFOs and AFOs,
EPA, other Federal agencies, and States must develop targeting strategies to assure
protection of the environment and public health problems given constraints on staff
resources. To the fullest extent possible, these data will be collected and assessed on a
watershed basis. EPA will undertake the following data collection activities to support
this effort:
>¦ Identify and Locate CAFOs and AFOs: EPA will map the concentrations of
CAFOs and AFOs using existing data sources and will identify the number of
animal units (by animal type as well as total) in each U.S. watershed. OWM will
continue to identify and research data bases for location information on AFOs
and CAFOs. OWM will also work with OWOW and OGWDW to identify
watersheds, ground water aquifers, and drinking water supplies impaired by
AFOs. Information sources to be investigated include the 1992 Census of
Agriculture (and the 1997 Census of Agriculture, once available, for future
efforts) and national data compiled by the NRCS on nutrient balances. This
information on the distribution of AFOs and CAFOs will be periodically updated.
>¦ Collect Facility Data: EPA will continue efforts to identify additional
information on facilities; such as location, identity of receiving waters, number of
animal units, compliance history, age of facility, type of confinement, storage,
operational status, and socioeconomic data of surrounding communities.
>¦ Develop Initial List of Priority Watersheds: EPA will work with USDA, State
representatives, and interested members of the public to prepare an initial list of
watersheds that should have priority for AFO data collection and response efforts.
A proposed list will be finalized by September 1998.
• Better Understand Pollutant Loads: Within selected watersheds, EPA (in conjunction
with USDA and USGS) will collect fate and transport data to quantify pollutant loadings
to various media from AFOs and CAFOs. EPA will gather raw data on nutnent
application rates, metals, toxins, organics, pathogen loadings, and application
12
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
procedures. Data will be used to the extent possible to determine baseline conditions and
assess surface and ground water loadings within the overall watershed context. This is
among the information that will be needed to measure environmental results consistent
with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
• Develop Profiles of State Program Activities: OWM will organize existing information
on State AFO programs, both voluntary and regulatory. OWOW will contribute
information collected by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
A preliminary draft of this compendium will be available by June 1998, in time for the
beginning of the State Program Review At that time, EPA will identify data gaps and
revise uie compendium by September 1998.
CAFO Compliance and Enforcement Activities
In March 1998, OECA distributed a final "Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." The Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan
outlines the compliance and enforcement actions that EPA will undertake. This draft AFO
Strategy incorporates the major elements of that document, including 1) strong State and
Regional compliance/enforcement partnerships; 2) effective, State-specific CAFO
compliance/enforcement strategies; 3) productive, coordinated compliance assistance activities;
4) strong compliance monitoring programs; 5) effective enforcement; 6) better data/information;
and 7) plans for developing a feedback mechanism to EPA, States, and other Federal Agencies.
The key tasks to be completed for CAFO compliance and enforcement mclude the following:
• Complete Inspections of CAFOs: EPA Regions and NPDES authorized States should
inspect all priority CAFOs (e.g., CAFOs located in unpaired watersheds) within three
years. Regions and States should inspect all other CAFOs within five years.
• Develop State Specific Strategies: EPA Regions will work with NPDES authorized
States to develop State specific CAFO compliance and enforcement strategies.
• Develop CAFO Inspector Guidance and Training: The Office of Compliance (OC)
will develop a guidance manual for NPDES inspectors and an inspector training course
m 1998. EPA will schedule inspector training courses for Fiscal Year 1998.
• Implement Strategic Enforcement Initiative: The Office of Regulatory Enforcement
(ORE) will coordinate a strategic enforcement initiative, involving a cooperative effort
between Headquarters and Regions. The goal of this initiative is to take actions against
CAFOs that violate current permit requirements and against unpermitted CAFOs that
violate existing regulatory requirements. EPA will also; where appropriate, take action in
cases where a source of pollution presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health or the welfare of the public.
• Create Model Administrative Order: ORE will develop a model administrative order
to assist Regional and State enforcement activities. This model order will serve as a
13
-------
U.S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
template for taking action against CAFOs that violate current permit requirements or
unpermitted CAFOs that violate existmg regulatory requirements. Where a State has
developed a targeting strategy in cooperation with EPA, use of administrative orders to
require unpermitted CAFOs to obtain permits will be coordinated with any agreed upon
strategy ORE will complete the model administrative order by May 1998.
• Prepare "Elements of Proof' Manual: ORE will prepare a module on elements of
proof for the Office of Compliance's inspectors guidance manual. The module will
explain what information and documentation are necessary to support an enforcement
action. ORE will complete this module by December 1998.
Regulatory Review and Implementation Activities
To better respond to changes in agricultural production, EPA Headquarters and Regional offices
will improve the effectiveness of existing regulatory authorities and activities in concert with
USD A, NOAA, and States. The objective of this effort is to substantially increase the number of
NPDES permits and to ensure those permits adequately address land application of animal
manure and other animal manure management issues. As noted previously, the implementation
strategy will give priority for NPDES permit issuance to CAFOs and other priority facilities in
watersheds targeted by permit authorities (i.e., EPA or NPDES authorized States).
The tasks to be undertaken, and products delivered, are as follows:
• Improve Current Permitting: EPA will work with States to improve permitting of
CAFOs and other priority facilities. EPA and States will significantly expand the
number of facilities that currently have CWA permits, with the objective of issuance of
permits by 2005 for all CAFOs (including those facilities that claim "no discharge,"
designation of poultry facilities that have greater than the number of animals specified in
Appendix B of 40 CFR 122 regardless of the type of watering and manure management,
and other facilities designated as CAFOs because they are significant contributors of
pollution). To accomplish this:
>¦ The first priority will be to permit the largest CAFOs and other facilities located
in watersheds impaired by these sources by 2002.
>¦ Where EPA is the permitting authority, EPA will ensure that all CAFOs and
other priority facilities will be permitted by 2003.
>• In those States with relatively few CAFOs, EPA will work with the Regions and
authorized States to establish deadlines well in advance of 2005.
>• EPA will work with the Regions and States to establish appropriate criteria and
milestones that ensure that EPA and authorized States will issue permits as
expeditiously as possible.
14
-------
U S. EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
EPA will work with Regions and States to issue NPDES permits for those other facilities
with significant potential to impair water quality, by December 2013.
