11This report can be found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/305b/98report.

4-1

4. NATIONAL AND LOCAL IMPACTS OF ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

4.1 NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY RESULTS 

Agricultural operations, including AFOs, are a significant source of water pollution in the United

States. The recently released National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress

(USEPA, 2000a) was prepared under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.11 Under this

section of the Act, states and tribes report their impaired water bodies to the EPA, including the

suspected sources of those impairments. The most recent report indicates that agriculture (which

includes crop production, pasture and range grazing, concentrated and other confined animal

feeding operations, and aquaculture) is the leading contributor to identified water quality

impairments in the nation’s rivers and lakes, and the fifth leading contributor to identified water

quality impairments in the nation’s estuaries (Exhibit 4-1).

EXHIBIT 4-1

Five Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment in the United States

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Agriculture (59%) Agriculture (31%) Municipal Point Sources (28%)

2 Hydromodification (20%) Hydromodification (15%) Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (28%)

3 Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers

(11%)

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers (12%) Atmospheric Deposition (23%)

4 Municipal Point Sources

(10%)

Municipal Point Sources (11%) Industrial Discharges (15%)

5 Resource Extraction (9%) Atmospheric Deposition (8%) Agriculture (15%)

Source: USEPA (2000a).

Fraction of impairment attributed to each source is shown in parentheses. For example, agriculture is listed as a

source of impairment in 59 percent of impaired river miles. The portion of “agricultural” impairment attributable to

animal waste (as compared to crop production, pasture grazing, range grazing, and aquaculture) is not specified. 

Figure totals exceed 100 percent because water bodies may be impaired by more than one source.

Exhibit 4-2 presents additional summary statistics from the 1998 National Water Quality

Inventory. These figures indicate that agriculture contributes to the impairment of at least

170,000 river miles, 2.4 million lake acres, and almost 2,000 estuarine square miles. The total

portion of impairment attributable to animal agriculture nationwide is unknown, because only a

portion of all states and tribes identified specific agricultural sources. Some conclusions,

however, can be made based on the reporting states, as indicated in Exhibit 4-3.
4-2

EXHIBIT 4-2

Summary of U.S. Water Quality Impairment Survey

Total Quantity in U.S. Waters Assessed Quantity Impaired by

All Sources

Quantity Impaired by

Agriculture a

Rivers

3,662,255 miles

23% of total

840,402 miles

35% of assessed

291,263 miles

59% of impaired

170,750 miles

Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs

41.6 million acres

42% of total

17.4 million acres

45% of assessed

7.9 million acres

31% of impaired

2,417,801 acres

Estuaries

90,465 square miles

32% of total

28,687 square miles

44% of assessed

12,482 square miles

15% of impaired

1,827 square miles

Source: USEPA (2000a).

a

 AFOs are a subset of the agriculture category. Summaries of impairment by non-agricultural sources are not

presented here. 

EXHIBIT 4-3

Percent of Total Agricultural Impairment Contributed by Animal Agriculture

Type of Animal Agriculture Rivers, Streamsa Lakes, Ponds,

Reservoirsb

AFOs (Feedlots, Holding Areas, Other) 16 4

Range and Pasture Grazing 17 39

a

 Based on reports from 28 states.

b

 Based on reports from 16 states.

Note: Impairment due to land application of manure was not reported.

Exhibit 4-4 lists the leading pollutants impairing surface water quality in the United States. 

AFOs are a potential source of all listed pollutants, but are most commonly associated with

nutrients, pathogens, oxygen-depleting substances, and solids (siltation). AFOs can also

contribute to the growth of noxious aquatic plants due to the discharge of excess nutrients. 

Further, AFOs may contribute loadings of priority toxic organic chemicals and oil and grease, but

probably to a lesser extent than the other leading pollutants.

Pollutants associated with AFOs can also originate from a variety of other sources, such as

cropland, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, urban runoff, and septic systems. The

national analyses described in the following section are useful in assessing the significance of

animal waste as a potential or actual contributor to water quality degradation across the United

States.
12The analysis does not include other potentially significant sources of nitrogen, such as urban runoff,

sewer overflows, septic systems, and contaminated ground water.

4-3

EXHIBIT 4-4

Five Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment in the United States

Rank Rivers Lakes Estuaries

1 Siltation (38%) Nutrients (44%) Pathogens (47%)

2 Pathogens (36%) Metals (27%) Oxygen-Depleting Substances

(42%) 

3 Nutrients (29%) Siltation (15%) Metals (27%)

4 Oxygen-Depleting Substances

(23%)

Oxygen-Depleting Substances

(14%)

Nutrients (23%)

5 Metals (21%) Suspended Solids (10%) Thermal Modifications (18%)

Source: USEPA (2000a).

Note: Percent impairment attributed to each pollutant is shown in parentheses. For example, siltation is listed as a

cause of impairment in 38 percent of impaired river miles. Items in bold print are those commonly associated with

animal feeding operations, although they are also associated with other sources. Figure totals exceed 100 percent

because water bodies may be impaired by more than one source.

4.2 NATIONAL ANALYSES OF NUTRIENT CONTRIBUTIONS

The national contribution and importance of nitrogen and phosphorus from animal operations has

been estimated in several analyses. The first two analyses (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2) focus on the

production of nitrogen/phosphorus (and therefore, the potential for animal waste to contribute to

nutrient loadings in water), whereas the last analysis (Section 4.2.3) uses sophisticated modeling

techniques to estimate the amount of nutrients that reach surface water due to disposal and use of

animal manure.

4.2.1 1994 USGS Study on Nitrogen Production from Various Sources

USGS analyzed nitrogen sources (manure, fertilizers, point sources, and atmospheric

deposition)12 in 107 U.S. watersheds, and found that the proportion of nitrogen originating from

each source differs according to climate, hydrologic conditions, land use, population, and

physical geography (Puckett, 1994). 

Exhibit 4-5 displays results of the analysis for selected watersheds using information from 1987. 

As shown, the production of manure nitrogen relative to other sources varies by watershed. The

“manure” source estimates include waste from both confined and unconfined animals. Puckett

(1994) does not address whether the proportion of waste from confined facilities is larger or

smaller than the fraction from unconfined animals. In some cases, manure nitrogen is a large
4-4

portion of the total nitrogen added to the watershed. In the following watersheds, more than 25

percent of nitrogen originates from manure:

• Trinity River, Texas

• White River, Arkansas

• Apalachicola River, Florida

• Altamaha River, Georgia

• Potomac River, District of Columbia

• Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania

• Platte River, Nebraska

• Snake River, Idaho

• San Joaquin River, California

As indicated by the wide distribution of these geographic areas, significant contributions of

nitrogen from animal manure occur throughout the U.S.
EXHIBIT 4-5

Proportions of Nitrogen Sources in Selected Watersheds (1987 Base Year)

Source: Puckett (1994). Note: CAFO point sources are included in the “manure” category.
13County level data are not yet available for the 1997 Census. However, in Chapter 2, Exhibit 2-4 presents

the national production of recoverable manure and nutrients generated by animal sector based on the 1997 Census

data (USDA/NRCS, 2000; USDA/NASS, 1999).

14As noted earlier, volatilized ammonia can have significant impacts on air quality and water quality (via

atmospheric deposition).

15Legumes (e.g., alfalfa, clovers, peas, and beans), through symbiotic biological nitrogen fixation, can “fix”

atmospheric nitrogen gas into plant-available ammonia (Follett, 1995). Thus, legumes do not require nitrogen

application. 

4-6

4.2.2 1998 USDA Study of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Production Relative to Crop Uptake

Potential

Because of its nutrient content, animal manure is a valuable crop fertilizer. However, if nutrients

are applied in excess of amounts that can be used by plants, there may be a greater potential for

releases to the environment. Based on data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture (USDC/Census

Bureau, 1994), USDA evaluated the quantity of nutrients available from recoverable livestock

manure relative to crop growth requirements, by county (Lander et al., 1998).13 The analyses are

intended to reflect the amount of manure that can be recovered and utilized; the analyses

therefore do not consider manure from unconfined animals. 