EPA believes that individual permits are appropriate in certain circumstances such as
particularly large CAFOs, and those with chronic compliance problems. EPA will also
develop and promote the concept of "watershed specific CAFO permits," based on
general permit authority, to address the unique nature of CAFOs in particular watersheds.
These "watershed specific CAFO permits" would allow for permitting of groups of
CAFOs on a smaller scale, allow for better tailoring of permit requirements, and promote
more effective public participation than would a statewide general permit. Finally, EPA
expects that general permits will be a key mechanism for permitting in this area in
general. EPA intends to revise its general permitting regulations to enhance
opportunities for public input on the request for general permit coverage by new or
significantly expanding facilities.
In addition, EPA will work with States'to include appropriate conditions in CWA
permits to address water pollution problems associated with animal manure management
(e.g., land application). These permit conditions will be based on new guidance to be
developed by EPA in cooperation with USDA. EPA regulations provide that procedures
for issuance of NPDES permits must allow an opportunity for public review and input.
EPA will also:
>¦ Develop by August 1998, additional guidance clarifying key permitting issues,
for example, clarifying that the NPDES program applies to feedlots that claim to
have no discharge. Further, EPA will issue guidance providing that poultry
operations with more than the numbers of animals specified in Appendix B of 40
CFR 122 be designated as CAFOs and be required to have permits, even in the
absence of a liquid manure system or continuous overflow watering.
>¦ Develop by September 1998, a guidance document on the use of the existing
authority to designate AFOs as CAFOs on a case-by-case basis, including
designation of poultry operations as discussed above.
»- Produce by September 1998, a best professional judgment (BPJ) guidance
document to assist the EPA Regions and NPDES authorized States in developing
conditions, limits, and best management practices to be included in NPDES
permits. EPA will coordinate this activity with USDA.
>¦ Develop by October 1998, model NPDES permits (e.g., individual, watershed
specific, and/or general permits) that address issues including public notice,
public participation, comprehensive animal manure and carcass management
practices, monitoring, recordkeeping, coordination with local and state siting
procedures, and other issues. Guidance for model general permits will provide for
a "notice of intent" (NOI) to be submitted well in advance of requesting coverage
by a general permit by new facilities or significantly expanding facilities. The
15
-------
U.S. EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
NOI would include key information such as location, number of animals, and
availability of a manure management plan. EPA also expects to prepare guidance
for "watershed specific CAFO permits" that promote permitting of CAFOs on a
watershed scale. Because these watershed specific permits would deal with a
smaller geographic area, they may better address site-specific conditions and
promote greater public involvement m the permitting process than would a
statewide general permit. The model permit guidance would also identify
situations where individual permits for CAFOs are appropriate.
»¦ Demonstrate approaches to coordinate the issuance of NPDES permits within
watersheds by developmg two watershed-based NPDES permits by December
1998.
• Develop Targeting Strategies: OWM, OECA and the Regional offices will engage the
State partners in developing State specific targeting strategies for NPDES permitting,
compliance assistance, and inspections. In the absence of an approved state NPDES
program, the Region should develop the State strategy. Permitting of CAFOs should
ensure that immediate priority be given to the largest, unpermitted operations, CAFOs
located or intended to be sited near sensitive water bodies (e.g. source water protection
areas), and those operations causing water quality impairment. EPA will also cooperate
with USDA and States in developing targeting strategies to ensure that technical and
financial assistance programs (e.g., SRF) are targeted to areas of greatest need. EPA and
the States should also give particular scrutiny to evaluation of new or significantly
expanding facilities.
• Revise Existing Feedlots Effluent Limitations Guidelines (40 CFR 412): EPA will
initiate a revision of the existing effluent limitations guidelines for feedlots. The
guidelines need to reflect industry changes since the 1970s — such as the movement
away from using liquid manure or continuous flow watering systems at poultry AFOs —
to better protect the environment and public health. EPA expects to include within the
guidelines revisions to address land application of manure. EPA will be setting
guidelines for existing facilities (best available technology economically achievable) and
new facilities (new source performance standards). For existing and new sources, EPA
will consider factors including nonwater quality environmental impact (e.g. air quality
issues) and the cost of the controls. As a part of this process, EPA will:
>¦ Complete a study of the existing effluent guidelines and initiate guideline
revisions by December 1998.
Complete revisions to the effluent guidelines for poultry and swine by December
2001, and for other animal agriculture sectors by December 2002.
• Revise NPDES Regulations (40 CFR 122): EPA is currently evaluating the NPDES
permitting regulations to determine how to more effectively address AFOs. For example,
EPA intends to review the references to continuous overflow watering and liquid manure
handling systems m the regulatory definitions of poultry operations that qualify as
16
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
CAFOs. EPA also intends to revise the regulations with respect to the use of general
permits for CAFOs and other sources to promote greater public participation
opportunities through the use of NOI procedures. EPA may also consider ways to better
support the development and implementation of the new source water assessment and
protection provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA is committed to revising the
regulations, based on a review of technical, economic, and water quality factors. EPA
will ensure consistency between this revision and the revision of the feedlots effluent
limitations guidelines. As a part of this process, EPA will:
>~ Produce, by September 1998, a white paper on issues and options, including
phasing, for revision of the CAFO NPDES Program regulations (40 CFR 122).
> Propose revisions to CAFO NPDES regulations by December 1999 and publish
final regulations by December 2001.
• Explore Existing Authority to Provide Greater Environmental Protection: EPA will
evaluate existing authorities other than the Clean Water Act for those authorities'
potential application to AFO management practices. The review will focus on the
authority to protect ground water, drinking water, and air quality, as well as to control
odor.
• Develop CAFO Module for Permit Writers Training: OWM is developing a CAFO
module that can be incorporated into its NPDES Permit Writer Training Course for State
and EPA permit writers and other stakeholders. The module will be available by June
1998.
• Review State Programs and Coordination: Following development of the State
Program Compendium, OWM will work with States to review and evaluate existing
State regulatory and voluntary programs related to AFOs for their effectiveness in
protecting the environment and public health. This review will identify programs for
EPA to consider during the Agency's regulatory revisions and help to serve as a basis for
States to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs. OWM will prepare a State profiles
report by September 1998.