Exhibits 4-6 and 4-7 show the estimated useable manure nitrogen and phosphorus production

from confined livestock, including swine, chickens, turkeys, and cattle. The figures account for

the inability to completely recover manure, as well as typical nutrient losses during storage and

treatment. These losses can be significant, particularly for nitrogen, due to the high volatilization

potential of ammonia.14 Considering typical management systems, average manure nitrogen

losses range from 31 to 50 percent for poultry, 60 to 70 percent for cattle (beef, dairy, and other

categories), and 75 percent for swine. By contrast, the typical phosphorus loss is 15 percent

(Lander et al., 1998).

Exhibits 4-8 and 4-9 illustrate the potential for available manure nitrogen and phosphorus to

meet or exceed plant uptake and removal in each of the 3,141 mainland counties, considering

harvested non-legume15 cropland and hayland. (See Lander et al. [1998] for results of additional

analyses which also consider legume cropland and pastureland.) Based on this analysis, available

manure nitrogen exceeds crop system needs in 266 counties, and available manure phosphorus

exceeds crop needs in 485 counties. The relative excess of phosphorus compared to nitrogen is

not surprising, since manure is typically nitrogen-deficient relative to crop needs. Therefore,

when manure is applied to meet a crop’s nitrogen requirement, phosphorus is typically applied in

excess of its crop requirement (Sims, 1995). 

Several points underscore the magnitude of the problem. First, in several of the counties where

animal manure nutrients exceeded crop capacities, excesses would occur even if manure were

applied to all suitable land in those counties. In addition, county-wide nutrient balances likely
16See Lander et al. (1998) for a complete list of assumptions and limitations.

4-7

understate occurrences of local nutrient excesses, because most manure remains on the farm

where it was generated, and confined animal production farms often do not have enough land to

accommodate the manure (Letson and Gollehon, 1998). Specifically, large, specialized animal

production farms typically have a relatively high animal/acre ratio when compared to smaller,

integrated farms, as indicated by information on consolidation trends presented in Chapter 2. 

Information is not available on the number of AFOs that lease land for manure application or

distribute the manure to others.

In a more recent evaluation of manure nutrients relative to the capacity of cropland to assimilate

nutrients, USDA estimated that 1.5 billion pounds of farm-level excess manure nitrogen and 0.9

billion pounds of farm-level excess phosphorus were produced in 1997, representing about 60

percent of the recoverable manure nitrogen and 65 percent of the recoverable manure

phosphorus. Excess farm level nutrients increased by more than 60 percent for both phosphorus

and nitrogen between 1982 and 1997, and most were associated with large farms by 1997. For

example, AFOs accounted for 64 percent of the excess nitrogen and 67 percent of the excess

phosphorus in 1997 (Kellogg et al., 2000).

These USDA analyses are not intended to reflect actual manure management practices, but rather

the potential for manure nutrient usage, without consideration of economic conditions, land

ownership limitations, and other nutrient sources (e.g., commercial fertilizers). Additionally, the

analyses do not account for environmental transport of applied manure nutrients. Therefore, an

excess of nutrients does not necessarily indicate that a water quality problem exists; likewise, a

lack of excess nutrients does not imply the absence of water quality problems. Nevertheless, the

analyses are useful as a general indicator of excess nutrients on a broad-scale basis.16
EXHIBIT 4-6

Estimated Manure Nitrogen Production from Confined Livestock
EXHIBIT 4-7

Estimated Manure Phosphorus Production from Confined Livestock
EXHIBIT 4-8

Potential for Nitrogen Available from Animal Manure to Meet or Exceed

Uptake and Removal on Non-Legume, Harvested Cropland and Hayland
EXHIBIT 4-9

Potential for Phosphorus Available from Animal Manure to Meet or Exceed

Uptake and Removal on Non-Legume, Harvested Cropland and Hayland
17Although CAFOs are designated as point sources in the Clean Water Act, they are included in the 

“livestock waste” category in this analysis. Point source data used in the analysis were obtained from a 1977 -1981

inventory (Smith et al., 1997). 

4-12

4.2.3 1997 USGS Modeling Study of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loadings

to Surface Waters

The analyses described in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 are land-based and are not intended to

represent in-stream water quality conditions. Delivery of nutrients to surface water is affected by

many watershed characteristics, such as soil permeability, stream density, temperature, slope, and

precipitation. Other watershed attributes, such as stream depth, stream velocity, and reservoir

retention, further affect nutrient delivery along stream networks. USGS’s SPARROW (SPAtially

Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes) water quality model accounts for these

characteristics. SPARROW is a statistical method that relates measured water quality data to

spatially referenced pollutant sources and watershed attributes. The model’s regression equations

express in-stream nutrient loads as a function of stream and land-surface characteristics. The

equations incorporate point and non-point pollutant sources, as well as factors associated with

material transport through the watershed (e.g., soil permeability and stream velocity). The model

is used to describe spatial and temporal patterns in water quality and to identify factors and

processes that influence those conditions (Smith et al., 1997).

As described by Smith et al. (1997), USGS scientists applied the SPARROW model nationally to

the 2,056 hydrologic cataloging units (watersheds) in the contiguous United States to estimate

total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) export from various point and non-point sources

(including commercial fertilizers, livestock waste, atmospheric nitrogen deposition, and nonagricultural land). Annual average livestock waste from both confined and unconfined animals

was estimated for 1987, using data from the 1987 Census of Agriculture.17

Exhibits 4-10 and 4-11 present the predicted total local nitrogen and phosphorus yields (mass

exported per unit of watershed area), from local (not upstream) sources. Exhibits 4-12 and 4-13

present the predicted percent contribution from animal waste to those local yields. The latter

exhibits show that animal waste is a significant source (relative to other local sources) of instream nutrient concentrations in many watershed outlets, particularly in the central and eastern

United States. 

Smith et al. (1997) found that in general, commercial fertilizer contributes significantly more

than livestock waste to local TN yield. By contrast, the analysis shows that livestock waste

contributes more than commercial fertilizer to local TP yield. This may be due to the typically

low N:P ratio in manure relative to crop N:P needs, which results in over-application of

phosphorus when manure is applied to meet crop nitrogen requirements (Sims, 1995).
EXHIBIT 4-10

Predicted Local Nitrogen Yield in Hydrologic Cataloging Units
EXHIBIT 4-11

Predicted Local Total Phosphorus Yield in Hydrologic Cataloging Units
EXHIBIT 4-12

Predicted Percentage Contribution of Animal Waste to Local

Total Nitrogen Export from Hydrologic Cataloging Units
EXHIBIT 4-13

Predicted Percentage Contribution of Animal Waste to Local

Total Phosphorus Export from Hydrologic Cataloging Units
4-17

4.3 NATIONAL ANALYSIS OF SHELLFISH BED IMPAIRMENT

In The 1995 National Shellfish Register of Classified Growing Waters, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Association (NOAA) characterizes the status of 4,230 shellfish-growing water areas

in 21 coastal states, reflecting an assessment of nearly 25 million acres of estuarine and nonestuarine waters. These waters support a significant amount of shellfish produced in the United

States. Specifically, over 77 million pounds were harvested from these waters in 1995, with a

commercial value of $200 million (NOAA, 1997).

Results of this analysis are presented in Exhibit 4-14, which lists the number of shellfish beds

impaired by feedlots, according to impairment classifications and estimated level of contribution. 

NOAA found that 3,404 shellfish areas had some level of impairment (i.e., a classification other

than “approved” or “unclassified”). Of these, 110 (3 percent) were impaired to varying degrees

by feedlots, and 280 (8 percent) were impaired by “other agriculture” (which could include land

where manure is applied).

EXHIBIT 4-14

Shellfish Beds Impaired by Feedlots

Estimated Level of

Contribution from Feedlots

Level of Impairment (Harvest Classification) Total

Impaired by

Feedlots Conditionally

Approved

Conditionally

Restricted

Restricted Prohibited 

Actual Contributor (High) 6 0 12 22 40

Actual Contributor (Medium) 3 1 16 23 43

Actual Contributor (Low) 2 1 2 9 14

Potential Contributor 1 0 8 4 13

TOTAL 12 2 38 58 110

Source: NOAA (1997). 

4.4 LOCAL IMPACTS

This section presents documented local-level environmental incidents and impacts from animal

feeding operations. The exhibits are organized by animal type and present information in three

areas: (1) a listing of discharges directly to surface water revealing violations of the “no

discharge” requirement; (2) human health related impacts; and (3) ecological, recreational, and

other impacts. Exhibit 4-15 shows the organization of this information in the subsequent

exhibits. Because this compilation resulted from a non-exhaustive literature search, it cannot be

considered comprehensive. However, these exhibits show that a large number of events have

been reported over time.
4-18

EXHIBIT 4-15

Description of Environmental Incidents and Impacts Tables

Topic/Animal

Category

Swine Poultry Beef and Dairy Unspecified or

Multiple

Listing of

Discharges to

Surface Water

Exhibit 4-16

110 items

Exhibit 4-19

18 items

Exhibit 4-22

57 items

Exhibit 4-25

53 items

Human Health

Related Impacts

Exhibit 4-17

6 items

Exhibit 4-20

2 items

Exhibit 4-23

2 items

Exhibit 4-26

3 items

Ecological,

Recreational,

Other Impacts

Exhibit 4-18

50* items

Exhibit 4-21

9* items

Exhibit 4-24

9* items

Exhibit 4-27

28* items

 *Includes items from exhibits of discharge to surface water that indicated fish kills resulting from the discharge.

The relatively high number of reported surface discharges compared to fewer documented

impacts probably reflects the higher visibility of the discharge events. Documenting

environmental impacts from animal waste can be difficult, because as noted above, several

manure constituents can also originate from other sources, and extensive investigations are

sometimes required to estimate the relative contribution of each source. The events reported here

are confined to impacts where AFOs were reported as a significant causative factor. Other

contributing factors are identified to the extent that they were included in the literature. 

Examples of areas affected by animal waste are described in the following subsections.

Following Exhibits 4-16 through 4-27 are three examples that are discussed in more detail.
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

7/1/97 IL Swine operation 800,000 gallons discharged Contaminated drinking wat

of at least 5 homes withEscherichia coli; Illinois EPlevies fines totaling $9,600 more, which will partiallyfund creek restoration

10/17/97 Clear Creek, IA Swine operation 28,134 fish killed $4,000 direct cost 

+ $2,000 fine

10/9/97 Brooke Creek, IA Swine operation 4194 fish killed $267.50 direct cost 

+ $2,500 fine

9/18/97 Prairie Creek, IA Swine operation 93,403 fish killed $16,140.84 direct cost; 

fine was pending

8/27/97 South Fork of Iowa River, IA Swine operation 3,232 fish killed $264.23 direct cost; 

fine was pending

7/26/97 Crane Creek, IA 3,200 head swine

operation

109,172 fish killed Blocked pipe resulted in

discharge.$33,882.73 direct cost; fine was pending

9/4/96 North Buffalo Creek, IA Swine operation More than 100,000 gallons

pumped into Creek;586,753 fish killed

$30,000 direct cost + $3,000 fine

8/26/96 Rock Creek, IA Swine operation 871 fish killed $237 direct cost 8/19/96 Cedar County, IA Swine operation 3,676 fish killed $408.76 direct cost 
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

8/19/96 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 46,315 fish killed $3,908 direct cost 

+ $3,000 fine

11/15/95 Indian Creek, IA Swine operation 4,928 fish killed $418 direct cost 

+ $3,000 fine

9/25/95 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation 60,650 fish killed $21,436 direct cost; 

fine was pending

7/23/95 Elk Creek tributary, IA Swine operation 16,280 fish killed $1,410 direct cost 

+ $2,500 fine

7/20/95 Little Volga River, IA Swine operation 23,416 fish killed $8,155 direct cost 

+ $1,500 fine

7/16/95 South Fork of Iowa River, IA Swine operation 8,861 fish killed $6,000 direct cost 

+ $2,000 fine

7/1/95 Hamilton, IA 700 head swine operation 1.5 million gallons discharged;

8,800 fish killed

$8,000 fine 

3/28/95 South English River tributary,

IA

Swine operation Fish kill $4,000 fine 

9/94 Kossuth County, IA Swine operation 408 fish killed $73 direct cost 

+ $2,250 fine

9/94 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $2,000 fine 8/94 Otter Creek, IA Swine operation 1,882 fish killed $968 direct cost 
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

5/94 Church Creek, IA Swine operation 5,750 fish killed $2,118 direct cost 5/94 Hickory Creek tributary, IA Swine operation 8,397 fish killed $722 direct cost 

+ $300 fine

3/94 Eagle Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fine 

12/93 Boone River, IA Swine operation Fish kill $5,000 fine 11/93 Union County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $1,000 fine 10/93 Middle Avery Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $9,700 fine split between

operation and wastemanagement design compan

9/93 South English River tributary,

IA

Swine operation Fish kill $1,650 fine 

7/93 Iowa River tributary Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fine 6/93 Keokuk County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $4,500 fine 5/93 Brush Creek, IA Swine operation 265,000 fish killed $10,000 direct cost 

+ $2,500 fine

4/93 Brookside Creek tributary, IA Swine operation Fish kill $2,000 fine 
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

4/93 Iowa River tributary, IA Swine operation Fish kill $300 fine 8/92 East Nishnabotna River, IA Swine operation Fish kill $1,000 fine 8/92 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 34,994 fish killed $200 fine 7/92 Skunk River, IA Swine operation $100 fine 7/92 South River, IA Swine operation 6,264 fish killed From land application of

lagoon contents; effects lastfor 2 months.$3,448 direct cost + $19,500 fine

7/92 Wright County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $400 fine 3/92 Cedar River, IA Swine operation Retention basin overflow.

$250 fine

2/92 Beaverdam Creek, IA Swine operation Below-building pit overflow

$300 fine

6/19/97 Renville County, MN 9,000 swine 100,000 gallons discharged;

690,000 fish killed

Lagoon overflow caused bytimer malfunction.Fined for failure to notify.

8/96 Meeker County, MN 200 head swine operation Overflowing lagoon 4/96 Blue Earth County, MN 500 head swine operation Siphoned basin into a stream and

had an un-permitted basin

4/96 Blue Earth County, MN 200 head swine operation Siphoned pit/

un-permitted basin
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

4/96 Nobles County, MN Swine operation Overflowing basin 4/96 Watonwan County, MN 700 head swine operation Overflowing basin 

2/96 - 4/96 Osborne Township, MN Swine operation Overflow from pit onto ground

and into Rock River, at rate up to12 gpm

10/95 Traverse County, MN 2,500 head swine

operation

Overflowing pits 

9/95 Lincoln County, MN 2,500 head swine

operation

Pumped manure basin into a river 

8/1/95 Lincoln, MN Swine operation 5,000- 10,000 fish killed 

5/95 Renville County, MN 700 head swine operation Manure and contaminated

wastewater flowed into a surfacetile inlet in a county ditch

4/94 - 8/94 Lone Tree Township, MN Swine operation Pumped about 5,000 gallons of

wastewater containing manureinto a ditch every two weeks

4/94 Meeker County, MN 1,500 head swine

operation

Multiple runoff problems 

9/1/95 Gentry, MO Swine operation Unknown 8/1/95 Greencastle MO 30,000 head swine

operation

Over 20,000 gallons discharged;173,000 fish killed

8/96 Four-Mile Creek, NE Swine operation 300-500 bullhead, 100 carp, 100

cyprinids killed

Lagoon discharge 

6/95 Scholz Pond, NE Swine operation 96 fish killed Land application and pipeli

break.$13.25 direct cost + $1,000 fine

3/95 Swan Creek, NE Swine operation Fish kill $971.66 direct cost 

+ $10,000 fine
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

2/1/97 Pamlico, NC 4,000 swine 1,000 gallon discharge No noticeable fish kill 8/1/95 Brunswick County, NC 6,400 head swine

operation 

2 million gallons discharged 6th major livestock discharg

in 2 weeks 

8/1/95 Onslow, NC Swine operation Under 1 million gallons

discharged

7/1/95 Bladen, NC Swine operation 1 million gallons discharged over

2 days

6/1-21/95 New River, Onslow County,

NC

10,000 head swineoperation

25 million gallons discharged;3,000-4,000 fish killed

$110,000 fine, including$6,200 for fish kill and$92,000 in civil penalties

6/1/95 Sampson County, NC Swine operation 1 million gallons discharged 5/1/91 Duplin County, NC Swine operation “Tons of water” discharged 