Voluntary Program Review and Implementation Activities
EPA will work with USDA and the agricultural community (e.g., EPA Region 3 efforts with the
poultry industry, the National Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production) to evaluate and
improve the effectiveness of its regulatory and voluntary programs to provide the highest level of
protection of the environment and public health from potential adverse impacts from AFOs.
The tasks to be undertaken, and products delivered, are as follows:
• Review Voluntary Programs: EPA will assess the impacts of its existing voluntary
programs (e.g., Section 319 Grant Program, Farm*A*Syst, AgSTAR, and EPA's
industry dialogues) by collecting and analyzing data on improvements achieved (e.g.,
17
-------
U.S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
successful demonstration projects or number of facilities voluntarily implementing
BMPs). EPA will then prepare a summary review and recommendations report on
voluntary programs by December 1998.
• Expand Partnership Activities with USDA: EPA will work closely with USDA to
support complementary voluntary programs (e.g., the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program [EQIP] and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program [CREP]) and to
learn from past programs, such as the Rural Clean Water Program.
• Promote Voluntary Efforts: EPA will provide resources, such as Section 319 nonpomt
source grant funds and State Revolving Fund loans, to promote voluntary
implementation of BMPs. The Farm*A*Syst and AgSTAR programs will support
voluntary implementation of BMPs and other environmental management practices, such
as methane capture systems for energy conversion.
Performance Measurement Activities
Consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act, EPA will establish quantitative
performance measures and collect baseline and ongoing data to assess the performance of
activities conducted under the AFO Strategy. The performance assessment will determine the
extent to which the AFO Strategy is aiding the achievement of objectives established under
EPA's Strategic Plan.12
The tasks to be undertaken, and products delivered, are as follows:
• Determine Quantitative and Qualitative Goals and Measurement Techniques: The
AFO Team will develop an initial set of indicators to measure the Agency's progress in
implementing the AFO Strategy. This process will generate a list of potential indicators,
compare those indicators to existing or planned data sources, and determine the set of
indicators to be measured and the needed data collection efforts. As data collection for
these indicators progresses, refinements to the measured set of indicators may be
necessary.
• Establish a Baseline for AFOs and Associated Environmental and Public Health
Impacts: As a part of this performance assessment process, the AFO Team will select a
baseline year for each indicator, against which future efforts will be compared.
18
12
EPA Strategic Plan, U S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
-------
U.S. EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Table II-l: Draft AFO Strategy Short-Term Activities
Activity
Lead Office(s)
Draft Date
Final Date
Issue CAFO Compliance Assurance
Implementation Plan
OECA
August 1997
March 1998
Build support and consensus for the AFO Strategy
through aggressive outreach
OWM
Ongoing
June 1998
Develop additional guidance clarifying key
permitting issues, including waste management
practices (e.g., onsite and offsite land application
of manure, odor control)
OWM
OGC
OECA
June 1998
August 1998
Develop best professional judgment (BPJ) manual
and reconcile with revised USDA field technical
guidelines
OWM
OST
May 1998
September 1998
Develop model permits (e.g., individual,
watershed-based, general) that address issues
including comprehensive management practices
(e.g., land application), public notice, public
participation, and administrative efficiency
OWM
OECA
May 1998
September 1998
Develop guidance on criteria and methodologies
to designate AFOs as CAFOs on a case-by-case
basis (40 CFR 122.23(c))
OWM
Regional Reps.
State Reps.
May 1998
September 1998
Develop targeting techniques to identify AFOs,
CAFOs, and watersheds that fail to meet
designated uses
OWM
OWOW
OECA
July 1998
October 1998
Develop profile of State regulations, voluntary
programs, lead agency or agencies, permitting
requirements, etc.
OWM
OGC
June 1998
Septenlber 1998
Engage poultry industry in a discussion of
innovative opportunities and solutions on litter/
nutrient management, research, and other key
issues
EPA Region 3
January 1998
(begin)
Develop and initiate a strategic enforcement
initiative
OECA
Ongoing
Ongoing
Increase overall permitting, inspection, and
enforcement activities and voluntary initiatives
OWM
OECA
OWOW
Ongoing
Ongoing
Develop a CAFO module for permit writers
training course
OWM
March 1998
June 1998
Develop a white paper for revision of the NPDES
CAFO regulations (40 CFR 122)
OWM
OST
OGC
June 1998
September 1998
19
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
Table II-l: Draft AFO Strategy Short-Term Activities
March 4, 1998, Draft
Activity
Lead Office(s)
Draft Date
Final Date
Develop State-specific strategies for CAFO
compliance and enforcement
EPA Regions
States
May 1998
(preliminary
drafts)
October 1998
Prepare initial list of priority watersheds to target
implementation efforts
OWM
OWOW
September 1998
Review existing voluntary programs
AFO Team
OWOW
December 1998
Develop a CAFO inspectors' guidance manual
and develop and conduct CAFO inspector training
courses
OECA
May 1998
July 1998
Complete study of existing feedlots effluent
limitations guidelines (40 CFR 412)
OST
December 1998
Work with States to establish a model watershed-
based permit framework m two priority
watersheds
OWM
OWOW
OECA
September 1998
December 1998
Develop "plain language" fact sheets and
compliance assistance materials for distribution
through die Agriculture Compliance Assistance
Center
OECA
December 1998
Distribute the Cumulative Risk Index Analysis
developed by EPA Region 6
EPA Region 6
December 1998
Develop a model administrative order to facilitate
Regional and State enforcement and permitting
ORE
May 1998
Develop an "elements of proof' module m
inspectors guidance manual to explain what
information and documentation are necessary to
support an enforcement action
ORE
December 1998
Develop an initial set of indicators to measure
Agency progress in implementing the AFO
Strategy
OWM
June 1998
December 1998
Develop livestock management focus under the
Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center
OECA
May 1998
1999
Evaluate phytase supplement for reducmg
phosphorus pollution
OW
Ongoing
Ongoing
20
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Table II-2: Draft AFO Strategy Long-Term Activities
Activity
Lead Offlce(s)
Draft Date*
Final Date*
Continue dialogue and coordination of Federal,
State, local, and private sector resources
OWM
ongoing
Locate AFOs and CAFOs nationwide and
understand their contributions to pollutant loads
OW
1999
Promote research and development to fill the gaps
in technical and economic information
OPPE
1999
Promote successful and innovative technologies
and management practices
OPPE
ongomg
Enhance promotion of voluntary programs (e g.,
Section 319, SRF loans, EQIP, CREP, AgSTAR)
AFO Team
January 1999
1999
Initiate an AFO awards program
OW
USDA
January 1999
2000
Complete revision of the NPDES regulations for
AFOs (40 CFR 122)
OWM
OST
2001
Complete revisions to the feedlot effluent
guidelines (40 CFR 412)
OWM
OST
2001
Inspect all priority CAFOs (e.g., CAFOs located
m priority watersheds)
Regions
States
2002
Inspect all other CAFOs
Regions
States
2004
Revise and issue permits for the largest CAFOs
and other facilities located in watersheds unpaired
by these sources
OWM
Regions
States
2002
Revise and issue permits for all CAFOs (including
"no discharge" facilities, poultry facilities with
m"!* tVi»» nnmhpr nf animals speriftpd in 40
CFR 122, and other facilities that are significant
contributors of pollution)
OWM
Regions
States
2005
Issue permits for other facilities with significant
potential to impair water quality
OWM
Regions
States
2013
Continue measurement of selected indicators and
comparison to baseline years
OWM
Ongomg
* Dates axe tentative and subject to change.