12/10/96 West Branch Tontagony

Creek, OH

Swine manure Manure leaked into barn and into

creek

10/10/96 Tributary to Beaver Creek,

OH

Swine manure 

09/03/96 West Branch Wolf

Creek/Aldrich Run, OH

Swine manure Manure ran off into ditch and into

creek

35280 Tributary to Beaver Creek,

OH

Swine manure 

08/03/96 Tributary to Auglaize River

(RM 87.75), OH

Swine manure Liquid manure applied too

heavily; runoff into tile

07/09/96 Little Tymochtee Creek, OH Swine manure Broken pipe on truck allowed

manure to enter creek

05/17/96 Painter Creek, OH Swine manure Runoff from manure spreading 
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

02/27/96 Tributary to Pipe Creek, OH Swine manure Manure spread on fields, followed

by snow melt and rain

12/06/95 Tributary to Stillwater River,

OH

Swine manure 2,000,000 gallons pumped onto 54

acres

12/02/95 Little Tymochtee Creek, OH Swine manure Liquid manure pumped onto fields

into tiles into creek

11/26/95 Leatherwood Creek, OH Swine manure 10/25/95 Tributary to Spring Creek

(RM 1.25), OH

Swine manure Manure pumped onto fields, ran

into tiles and to stream

10/20/95 Wolf Creek, OH Swine manure Unknown amount leaked from

storage pit into stream

08/27/95 Indian Creek, OH Swine manure Lagoon pumped onto small field;

drained into creek

34917 Indian Run, OH Swine manure Heavy rain after manure

application to fields

07/03/95 Oak Run, OH Swine manure Accidental release from drain pipe

during application

10/01/94 Second Creek, OH Swine manure 09/24/94 Tributary to Lake Fork

Mohican River, OH

Swine manure Liquid manure entered field tile

and creek

09/21/94 East Branch Salt Creek, OH Swine manure Swine fenced to stream, defecated

on land - runoff to stream
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

09/20/94 North Branch Salt Creek, OH Swine manure Swine fenced to stream, defecated

on land - runoff to stream

09/11/94 Carter Creek, OH Swine manure 800,000 gallons of manure applied

to 8 acre field; discharged into tileinto creek

05/31/94 Grog Run, OH Swine manure Lagoon drained via hose to field

at edge of creek

07/15/93 Barcer Run, OH Swine manure Spray-irrigated manure ran off

into stream

04/08/93 Tributary to Wabash River,

OH

Swine manure 

11/18/92 Tributary to Lick Creek, OH Swine manure Accidental discharge due to

clogged pump

33841 Little Sugar Creek, OH Swine manure 

08/12/92 Tributary to Auglaize River,

OH

Swine manure Irrigated manure runoff into tile

into creek

09/18/91 Salt Creek, OH Swine manure Manure washed into stream 08/24/90 Thompson Creek, OH Swine manure 08/08/90 Bear Creek, OH Swine manure 06/25/90 Cloverlick Creek, OH Swine manure 
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

06/13/90 Lees Creek, OH Swine manure 05/01/90 Tributary to Caesar Creek,

OH

Swine manure 

09/27/89 Jennings Creek, OH Swine manure 05/31/89 Grassy Fork, OH Swine manure 04/28/89 Kale Creek, OH Swine manure 

32579 Wolf Creek, OH Swine manure 

11/15/87 Jennings Creek, OH Swine manure 09/02/87 Mill Creek, OH Swine manure 08/04/87 Painter Creek, OH Swine manure 08/03/87 Camp Creek, OH Swine manure 06/27/87 Buck Run, OH Swine manure 05/21/87 Camp Creek, OH Swine manure 
EXHIBIT 4-16

Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

05/05/87 Chapman Creek, OH Swine manure 01/17/87 Unnamed creek, OH Swine manure 
EXHIBIT 4-17

Documented Human Health Related Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference

1990 Delmarva Peninsula

(DE, MD, VA)

Swine operation Ammonium-nitrogen concentrations of

1,000 mg/L in shallow monitoring

wells around swine waste lagoons

Scientific study Ritter and Chirnside

(1990)

4/98 Duplin County, NC Swine operation Ground water contamination Nitrate levels five

times state standards

The Associated Press

(1998)

12/1/95 Four Oaks, NC Swine operations 13 private wells contaminated Warrick (1995e)

10/1/95 Shannon, NC 1,200 head swine

operation

Family complains of overpowering

stench and mist of manure when

farmer sprays his fields

Warrick (1995d)

10/1/95 NC Swine operation 4 private wells were found to have

nitrate levels 10 times the health

standard equal to the MCL of 10 mg/L

Linked conclusively

to the swine

operations

Warrick (1995c; 1995d)

4/1/95 Browntown, NC Swine operations Residents fighting with swine farmers

over odor

Stith and Warrick (1995)
EXHIBIT 4-18

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

1997 NC rivers Swine operations 450,000 fish killed Pfisteria piscici

outbreak

1985-1995 Sampson County, NC Mainly swine (Livestock 

responsible for 93% of ammoniaemissions across NC. Swineaccount for 78% of ammoniaemissions from livestockoperations in the southern coastalplain of NC, where SampsonCounty is located.)

100% increase in amount of ammoniain rainwater corresponds with growthof pork industry

Contributes toeutrophication vatmospheric dep

9/1/95 NC Swine Zinc and copper in manure building to

potentially harmful levels on fields

Zinc and coppefeed

9/1/95 Neuse River, NC Swine 500,000 fish killed Toxic dinoflage

outbreak

6/13/95 Neuse River, NC Swine 1 billion fish killed Toxic dinoflage

outbreak

1995 Coastal wetlands of NC Swine operations Closed shellfish beds 

NC Swine Low dissolved oxygen, fish kills, loss

of submerged vegetation

Total Maximum Load (TMDL) c

10/17/97 Clear Creek, IA Swine operation 28,134 fish killed $4,000 direct co

+ $2,000 fine

10/9/97 Brooke Creek, IA Swine operation 4194 fish killed $267.50 direct c

+ $2,500 fine

9/18/97 Prairie Creek, IA Swine operation 93,403 fish killed $16,140.84 dire

fine was pendin
EXHIBIT 4-18

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

8/27/97 South Fork of Iowa

River, IA

Swine operation 3,232 fish killed $264.23 direct c

fine was pendin

7/26/97 Crane Creek, IA 3,200 head swine operation 109,172 fish killed Blocked pipe re

discharge.$33,882.73 direfine was pendin

9/4/96 North Buffalo Creek, IA Swine operation More than 100,000 gallons pumped

into Creek;586,753 fish killed

$30,000 direct c+ $3,000 fine

8/26/96 Rock Creek, IA Swine operation 871 fish killed $237 direct cost 8/19/96 Cedar County, IA Swine operation 3,676 fish killed $408.76 direct c8/19/96 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 46,315 fish killed $3,908 direct co

+ $3,000 fine

11/15/95 Indian Creek, IA Swine operation 4,928 fish killed $418 direct cos

+ $3,000 fine
EXHIBIT 4-18

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

9/25/95 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation 60,650 fish killed $21,436 direct c

fine was pendin

7/23/95 Elk Creek tributary, IA Swine operation 16,280 fish killed $1,410 direct co

+ $2,500 fine

7/20/95 Little Volga River, IA Swine operation 23,416 fish killed $8,155 direct co

+ $1,500 fine

7/16/95 South Fork of Iowa

River, IA

Swine operation 8,861 fish killed $6,000 direct co

+ $2,000 fine

7/1/95 Hamilton, IA 700 head swine operation 1.5 million gallons discharged;

8,800 fish killed

$8,000 fine 

3/28/95 South English River

tributary, IA

Swine operation Fish kill $4,000 fine 

9/94 Kossuth County, IA Swine operation 408 fish killed $73 direct cost 

+ $2,250 fine

9/94 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $2,000 fine 
EXHIBIT 4-18

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

8/94 Otter Creek, IA Swine operation 1,882 fish killed $968 direct cos5/94 Church Creek, IA Swine operation 5,750 fish killed $2,118 direct co5/94 Hickory Creek tributary,

IA

Swine operation 8,397 fish killed $722 direct cost 

+ $300 fine

3/94 Eagle Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fine 

12/93 Boone River, IA Swine operation Fish kill $5,000 fine 11/93 Union County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $1,000 fine 10/93 Middle Avery Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $9,700 fine spli

operation and wmanagement decompany
EXHIBIT 4-18

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

9/93 South English River

tributary, IA

Swine operation Fish kill $1,650 fine 

7/93 Iowa River tributary Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fine 6/93 Keokuk County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $4,500 fine 5/93 Brush Creek, IA Swine operation 265,000 fish killed $10,000 direct c

+ $2,500 fine

4/93 Brookside Creek

tributary, IA

Swine operation Fish kill $2,000 fine 

4/93 Iowa River tributary, IA Swine operation Fish kill $300 fine 8/92 East Nishnabotna River,

IA

Swine operation Fish kill $1,000 fine 
EXHIBIT 4-18

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

8/92 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 34,994 fish killed $200 fine 7/92 South River, IA Swine operation 6,264 fish killed From land appli

lagoon contentslasted for 2 mon$3,448 direct co+ $19,500 fine

7/92 Wright County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $400 fine 

6/19/97 Renville County, MN 9,000 swine 100,000 gallons discharged;

690,000 fish killed

Lagoon overfloby timer malfunFined for failurnotify.

8/1/95 Lincoln, MN Swine operation 5,000- 10,000 fish killed 8/1/95 Greencastle MO 30,000 head swine operation Over 20,000 gallons discharged;

173,000 fish killed

8/96 Four-Mile Creek, NE Swine operation 300-500 bullhead, 100 carp, 100

cyprinids killed

Lagoon dischar

6/95 Scholz Pond, NE Swine operation 96 fish killed Land applicatio

pipeline break;$13.25 direct co+ $1,000 fine

3/95 Swan Creek, NE Swine operation Fish kill $971.66 direct c

+ $10,000 fine
EXHIBIT 4-18

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

6/21/95 New River, NC Swine operation 25 million gallons discharged;

3,000-4,000 fish killed

$6,200 direct co+ $92,000 fine

6/1/95 Onslow County, NC 10,000 head swine operation 25 million gallons discharged;

3,000-4,000 fish killed

$110,000 fine, i$6,200 for fish $92,000 in civil 
EXHIBIT 4-19

Documented Discharges from Poultry Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference

9/5/95 East Branch Beaverdam Creek,

IA

Poultry operation 9,002 fish killed $839 direct cost 

+ $500 fine

Iowa Department of

Natural Resources

(1998)

10/1/91 Deep Run, MD Poultry operation 10,000 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

3/97 Grant County, MN 2,000 chicken poultry

operation

Pumped waste into wetland Clean Water Action

Alliance (1998)

7/1/95 Duplin, NC 75,000 chicken 

operation

8.6 million gallons discharged;

fish kill resulted

NRDC (1995)

02/04/97 Tributary to Town Run, OH Poultry manure Manure spread on frozen fields,

followed by rainfall

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)

10/22/96 Dahlinghaus Ditch, OH Chicken manure Manure entered field tiles and into

stream

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)

10/10/96 Dahlinghaus Ditch, OH Chicken manure Manure entered field tiles and into

stream

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)

07/15/96 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH Chicken manure Manure entering stream from field

tile

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)

07/10/96 Dahlinghaus Ditch, OH Chicken manure Runoff from field application of

manure

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)

06/24/96 Little Chippewa Creek and

Tributary, OH

Chicken manure Manure runoff into ditch from farm

(retention pond overflow)

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)

03/20/95 Little Chippewa Creek Chicken manure Chicken manure possibly dumped

into field tile

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)

12/03/94 Kraut Creek, OH Chicken manure Manure entered field tile Accidental removal of

plank allowed manure to

enter tile

Ohio Department of

Natural Resources

(1997)
EXHIBIT 4-19

Documented Discharges from Poultry Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

9/13/94 Stillwater River, OH Chicken manure Manure entered tile, then stream 

05/09/93 Henry Ditch, OH Chicken manure Approximately 4 m

affected in Indiana

08/14/92 Mississinewa River, OH Chicken manure 11/03/91 Sugar Creek, OH Chicken manure 09/13/90 Tributary to Blanchard River,

OH

Chicken manure Runoff from fields into creek 

11/02/87 Powderlick Run, OH Chicken manure 
EXHIBIT 4-20

Documented Human Health Related Impacts from Poultry Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comments 1982 Sussex County, DE Poultry operations Nitrate levels greater than 10 mg/L in

32 percent of wells

FL Poultry operations Nitrate levels greater than 10 mg/L in

one-third of wells
EXHIBIT 4-21

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Poultry Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Commen1997 Chesapeake Bay Poultry operations 30,000 fish killed Pfiesteria piscicid

outbreak

DE Poultry industry Eutrophication, fish kills and red

tide

Not clear how muattribute to poultr

8/97 Pokomoke River, MD Poultry operations 20,000-30,000 fish killed Pfiesteria piscicid

outbreak; 13 humaffected

6/20/95 Kings Creek, MD Poultry operations Fish kill Pfiesteria piscicid

outbreak

6/19/95 MD Poultry Extensive fish kill in the

Chesapeake Bay

Pfiesteria piscicidoutbreak

Double Pipe Creek, MD Poultry (700,000 chickens) High fecal coliform counts Threatens water s

well as aquatic lifrecreation

1998 Tulsa, OK Poultry (82.5 million

chickens in the watershed)

Excessive algal growth in LakeEucha; impacts on drinking watertaste and odor

Tulsa spends $10year to address taodor problems in drinking water

9/5/95 East Branch Beaverdam Creek,

IA

Poultry operation 9,002 fish killed $839 direct cost 

+ $500 fine

10/1/91 Deep Run, MD Poultry operation 10,000 fish killed 
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

3/1/98 Olmsted, MN Dairy feedlot 125,000 gallons discharged Contaminated loca

7/97 Lyon County, MN 250 head cattle operation runoff 5/97 Wabasha County, MN Dairy operation 16,500 minnows and white

suckers killed

Fish kill caused by 

4/97 Lyon County, MN 800 head cattle operation Open lot runoff 3/97 LeSueur County, MN 1,960 head cattle operation Overapplication and runoff 3/97 Lyon County, MN 1,000 head cattle operation Open lot runoff 8/96 Nicollet County, MN 1,400 head cattle operation Overapplication and runoff 6/96 Clay County, MN 500 head cattle operation Multiple runoff culverts to river 4/96 Crow Wing, MN 100 head dairy operation Stockpile runoff 
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

4/96 Houston County, MN 1,500 head cattle operation Overflowing basin 

11/95 Morrison County, MN 100 head cattle operation Runoff to river 11/95 Olmsted County, MN 10,000 head cattle operation Multiple runoff concerns 

5/95 Slayton Township, MN Steer operation Runoff into a tributary of Beaver

Creek

3/95 Lyon County, MN 400 head cattle operation Tile inlet in feedlot 3/95 Lyon County, MN 2,000 head cattle operation Runoff and unpermitted

construction

4/94 LeSueur County, MN 1,000 head cattle operation Multiple runoff concerns 4/94 Redwood County, MN 750 head cattle operation Unpermitted basin and discharge 