21
-------
U S EPA AFO Strategy
March 4, 1998, Draft
Public Review Process
EPA will actively solicit input and suggestions from a broad range of interested parties prior to
finalization of this Strategy. While written comments are appreciated, EPA would like to suggest
that discussion of comments can result in better understanding of issues and possible solutions.
To the extent possible, EPA would like to engage in discussions with key stakeholder groups.
Written comments may be submitted up until May 1, 1998 to:
Ruby Cooper-Ford, National AFO Program Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code 4203
Washington, DC 20460
(or via electronic mail at Ford.Ruby@epamail.epa.gov)
Note
This document presents EPA's strategic plan for addressing the environmental and public health
impacts associated with AFOs. It is not a substitute for EPA's existing regulations and it does not
impose any binding requirements on EPA, the States, or the regulated community. EPA's
strategies for addressing AFOs may evolve and change as its understanding of the issues
increases through further work and receipt of additional information.
22
-------
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
(Signature)
Elaine G Stanley, Director
Office of Compliance
Eric V Schaeffer, Director
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
MAR 5 1998
(Date)
-------
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Table of Contents
SUMMARY . . 1
BACKGROUND 2
Regul ated Industry 2
Environmental Impact 3
Regulatory Requirements 3
PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION 4
Compliance Assistance 5
Inspections 5
Inspection Support 7
Implementation -- State Specific Strategies 7
Enforcement 8
OTHER EPA ACTIVITIES 10
Office of Water 10
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation 10
EPA Region VI Siting Guidance 10
EPA Region III Poultry Initiative 11
COOPERATING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 11
U S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 11
State Conservation Agencies and Soil and Water Conservation Districts 11
ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES ... 12
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 12
Office Compliance 12
Office of Regulatory Enforcement 13
Regions 13
States with NPDES Authorization . .14
March 1998
Final
-------
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
SUMMARY
This Plan addresses compliance/enforcement efforts to ensure compliance by point
sources called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). It is the first product and
milestone in EPA's forthcoming "Strategy for Addressing Environmental and Public Health
Impacts from Animal Feeding Operations".
Among five general categories of pollution sources (Municipal Point Source, Urban
Runoff/Storm Sewers; Agriculture; Industrial Point Sources; and Natural Sources), nationally,
agriculture (crops and animal husbandry) is ranked as the number one cause of impaired rivers,
streams, and lakes, and the number three cause of impaired estuaries {Animal Agriculture.
Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, U S. General Accounting Office
Report, June 1995). Many diseases potentially can be contracted from drinking water or eating
shellfish contaminated by animal wastes, or by direct contact with such wastes. Over the years
since EPA issued regulations in 1976 under the Clean Water Act to address CAFOs, the
livestock industry has changed. Nationally, the number of smaller livestock operations has
decreased while the number of animal feeding operations (AFOs) raising large numbers of
animals has increased. In addition, the concentration of animals within geographic areas has
increased. Recent incidents in a number of States, including Missouri and North Carolina,
involving releases of more than 30 million gallons of animal waste to surface water, have
highlighted the environmental impact of CAFOs.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OEC A) is making
implementation of the existing CAFO regulations a priority. This is a key component of the
Agency's overall effort to reduce public health and environmental impacts from AFOs. A strong
compliance/enforcement program will foster compliance and serve to prevent the major spills
and reduce pollution from livestock production. This CAFO Compliance Assurance
Implementation Plan provides for:
o An active risk-based compliance monitoring program to assure CAFO compliance with
the existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements
An enhanced Federal/State field presence (i.e., inspections and compliance assistance
activities) will foster compliance, as will enforcement actions when violations are found.
(See Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme criteria under "Inspections".)
o Coordination with States and other Federal Agencies.
March 1998
Final
Page 1
-------
o Coordination with stakeholders to identify and provide compliance assistance
information.
o Increased compliance assistance to CAFOs to provide better information, including
efforts by the EPA's Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center to this segment of the
agriculture sector.
o Development of State specific compliance and enforcement strategies' which takes into
account existing State programs and State and Federal priorities using risk-based
targeting These strategies will serve to create a more consistent national program
providing a "level playing fielH
o Feedback from inspections which can be used for improvements in targeting compliance
assistance, inspections, and permitting activities and, in those cases where the facility is
not a designated CAFO but should be, assessing the need to designate an AFO as a
CAFO.
In addition, the Plan highlights EPA activities that support CAFO compliance efforts.
BACKGROUND
REGULATED INDUSTRY
According to a 1995 General Accounting Office report (based on the 1992 Census of
Agriculture data), there are 450,000 farms with confined (not pasture) feedlots out of 640,000
farms with livestock. These feedlots primarily include beef, hog, chicken, dairy, and turkey
facilities. Approximately 6,600 confined livestock facilities have more than 1,000 animal units
and would generally meet the NPDES definition of CAFO. ("Animal Units" are defined in
Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 122.) These operations represent approximately 35% of the total
livestock population and are generally concentrated on small land areas. An estimated 32,000
facilities have between 301-1,000 animal units; some of these facilities may be CAFOs if they
meet the requirements discussed below (see Regulatory Requirements). Currently, less than 25%
of CAFOs have NPDES permits listed in EPA's permit compliance system (PCS). In addition, a
number of CAFOs are also permitted under "non-NPDES" State authority. Animal feeding
operations are present in every State and in most rural counties. In every major livestock market
category, the trend over the last ten years has been an increase in the number and market share of
1 State specific compliance and enforcement strategies are to be developed by the NPDES
authorized Agency. Where the EPA Regional office retains NPDES authority, it would
develop the State specific strategy.
March 1998
Final
Page 2
-------
larger confined AFOs and a decrease in the number of smaller feedlots2 Currently the Agency
has authorized 43 States3 to issue NPDES permits. In the "non-authorized" States, Territories,
and Tribal lands, EPA issues the NPDES permits
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
According to EPA's 1994 National Water Quality Inventory, agriculture (including
feedlots) is the leading source of water quality impairment in nvers and lakes. Nationally,
agriculture affects 60% of impaired river miles and 50% of impaired lake acres. In estuaries,
agriculture affects 34% of impaired acres, the third largest source behind urban runoff and
municipal point sources (actual percentages may vary by State). The 1993 Report of the
EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup estimated that animal feedlots cause or contribute to 7% of
impaired lake acres and 13% of impaired river and stream miles. The Office of Water's Feedlot
Workgroup Report concluded that feedlots impair more river miles than combined sewer
overflows, storm sewers, or industrial sources.
Livestock operations can cause environmental degradation of surface and ground waters
unless their manure is collected, stored, and utilized/disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner. Ammal manure typic&lly contains nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus), pathogens,
salts, and heavy metals (e.g., copper). However, animal manure properly spread and used on
agricultural lands has many beneficial uses and can provide environmental benefits.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the
Clean Water Act), prohibit the discharge of pollutants from a point source into waters of the
United States except in compliance with conditions of an NPDES permit. Section S02 of the
Act expressly includes "concentrated animal feeding .operation" within the definition of a point
source. Two related sets of regulations address feedlot discharges.4 They are:
o NPDES program regulations (see 40 CFR section 122.23 and Part 122 Appendix B)
These regulations define "animal feeding operation" or AFO and specify which
2 Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues, GAO, June 1995, Section 2
3 43 States have NPDES authorization. However, one of the 43 States is not authorized to
issue CAFO NPDES permits.
4 See "Guide Manual on NPDES Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations" December, 1995 for a more detailed discussion of regulations applicable to
CAFOs.
March 1998
Final
Page 3
-------
operations are "concentrated" animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. A feedlot is an AFO
if it stables or confines and feeds or maintains animals for a total of 45 days or more in
any 12-month period, and does not sustain crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post
harvest residues during the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility
The factors that determine whether an AFO is a CAFO vary depending on the number of
animals confined in the feedlot. In general, the largest AFOs (> 1,000 animal units) are
defined as a CAFO based on animal units alone. An AFO in the middle tier (301-1,000
animal units) may be a CAFO if: a) it directly discharges pollutants into waters that
originate outside of and pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come into
direct contact with the confined animals or b) pollutants are discharged through a man-
made conveyance. An AFO with less than 301 animal units is not a CAFO unless the
permitting authonty designates it as a CAFO on a case-by-case basis based on a
determination that the AFO is a significant contributor of pollution to waters of the
United States. The regulations also provide that no AFO is a CAFO under these
definitions if it discharges only in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
o Feedlot Effluent Limitation Guidelines (see 40 CFR part 412). National Effluent
Limitation Guidelines are technology-based effluent limitations that establish a minimum
standard of performance for certain categories and classes of point sources. These
standards are imposed on facilities through NPDES permits. The effluent limitation
guideline for feedlots appear at 40 CFR part 412. These guidelines establish a standard of
"zero discharge" to the waters of the U.S. for feedlots to which the guidelines apply. In
addition, the Feedlot Guidelines allow for the discharge of an overflow from a facility
that is properly constructed and maintained to contain £11 the process wastewater plus the
rainfall from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. For facilities not covered by the Feedlot
Effluent Guidelines, requirements are developed on a case-by-case basis using the permit
writer's Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) (see 40 CFR § 125.3(c)). After determining
the appropriate technology based standard, the permit writer determines whether the
resulting discharge has a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedence of
State water quality standards. In the event that there is a reasonable potential, the permit
writer develops additional water quality-based effluent limitations for incorporation in the
NPDES permit as necessary to assure compliance with water quality standards.
PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The purpose of this Plan is to protect and enhance water quality by ensuring compliance
with the Clean Water Act and its implementing requirements. The Plan's major elements are: 1)
strong State and Regional compliance/enforcement partnerships; 2) effective State specific
compliance/enforcement strategies; 3) productive, coordinated compliance assistance activities,
4) strong compliance monitoring programs, 5) effective enforcement; 6) better data/information
on CAFOs for targeting compliance assistance and inspections; and 7) plans for developing a
March 1998
Final
Page 4
-------
feedback mechanism to EPA, States, and other Federal Agencies.
States and Regions should stnve for an effective integrated compliance assistance and
enforcement program. This integrated approach will be most effective in protecting the
environment Similarly, States and Regions should include compliance incentives in CAFO
compliance/enforcement programs. (See- Incentives for Self-Policing Discovery, Disclosure,
Correction, and Prevention of Violations (Audit Policy), December 22, 1995, and Policy on
Compliance Incentives for Small Business (Small Business Policy), May 10, 1996)
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
Compliance assistance represents a tool to obtain compliance. The Agency will work
with USDA, States (including the Agency/Department responsible for CAFO compliance and
State Departments of Agriculture); national, State, and local trade and producer associations and
organizations; soil and water conservation districts; community and environmental groups, on
ways to best facilitate CAFO operator understanding of the requirements and to foster
compliance. EPA's Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center, located within the Office of
Compliance (OC), will develop "plain language" fact sheets and compliance assistance materials
using existing Agency documents for distribution to those groups which provide information to
livestock producers. Development of compliance assistance materials by the Compliance
Assistance Center will be coordinated between EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices, State
CAFO programs, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), livestock producers, and
environmental and community groups.