1985 - 1994 Tyrone Township, MN 950 steer cattle operation Various problems, including

massive runoff
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

1/92 Green Isle Township, MN Dairy operation 225,000 gallons of manure

pumped onto a field in 5 hours,flowed through a drainage tileinto Curran Lake

5/19/97 Tributary to Chickasaw Creek,

OH

Cattle manure Manure from cattle yard

discharged to stream via tile

3/25/97 Prairie Outlet, OH Cattle manure Manure leached from holding

ponds into creek

2/4/97 Tributary to Little Scioto River

(RM 23.66), OH

Cattle manure Manure spray gun malfunctioned

and flooded field

11/13/96 Scherman Ditch, OH Cattle manure 

10/27/96 Little Tymochtee Creek, OH Cattle manure Manure leaking from pit at dairy

operation

9/30/96 Tributary to Coldwater Creek,

OH

Cattle manure Manure spread on fields ran into

creek
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

9/25/96 Tributary to Chickasaw Creek,

OH

Cattle manure Runoff from cattle feedlot into

field tile into creek

8/13/96 Blacklick Creek, OH Cattle manure Manure sprayed on field ran into

tile drain

7/15/96 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH Cattle manure 

6/20/96 Threemile Creek, OH Cattle manure Runoff from field application of

manure

5/23/96 Tributary to Pymatining Creek

(RM 23.95), OH

Cattle manure Runoff after spreading manure 

5/22/96 Little Bear Creek, OH Cattle manure 300,000 gallons of manure spread

on fields, washed into creek

5/16/96 Tributary to Red Run, OH Cattle manure Manure spread directly into

several ditches
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

3/29/96 Tributary to Little Short Creek,

OH

Cattle manure Manure pumped into ravine and

into stream

2/21/96 East Branch Sugar Creek, OH Cattle manure No fish kill; unsur

entered stream

1/9/96 Tributary to East Fork White

Eyes Creek, OH

Cattle manure No fish kill; unsur

entered stream

9/1/95 Indian Creek, OH Cattle manure 600,000 - 800,000 gallons

pumped onto 40 acres

8/20/95 Montezuma Creek, OH Cattle manure Sprinkling system to cool animals

created excess runoff

8/19/95 Tributary to Anderson Fork,

OH

Cattle manure Tractor got stuck; manure tank

emptied; rain washed manure intocreek

7/10/95 East Fork White Eyes Creek,

OH

Cattle manure 
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

5/3/95 Tributary to Killbuck Creek,

OH

Cattle manure Periodic discharges of manure to

stream

5/3/95 Sugar Creek, OH Cattle manure Broken pipe at pit, manure flow

into tile and then creek

12/5/94 Big Run, OH Cattle manure Runoff from pasture and feedlots 6/16/94 Harmon Brook, OH Cattle manure Crack in lagoon led to manure

leak

12/15/93 Tributary to Grand Lake St.

Mary’s, OH

Cattle manure Manure in ditch and tile leading

to stream

8/20/93 Stony Creek, OH Cattle manure Runoff from feedlot entered

creek

8/11/93 Middle Fork Sugar Creek, OH Cattle manure 
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

7/12/92 Tributary to Black Fork

Mohican River, OH

Cattle manure Drainage from manure pit

through field tile to creek

4/18/91 Tributary to Little Scioto River,

OH

Cattle manure Manure liquids ran off farm into

ditch

2/20/91 Mohican River, OH Cattle manure 

8/20/90 Olentangy River, OH Cattle manure 

8/18/90 Tributary to Cowan Creek, OH Cattle manure 

8/16/90 Schenck Creek, OH Cattle manure Manure pit overflowed into ditch 6/16/90 Clear Creek, OH Cattle manure 
EXHIBIT 4-22

Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location Source Description of Event Comme

8/12/89 North Fork of Deer Creek, OH Cattle manure 

6/29/89 Painter Run, OH Cattle manure 

8/2/88 Tributary to Red Run, OH Cattle manure 

5/2/87 Big Run, OH Cattle manure 
EXHIBIT 4-23

Documented Human Health Related Impacts from Beef and Dairy Operations

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

WI Dairy operation Contamination of surface waters;

ear and skin infections, as well asintestinal illnesses common toswimmers in manurecontaminated waterways

Door County, WI Dairy operations Well contamination State will spend 

to protect Door ground water. Families have hnew wells. 
EXHIBIT 4-24

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Beef and Dairy Operatio

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Commen

Taylor Creek, FL Dairy and beef operations Eutrophication of Lake

Okeechobee

Tillamook Bay, OR Dairy operations High fecal coliform levels in the

waters of the Bay

Affecting tourism oyster industries. causing health hawell.

6/18/95 Waco, TX Dairy operations, as well as

urban runoff and cropfertilization

An algal bloom of Anabaena,which caused a foul-smelling and-tasting chemical in watersupplies

6/16/95 Erath, TX Dairy operations Total N and P above screening

levels in Upper North BosqueRiver

1991 Tierra Blanca Creek, TX Cattle operations Elevated sediment concentrations

of copper and zinc; elevatedaqueous concentrations ofammonia, chemical oxygendemand, chlorophyll a, coliformbacteria, chloride, conductivity,total Kjeldahl nitrogen, andvolatile suspended solids

Relative contribuvarious sources (runoff, lagoon dileachate) was no

Eau Claire, WI Dairy operations Swimming and water skiing are

prohibited in Tainter Lakebecause of bacterialcontamination

Sedimentation frdevelopment and runoff also causiproblems

Osh Kosh, WI Dairy operations, as well as

development

Algal blooms in Lake Winnebago Lake Winnebago

represents 17% ostate’s water surfof Osh Kosh spen$30,000 a year to algae. 

Black Earth Creek Watershed,WI

Dairy operations Eutrophication 

5/97 Wabasha County, MN Dairy operation 16,500 minnows and white

suckers killed

Fish kill caused bammonia.
EXHIBIT 4-25

Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal Types

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference

7/1/95 Fayette, IA 16,000 gallons discharged;

584 smallmouth bass, 22,011

minnows/ shiners killed

NRDC (1995)

7/1/95 Howard, IA 110 black bullheads, 16,000

minnows killed

NRDC (1995)

3/92 Hamilton County, IA Swine, turkey, and dairy

operation

Fish kill $1,000 fine Iowa Department of

Natural Resources

(1998)

7/11/95 Tuscarora Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

1,000 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

7/26/94 Toms Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

1,500 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

6/22/90 Wagram Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

19,000 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

9/24/87 Farm Pond, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

1,000 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

3/30/87 Morgan Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

2,500 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

7/30/86 Liitle Pipe Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

150 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

7/15/86 Cabbage Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

175 fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)

9/30/85 Deep Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Hundreds of fish killed Maryland

Department of the

Environment (1987)
EXHIBIT 4-25

Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Anim

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

9/29/85 Jennings Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

3,900 fish killed 

8/10/85 Deer Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

100,000 fish killed 

1994 Belle River, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill Overflow and misapplication 

manure.$5,150 direct cost + $5,000 fine

1994 Macon Creek, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill Euipment failure caused man

discharge.$1,330 direct cost + $5,000 fine

1994 Salt River, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill Over-application of manure t

causing runoff.$20,000 direct cost + $2,500 fine

1993 Crockery Creek, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

$1,650 enforcement costs+$2,500 fine

1993 Deer Creek tributary, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

$4,000 enforcement costs + $20,000 fine

2/98 Lake Wagonga, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Manure-contaminated runoffdischarged to lake

1/98 Nokasippi, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Manure-contaminated runoff(from feedlot and stockpile)discharged to river

Failed to notify authorities, mno attempt to abate or recovedischarge

9/97 Blue Earth River, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill of 6,626 catfish,small-mouth bass, rock bass,white bass, and minnows
EXHIBIT 4-25

Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Anim

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

8/97 Hay Creek, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill of 6,000 brown troutand white suckers. 

8/97 Speltz Creek, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

300 gallons discharged;130 minnows killed

6/97 Roseau County, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Manure discharge Discharge from un-permitted 

caused by improper constructand pump failure.

1996 Mankato, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Drained manure intoWatonwan and Blue EarthRivers

8/95 - 9/95 Larkin Township, MN Various animals 3 weeks worth of overflow

from lagoon through trenchand into Kanaranzi Creek

7/95 - 8/95 Drammen Township, MN Manure (animal type

unknown)

Overflow of pits which drainedinto a ditch; 19,641 fish killed in MedaryCreek

1994 Nicollet County, MN Manure (animal type

unknown)

Constant diversion of manureinto streams from unknownfacilities

6/96 Lost Creek, NE Unclear if swine or cattle 2,120 fish killed $1,079.50 direct cost; 

fine was pending 

10/28/96 Apple Ditch, OH Manure Manure coming from field tile 09/18/96 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH Manure 07/31/96 Montezuma Creek, OH Cattle and swine manure Manure entered stream from

field tile
EXHIBIT 4-25

Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Anim

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

7/7/96 Cedar Fork, OH Manure Hose sprung leak and manure

spread onto ground and intotile

07/05/96 Wabash River, OH Manure Manure runoff from milkhouse

into field tile

07/04/96 Wabash River, OH Cattle and swine manure Runoff from field application

of manure

06/17/96 East Fork Vermilion River, OH Manure 10/26/95 Tributary to Mile Creek (RM

4.15), OH

Manure Liquid manure applied too

heavily

09/03/95 Tributary to Poplar Creek, OH Manure Accidental manure spill 08/24/95 Martins Creek, OH Manure and milk products Manure and milk washed into

drains into creek

07/05/95 Rock Creek, OH Manure 04/22/95 Newman Creek, OH Manure 03/27/95 Kiber Run, OH Cattle and swine manure Runoff from spraying fields

ran into field tiles

10/16/94 Prairie Creek, OH Manure Irrigated manure entered tile

into creek

08/29/94 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH Cattle and swine manure Crack in holding pit into tile 
EXHIBIT 4-25

Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Anim

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

7/17/94 Black Run, OH Manure 

09/08/93 Little Beaver Creek, OH Milkhouse wastewater and

manure

09/09/92 Subtributary to Pawpaw Creek,

OH

Cattle and swine manure Possible runoff from feedlots 

08/18/92 Tributary to Coldwater Creek,

OH

Manure Manure applied to field entered

creek

07/08/92 Little Miami River, OH Manure Runoff and leachate into

stream

04/29/91 Tributary to Bear Creek, OH Manure Manure entered field tile and

into stream

03/02/91 Middle Fork Little Beaver

Creek, OH

Manure 

 07/30/90 Sycamore Creek, OH Manure and household

wastes

11/09/89 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH Manure 08/19/89 Tributary to Jerome Fork, OH Manure 08/07/89 Elkhorn Creek, OH Manure 10/20/88 Indian Creek, OH Manure 
EXHIBIT 4-25

Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Anim

Date Location Source Description of Event Comments 

9/27/87 Big Run, OH Manure 

09/18/87 Spring Creek, OH Manure 
EXHIBIT 4-26

Documented Human Health-Related Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple An

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comme

3/1/91 Des Moines, IA Animal waste, as well as

fertilizers

Contamination of drinking waterwith nitrate

Waterworks wil$5 million on a nremoval system

6/15/95 Wichita, KS Nutrients from farm runoff,

including animal manure

Contamination of drinking watersupply

Some algal straiin the reservoir ato produce a livelinked to stomacWichita is instalspecial filtering which will cost $per year to opera

WI Varied (including AFOs) WI DNR estimates that 10% of

the state’s 700,000 wells exceedhealth standards

Major pollutant include CAFOs,development, crand ski slopes. 
EXHIBIT 4-27

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multip

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comments 

Appoquinimink River, DE Poultry, dairy, and beef Eutrophication Fish kills and hinder

boating

GA, AL, FL Animal waste Excess nutrients in the

Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint watershed

6/15/95 KS Feedlots, as well as farms Eutrophication in Arkansas River 37 species of fish ar

danger

1995 NC Livestock waste 8-fold increase in ammonia

emissions

Contributes toeutrophication viaatmospheric depositi

Tar-Pamlico River Basin, NC Eutrophication resulting in dieoff of benthic life and toxic

dinoflagellate growth

Winter algal bloomsoccur regularly. Shebeds have been closebecause of fecal coli

Nansemond-Chuckatuckwatershed, VA

448,000 chickens 24,000swine, 2724 beef cows, 125dairy cows

Eutrophication andcontamination with fecalcoliform

Major source is runofrom agricultural areShellfish areas have closed.

WI Excessive nutrients 90% decline in bass population

in one year

7/1/95 Fayette, IA 16,000 gallons discharged;

584 smallmouth bass, 22,011minnows/ shiners killed

7/1/95 Howard, IA 110 black bullheads, 16,000

minnows killed

3/92 Hamilton County, IA Swine, turkey, and dairy

operation

Fish kill $1,000 fine 

7/11/95 Tuscarora Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

1,000 fish killed 
EXHIBIT 4-27

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multip

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comments 

7/26/94 Toms Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

1,500 fish killed 

6/22/90 Wagram Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

19,000 fish killed 

9/24/87 Farm Pond, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

1,000 fish killed 

3/30/87 Morgan Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

2,500 fish killed 

7/30/86 Liitle Pipe Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

150 fish killed 

7/15/86 Cabbage Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

175 fish killed 

9/30/85 Deep Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Hundreds of fish killed 

9/29/85 Jennings Run, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

3,900 fish killed 

8/10/85 Deer Creek, MD Manure (animal 

type unknown)

100,000 fish killed 

1994 Belle River, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill Overflow and

misapplication of ma$5,150 direct cost + $5,000 fine

1994 Macon Creek, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill Equipment failure ca

manure discharge.$1,330 direct cost + $5,000 fine
EXHIBIT 4-27

Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multip

Date Location Source Environmental Impact Comments 1994 Salt River, MI Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill Over-application of

manure to field, caurunoff.$20,000 direct cost + $2,500 fine

9/97 Blue Earth River, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill of 6,626 catfish, smallmouth bass, rock bass, whitebass, and minnows

8/97 Hay Creek, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

Fish kill of 6,000 brown troutand white suckers. 

8/97 Speltz Creek, MN Manure (animal 

type unknown)

300 gallons discharged;130 minnows killed

7/95 - 8/95 Drammen Township, MN Manure (animal type

unknown)

Overflow of pits which drainedinto a ditch; 19,641 fish killed in MedaryCreek

6/96 Lost Creek, NE Unclear if swine or cattle 2,120 fish killed $1,079.50 direct cos

fine was pending 
4-61

4.4.1 Lake Eucha

Lake Eucha is located in the Lower Neosho Watershed in northeast Oklahoma. It is a major

drinking water source for the city of Tulsa. Lake Eucha was included on the Oklahoma List of

Impaired Waters for 1998 as a result of nutrients. Recently, there have been taste and odor

problems in Tulsa’s drinking water due to accelerated eutrophication (Lassek, 1998a; Front,

2000; Keyworth et al., 2000).

Officials estimate that approximately 750 chicken houses are located within the lake’s watershed,

each containing about 110,000 birds (Lassek, 1998b). In the Lake Eucha basin, a popular method

of fertilizing permanent pasture is the surface application of poultry litter. Litter is highly

effective, due to its high content of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) and organic

matter. However, if not properly managed, these nutrients could reach surface water and cause

eutrophication and consequently, algae blooms (Neal and Storm, 1999).

Detailed monitoring of Lake Eucha in 1997 showed that the algae balance was typical of

eutrophic lakes. In addition, although the lake was free of harmful bacteria (an indicator of

possible impacts from animal waste), excessive bacteria were found in the tributaries. This

study, by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, linked phosphorus from poultry waste runoff

to excessive algae growth in the lake (Wagner and Woodruff, 1997; Lassek, 1998a). The algae

causes taste and odor problems in the water, costing Tulsa thousands of dollars for treatment

(Lassek, 1998a; Front, 2000). 

The Oklahoma legislature has announced that drinking water contamination due to CAFOs is a

priority issue to be addressed. Studies are being conducted at Oklahoma State University and

Texas A&M University to determine limiting nutrients in Lake Eucha tributaries. These studies

will be used in combination with other ongoing research to develop a total maximum daily load

(TMDL) for Lake Eucha (Keyworth et al., 2000). In addition, the city of Tulsa is working to

design a land conservation plan to address the problem (Front, 2000). Tulsa has also begun to

buy land around Lake Eucha in an effort to create a buffer zone for the city’s drinking water

supply (Lassek, 1998b).

4.4.2 The Chino Basin

The Santa Ana River watershed has the highest density of dairy cows in the nation, averaging 25-

30 cows per acre. Currently, 270 dairies operate on 25,000 acres within the Chino Basin portion

of the watershed, with over 336,000 animals. Although the number of dairies continues to

decrease, the number of animals is increasing, and the resulting impact on water quality is

enormous. The 1998 California 303(d) List and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Priority

Schedule issued by the EPA for the Chino Basin area cites agriculture and the dairies as the

source of significant impairment to surface waterbodies due to nutrients, pathogens, suspended

solids, salinity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and chlorides (OCWD, 2000).