INSPECTIONS
The long-term goal of this Plan is to inspect within three years all CAFOs which: 1) are
the subject of citizen or government tips and complaints (as appropriate); 2) are located in
priority watersheds; 3) are located in watersheds with high AFO or CAFO density; 4) are located
near surface waters; or 5) have the potential for large amounts of animal waste to reach surface
water. Regions/States should inspect all other CAFOs within five years. Region/States are to
prioritize inspections using the criteria in the Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme (detailed
below) Inspections should be conducted at both 1) permitted facilities to determine compliance
with the permit; and 2) at unpermitted facilities to determine if there is a discharge occurring
(including a follow-up inspection during wet weather if a discharge is likely to occur)
Inspections should be targeted based on the following criteria and appropriate follow-up to tips
and complaints. Inspections which uncover non-compliance must be expeditiously resolved to
ensure that non-complying facilities are quickly brought back into compliance.
March 1998
Final
Page 5
-------
Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme
o location in a priority watershed5,
o number of animal units;
o history of compliance - violation history;
o information from previous inspection, e.g., inspection indicates that discharge may occur
during a rainfall, although there is no discharge at the time of the inspection and there is
no permit. (Inspections indicating this would be the basis for targeting an inspection
immediately during or following wet weather.);
o age of facility (older facilities as well as newly operational; initial inspections should be
conducted during the first year of operation);
o potential amount of pollution loading;
o type of livestock (some balance in inspections should be achieved);
o permit status;
o type of confinement (open lot/bam/stall);
o geography (both from risk standpoint and efficient use of inspection resources - proximity
of facilities meeting targeting criteria);
o storage (type and capacity);
o change in operational status (ownership, expansion, etc.);
o identity of receiving waters; and
o environmental justice6.
EPA recognizes that many water quality problems can result from the cumulative effects
of small AFOs. The CAFO regulation requires an on-site inspection prior to formal designation
as a CAFO for facilities equal to or smaller than three hundred (300) animal units (as well as
medium sized facilities which do not meet the direct discharge or means of conveyance
requirements). In targeting inspections for AFOs for designation as CAFOs, the NPDES
authorized agency should consider operations which: 1) have been the subject of citizen or
government tips and complaints; 2) are located in priority watersheds; 3) are located in
watersheds with high AFO or CAFO density; 4) are located near surface waters; and 5) have the
potential for large amounts of animal waste to reach surface water. As indicated in the
forthcoming draft AFO Strategy, EPA intends to prepare guidance to Regions and States to
facilitate designating AFOs as CAFOs.
5 State can use existing sources of information such as: Section 303 (d) lists of waters not
meeting standards after application of technology based control; Section 319(a) lists of non-point
source impaired priority watersheds; Section 305 (b) water quality assessments, Environmental
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) priority areas; and/or other priority rankings in the State.
6 Environmental Justice refers to the effort to ensure that no population segment, based on
race or low income is burdened with disproportionately high levels of pollution.
March 1998
Final
Page 6
-------
INSPECTION SUPPORT
To support inspections, the OC will develop a CAFO module to be added to the existing
NPDES Inspection Guidance Manual The OC will also conduct training for inspectors
(program managers/personnel in Regions/States, depending on interest) In addition, OC plans to
develop compliance assistance packages for feedlot operators.
EPA's OC will also explore ways to provide feedback from inspectors to program
personnel/permit writers, etc. OC will establish a workgroup to recommend how and what
feedback will best improve the inspection program. Another area of OC support includes the
development of targeting information.
EPA will study different options for developing and maintaining a CAFO inventory It
will consider the existing PCS System and its adaptability to an inventory management system as
well as coordination of PCS with State inventory systems. At this time, States which use other
tracking methods or systems to maintain such an inventory, should ensure coordination with
PCS. One of the State's and/or Region's first activities should be to update existing PCS
information relating to NPDES permitted facilities by ensuring that the information PCS contains
is complete and accurate. In addition, beginning in FY 1998, Regions and States should track
inspections at both permitted and non-permitted facilities.
IMPLEMENTATION - STATE SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGIES
Regions should work closely with States in the development and implementation of
State-specific CAFO compliance and enforcement strategies ensuring involvement by
stakeholders (to the extent possible). In those States where the Region implements the NPDES
CAFO program, it should develop the strategy.
There is a wide range of existing State and Regional CAFO programs. These
differences result from historical and programmatic factors and include variations in State
livestock industries as well as environmental factors. In addition, many States have authorities to
address CAFO environmental problems that are broader in scope than the Federal Clean Water
Act program. As a consequence, EPA anticipates that strategies will vary based upon these
differences. At a minimum State and Regional strategies should address:
o priority watersheds;
o targeting (using the criteria in the Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme);
o enforcement authority;
o use of compliance assistance including sources of funding (such as EQIP, Section 319,
and State funding programs) and technical assistance;
o compliance monitoring,
March 1998
Final
Page 7
-------
o compliance incentives,
o enforcement,
o handling of tips/complaints (including how they will be logged in and tracked),
o coordination with other Federal, State and local agencies;
o inspection schedules and the timing of inspections; and
o the role of local governments (if delegated to this level).
Final compliance and enforcement strategies should be completed and submitted to the
EPA Regional Offices by October 1,1998. To meet this date and allow adequate time to make
and address comments, a preliminary draft State plan should be submitted and agreed upon by
May 1, 1998. This preliminary plan should address, at a minimum, inspection commitments for
1998, the targeting scheme, and a schedule. In order to ensure the April and October dates are
met,. Regions should initiate discussions with States on the development of State strategies by
February 1998. States and Regions should continue their field activities (compliance assistance,
inspections, enforcement) during strategy development.
ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement provides incentives for operations to comply. The actual enforcement
response serves as a deterrent to the specific facility, and to the regulated community as a whole,
since it indicates that the Agency expects all facilities to be in compliance. Enforcement
encourages a level playing field among the States. EPA's Enforcement Management System
(EMS) for the NPDES Program (1989) provides the basic process to collect, evaluate, and
translate CAFO compliance information into timely and appropriate enforcement action.
The OECA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement (ORE) plans:
o to develop and implement a Strategic Enforcement Initiative;
o to develop a Model Administrative Order; and
o to develop an Inspector's "Elements of Proof' to support enforcement.
In FY 1998, ORE will coordinate the development and implementation of a Strategic
Enforcement Initiative. The development of a Strategic Enforcement Initiative involves a
cooperative effort between Headquarters and Regions to develop Federal administrative and
judicial cases. These cases would be taken against those CAFOs which- 1) violate NPDES
permit conditions, 2) are discharging without a permit, 3) cause a significant harm to the
environment, or 4) are recalcitrant in achieving timely compliance. Further, any facility that
presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or welfare is subject to the
emergency provisions of the CWA. These provisions allow EPA to seek an injunction requiring
a facility to remedy the imminent harm. Moreover, the Agency would evaluate the potential for
applying the emergency provisions in other environmental statutes on a case-by-case basis (e g
March 1998
Final
Page 8
-------
§ 1^31 of the Safe Drinking Water Act7 (SDWA))
The goals of the Strategic Enforcement Initiative are to achieve compliance, to obtain
publicity in the mainstream and trade press, and to signal to animal feedlot producers the
Agency's resolve to address compliance issues. As part of the relief sought in any action
brought under this Initiative, the Agency would seek enforceable control measures such as
appropriate BMPs to ensure that animal wastes do not enter waters of the United States or
contaminate sources of drinking water. Enforcement cases under the Initiative could be
simultaneously filed or, as an alternative, actions taken over a specified penod of time could be
simultaneously publicized.
In addition to the Initiative, in FY 98 the ORE will develop a Model Administrative
Order and add a module on "Elements of Proof for the existing Inspector's Guidance Manual
The model order will facilitate Regional and State enforcement after a finding that a CAFO is
discharging without a permit or is violating its existing NPDES permit. The "Elements of Proof
" portion of the Manual will include a discussion of what information and documentation is
necessary to support a Federal CAFO enforcement action. "Elements" include documenting the
number, kind, and timing of animal units present on a site; whether the facility meets the
regulatory definition of CAFO; whether a discharge exists (using pictures, video, drawings,
references, etc.); the lack of retention structures; and the location of the facility to the nearest
water body.
States and Regions should consider the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects
(SEPs) in settlements with CAFOs and related industries (meat packing, slaughter houses, food
processing) as an active part of their strategies where appropriate. The use of SEPs may be
effective where industries are highly integrated (poultry, swine). In addition, States and Regions
are encouraged to provide compliance incentives in their programs. Two recent EPA policies
may assist States in adopting similar approaches. The first, the Audit Policy, encourages
regulated facilities to voluntarily discover, disclose, and correct violations of environmental
requirements. The Policy states the Agency's intention not to seek most or all of the gravity-
based penalties for certain types of violations which are voluntarily disclosed and corrected, if
certain other conditions are met. Under the second, the Small Business Policy, EPA will refrain
from initiating an enforcement action seeking civil penalties, or will mitigate civil penalties,
whenever a small business makes a good faith effort to comply with environmental requirements.
Good faith is indicated by the facility agreeing to receive compliance assistance or by promptly
disclosing the findings of a voluntarily conducted environmental audit subject to certain
conditions.
7 § 1431 of the SDWA allows EPA to address imminent and substantial endangerment
to the health of persons from a contaminant that is present or is likely to enter a public
water supply or an underground source of drinking water.
March 1998
Final
Page 9
-------
OTHER EPA ACTIVITIES
This Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations is one part of an effort by EPA to address environmental issues caused by animal
wastes EPA is developing an overall "AFO Strategy" designed to protect aquatic ecosystems,
drinking water sources, and air quality; minimize odors; and promote environmentally sound and
beneficial uses of animal wastes. The Agency's "AFO Strategy" addresses two themes' 1)
improving existing program implementation and 2) pursuing opportunities to maximize
environmental and human health benefits by reducing impacts from AFOs through a mix of
voluntary tools and enhanced regulatory controls. This Compliance Assurance Impler^r^tion
Plan for CAFOs is incorporated by reference into the Agency's "AFO Strategy" and
implementation of the CAFO Plan is a component of the Agency's "AFO Strategy"
implementation. In addition, EPA-and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will
coordinate implementation of Vice President Gore's Clean Water Action Plan expected to be
released on February 16, 1998.
OFFICE OF WATER
EPA's Office of Water (OW) is undertaking efforts to more fully implement the existing
NPDES Program by focusing resources toward point sources in those watersheds where
environmental impacts on human health and ecological resources are the greatest, and working
with States and Regions to improve the permitting of CAFOs and other priority facilities. O W
is also moving forward to revise the existing NPDES regulations and Feedlot Effluent Limitation
Guidelines. A description of these and other efforts is contained in EPA's forthcoming draft
"AFO Strategy".
OFFICE OF POLICY. PLANNING. AND EVALUATION fOPPE^
OPPE will expand efforts with fertilizer and livestock industries to develop incentives for
marketing excess manure. In October 1996, EPA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Fertilizer
Institute and the Potash and Phosphate Institute sponsored a conference to explore various
options Further discussions with these groups have led to an effort to develop pilot projects in
several regions of the U.S. so that nutrients are utilized efficiently, no matter what their source.
EPA REGION VI SITING GUIDANCE
Addressing the proper location of concentrated livestock facilities can be a difficult issue.
Land use conflicts abound and ground water vulnerability may not be adequately considered by
local and State regulatory officials. There is limited Federal authority to address environmental
impacts of siting decisions (with exceptions such as the authority to designate Sole Source
Aquifers under the Safe Drinking Water Act and authority under the National Environmental
March 1998
Final
Page 10
-------
Policy Act (NEPA) to review impacts of major Federal activities). EPA Regions can offer
guidance and assistance to States and localities in their efforts to deal with problems associated
with improper siting Siting problems can include serious conflicts and complaints involving the
proximity of feeding operations to residences, groundwater contamination, and insufficient land
areas suitable for land application of livestock waste. To help minimize the adverse effects, EPA
Region 6 has developed a screening tool (Cumulative Risk Index Analysis (CRIA)) under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The tool seeks to optimize the siting of CAFOs by
evaluating the environmental vulnerabilities of the watershed. Copies of the CRIA will be made
available through EPA's Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center to interested persons.
F-PA REGION III POULTRY INITIATIVE
EPA has designated Region III (Philadelphia) as the national lead for many key poultry
related AFO activities under the forthcoming "AFO Strategy". In this capacity, Region III will
participate in any national poultry stakeholder dialogue. The goal of a poultry stakeholder
dialogue would be to utilize the innovation of the industry and all stakeholders to more
effectively identify opportunities and solutions to reduce nutrient loadings.
COOPERATING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE rUSDA^
While not involved in implementing EPA regulatory programs for livestock feeding
operations, USD A plays an important role in providing technical resources and information on
agriculture waste management. Technical assistance is given to facility operators based on
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards for design and construction of
manure management systems. The NRCS also provides assistance in developing nutrient
management plans. Financial assistance for some livestock feeding operations (generally those
facilities with less than 1,000 AU's) may be available through the EQIP program. Information
developed by USD A may be an important part of evaluating program success EPA Regions and
States should coordinate with USDA as appropriate.
STATE CONSERVATION AGENCIES AND SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
DISTRICTS (SWCDI
Responsibilities of State conservation agencies and Soil and Water Conservation Districts
vary from State to State They may administer regulatory, as well as voluntary, incentive-based
programs Many States have their own cost share programs that are implemented through State
personnel located in the field or through local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
personnel These programs can be used, particularly with smaller producers, to address
agricultural waste management problems through installation of Best Management Practices
March 1998
Final
Page 11
-------
(BMPs) This will complement EPA's CAFO Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan in
that many of the producers assisted through State cost share programs will be in compliance and
thus not subject to compliance enforcement actions. In addition, many of the States have
databases for targeting their efforts that can be utilized by EPA for compliance assistance State
conservation agencies provide operational reviews to assist and ensure proper operation of
animal waste management systems, as well as provide education and outreach programs to
producers through Land Grant Universities and others. The SWCDs, in most^ cases, have field
personnel that work directly with producers to address environmental concerns. In many cases,
SWCD personnel work alongside State conservation agency personnel, who may be located in
the same office, to carry out State, and in some cases, local cost share programs. In addition, the
SWCD governing boards and their personnel provide education and outreach programs to
producers and the communities where they reside, fostering better communication and
understanding between agricultural and non-agricultural residents.
ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
This section addresses the intended roles of OECA, EPA Regions, and States in carrying
out this Implementation Plan. A more complete description of AFO/CAFO related efforts is
provided in EPA's forthcoming "AFO Strategy". The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), in addition to issuing national compliance/enforcement strategies and
enforcement response policies, provides compliance assistance materials to those entities that
currently provide information to the regulated community. Regions and States administering the
NPDES program have primary responsibility for targeting, inspections, compliance assistance,
enforcement, and permitting.
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
o Co-sponsor National CAFO Meeting (Kansas City, Missouri, May 1997).
o Issue Memorandum of Agreement Guidance for FY 98 and 99 making CAFO compliance
a priority (June 1997).
o Develop and issue a final Compliance Assurance Implementation Plan for CAFOs
(February 1998)
o Develop compliance assistance materials through the Agriculture Compliance Assistance
Center as needed (ongoing).
o Develop CAFO Inspection Guidance module (Draft May, 1998).
March 1998
Final
Page 12
-------
o Develop CAFO inspector training materials (May, 1998)
o CAFO inspector training (FY 98).
o Develop CAFO inventory options (FY 98)
o Monitor Regional/State implementation (ongoing),
o Develop targeting information (Ongoing beginning in FY 98).
o Esta'j,;sh Workgroup on feedback from inspections (FY 98).
OFFICE OF REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
o Develop and coordinate a CAFO Strategic Enforcement Initiative (FY 98).
o Develop a Model Administrative Order (FY 98).
o Develop a module "Elements of Proof' for the existing NPDES Inspection Guidance
Manual (FY 98).
REGIONS
o Coordinate with States and stakeholders within the Region (ongoing).
o Ensure that PCS is up-to-date and accurate covering all permitted CAFOs. (FY 98).
o Effective State CAFO programs should include an appropriate level of permit issuance,
compliance assistance, and enforcement actions. EPA Regions should be prepared to
take appropriate enforcement actions when the State NPDES authority does not take
adequate actions consistent with their compliance/enforcement strategies (ongoing).
o In States where EPA Regions directly administer the NPDES program, the Region should
implement an appropriate compliance and enforcement program consistent with this Plan.
o Initiate discussions with States concerning State Compliance/Enforcement Strategies
(March 1998). Assist States in development of Compliance/Enforcement Strategies.
Provide comments on proposed State strategies within four weeks of submittal. Assist
States in implementing their Compliance/Enforcement Strategies (ongoing).
o Provide input to the Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center by identifying
compliance materials needed and available existing materials (ongoing).
March 1998
Final
Page 13
-------
o Recognize and encourage all effective State activities including those under State
programs that may be broader m scope than the NPDES program These activities may
cover issues such as operator certification and training, construction permits and design
standards, review of plans and specifications, construction management, protection of
ground water, and operational requirements for manure management systems (ongoing)
STATES WITH NPDES AUTHORIZATION
o Implement an appropriate compliance and enforcement program based on State specific
compliance and enforcement strategies which address the criteria in this Plan (ongoing)
o Develop a State Compliance/Enforcement Strategy which addresses targeting (using the
criteria in the NAIS), enforcement authority, compliance assistance (including sources of
funding and technical assistance), compliance monitoring, and handling of
tips/complaints (Preliminary Strategy, May 1, 1998; Final Strategy, October 1, 1998).
o Inspect facilities to determine if violations have occurred and take enforcement action as
appropriate (ongoing).
o Develop an inventory of all CAFOs and input the data into the PCS or ensure
coordination with PCS (FY 98/99).
o Designate AFOs as CAFOs as appropriate (ongoing).
o Utilize to the extent possible EQIP, Section 319, and other funding sources to prevent
violations (ongoing).
o Track compliance inspections at both permitted and non-permitted facilities (ongoing)
Note:
This document represents EPA's compliance and enforcement implementation plan for
addressing environmental and public health impacts associated with CAFOs It is not a
substitute for EPA 's existing regulations and does not impose any binding requirements on EPA,
States, or the regulated community. EPA's strategies and plans for addressing CAFOs may
evolve and change as its understanding of the issues increases through further work and receipt
of additional information
March 1998
Final
Page 14
------- |