Accumulation of salts and nitrates in the Chino Basin is occurring as a result of stockpiling

manure and runoff from dairy waste. The Santa Ana River and the ground water basin it

recharges supply over 2 million residents with approximately 75 percent of their water. The

impact of large-scale dairies on recharge water quality is a critical issue in protecting Orange
4-62

County’s primary drinking water supply. The Orange County Water District (OCWD), along

with other concerned water agencies, has dedicated considerable resources to remove salts and

nitrates from the Orange County ground water basin in order to improve the quality of water. 

Projects completed or in the construction phase that are directed at the removal of salts and

nitrates include:

C Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) - $100 million

C SARI Extension to Lake Elsinore - $25 million

C Arlington Desalter (Riverside) - $13.5 million

C Water Factory 21 (Fountain Valley) - $20 million

C Chino Desalter - $39 million

C 7th Street Desalter (Tustin) - $7 million

C Prospect Desalter (Tustin) - $3 million

C Garden Grove Nitrate Reduction - $2 million

Efforts are currently underway at OCWD on two additional projects aimed at reduction of salts

and nitrates. The proposed Ground Water Replenishment System (GWRS) is a $350 million

proposed project that will utilize microfiltration and reverse osmosis to desalt treated wastewater,

which will be transported to ground water recharge basins to significantly lower the basin’s salt

levels. The Irvine Desalter is a $30 million project to extract and remove salts from ground

water for use in the Irvine area (OCWD, 2000).

4.4.3 Lake Waco and the Bosque River Watershed

Lake Waco is located in the Bosque River watershed in Texas. It is the public water supply for

the city of Waco and several adjoining communities. In 1996, 23 river or lake segments caused

concern or possible concern for six different criteria, including over 40 percent (19 instances)

caused by nutrients (Texas Office of Water Resource Management, 1997). In 2000, water quality

testing showed high levels of nutrients in the North Bosque River (Segment 1226) and in the

Upper North Bosque River (Segment 1255). These high levels have contributed to excessive

growths of algae and other aquatic plants, which can cause taste and odor problems in drinking

water and result in fish kills under certain circumstances. High levels were also found for

chloride, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and occasionally, bacteria (TNRCC, 2000a). The

elevated level of bacteria was found to correlate with dairy waste application fields and herd

density (TIAER, 1998).

The Upper North Bosque River (Segment 1255) is located in Erath County. Erath County is

home to a large dairy industry, which has become increasingly concentrated over the last few

decades. These dairy operations produce over 1.5 million tons of waste per year (PEER, 2000). 

A judge in upstream Erath County requested a waste management study for the county’s dairy

industry, which generates over 1 million cubic yards of dry-state dairy manure per year. The

application of dairy waste to fields resulted in non-point nutrient runoff into the Bosque River

during storm events, resulting in degraded water quality (Brazos River Authority, 1998). The

state of Texas has a TMDL goal of reducing annual average soluble phosphorus loading by about

50 percent. The draft TMDL for the North Bosque River is due to be published this fall

(TNRCC, 2000a).
4-63

In public comment on the 2000 Texas Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List, a representative of

the National Wildlife Federation contended that there were taste and odor problems in Lake

Waco and that these are due to algae. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

(TNRCC) response to the comment notes that the TMDL currently being developed for the North

Bosque River is expected to significantly reduce nutrient loading to Lake Waco. This may

address the periodic taste and odor problem in Lake Waco if it is caused by algae (TNRCC,

2000b).

4.5 CASE STUDY SUMMARY

Over 100 case studies were compiled and presented in a summary report titled “Case Study

Summary: Manure Application” (USEPA, 2000b). This report is included in the public record.
4-64
5-1

5. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

5.1 POTENTIAL BENEFITS FROM POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS 

The main sources of pollution from CAFOs include:

• waste, runoff, and leachate from confinement facilities and manure storage piles;

• runoff and leachate from land application sites;

• discharges and leachate from storage lagoons; and

• airborne emissions from confinement facilities, land application sites, and storage.

The practical impacts of implementing the proposed regulations are a function of the following:

(1) the location and characteristics of affected facilities; (2) current waste and runoff

management practices; and (3) the contribution of pollutants from other sources.

In general, increased treatment and management practices can reduce environmental impacts and

subsequent human health effects from animal waste. They can also maximize the use of animal

waste as a fertilizer. Exhibit 5-1 presents the main environmental benefits that could arise from

the treatment and management of animal waste.

The EPA is not currently able to quantitatively evaluate all human health and ecosystem benefits

associated with water quality improvements from reduced releases of CAFO wastes. The EPA is

even more limited in its ability to assign monetary values to those benefits. The economic

benefit analysis can be found in the benefit report, titled “Environmental and Economic Benefits

of the NPDES/ELG CAFO Rules” and located in section 9.5 of the public record.

In some cases, animal waste releases to the environment result in direct monetary costs. Many of

these costs are associated with additional requirements for drinking water treatment. For

example, in California’s Chino Basin, it could cost over $1 million per year to remove the

nitrates from drinking water due to loadings from local dairies (USEPA, 1993b). In Iowa, Des

Moines Water Works planned to spend approximately $5 million to install a treatment system to

remove nitrates from their main sources of drinking water, the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers

(Hubert, 1991). Agriculture was cited as a major source of the nitrate contamination, although

the portion attributable to animal waste is unknown. In Wisconsin, the city of Oshkosh has spent

an extra $30,000 per year on copper sulfate to kill the algae in the water it draws from Lake

Winnebago (Behm, 1989). The thick mats of algae in the lake have been attributed to excess

nutrients from manure, commercial fertilizers, and soil. 
EXHIBIT 5-1

Anticipated Benefits of the CAFO Proposed Regulations

Category Benefit Origin of Impact Population/Resources Affected NHumanHealth

Reduced risk ofmethemoglobinemia (“bluebaby syndrome”)

Nitrates in drinkingwater in excess ofthe MCL (MaximumContaminant Level) of 10 mg/L

Primarily infants drinking water nottreated by public treatment facilities(private rural wells; ground water ismore susceptible than surface water)

Nitrate is extremely moand nitrate contaminatiwell-recognized historiagricultural communityNational Survey of PesWells (1990), nitrate is agricultural contaminanThe EPA estimates that exposed to nitrate level

HumanHealth

Avoided illness frompathogenic organisms (e.g.,gastrointestinal illness;infections of the skin, eye,ear, nose, or throat) 

Pathogens indrinking andrecreational waters

People drinking or swimming incontaminated water. Surface waters,and ground waters in sandy orfractured soils, are most susceptible tocontamination.

Over 150 pathogens in human risk (e.g., Salmoparvum, Giardia lamblA U.S. General Accounof bacterial contaminata four-year period founpercent of community wand 15 to 42 percent of Drinking water disinfecthe need for source watwater protection is an inmultiple barrier approatreatment. Drinking wanot address recreationa

HumanHealth

Avoided illness from toxicaquatic organisms (e.g., redtides, Pfiesteria piscicida)

Toxic organismswhose growth isenhanced byeutrophication(nutrient enrichment)

People with significant dermal orinhalation exposure to affectedestuarine/marine waters; peopleconsuming affected shellfish(pathways vary by organism) 
EXHIBIT 5-1

Anticipated Benefits of the CAFO Proposed Regulations

Category Benefit Origin of Impact Population/Resources Affected NEcological,Recreational

Avoided fish kills and otherenvironmental damage (e.g.,fish and wildlife disease,clogged fish gills, benthichabitat destruction,eutrophication) due todischarges of waste directlyto surface water

BOD, ammonia,pathogens, solids,nutrients

Surface waters, aquatic organisms,waterfowl, people using the water forrecreation

States have documented discharges from CAFOmillions of fish, over thDischarges directly to sprohibited by the existiexcept in the event of thstorm, but implementatbeen problematic. The likely to call attention tdischarges and result in implementation. The pexpand the scope of regestablish operation and requirements for storaglikelihood of discharge

Ecological,Recreational

Reduced contribution toeutrophication effects(harmful algae blooms,decreased dissolved oxygen,fish kills, reducedbiodiversity, reducedabundance of desirableaquatic plants) due to runofffrom land application sites

Nutrients Surface waters, aquatic organisms,

people using the water for recreation

The EPA’s National W(1997) indicates that nucause of impairment of are the fifth leading cauestuaries.

Ecological,Recreational

Reduced contribution toenvironmental damage dueto runoff of other (nonnutrient) pollutants from landapplication sites 

BOD, pathogens,solids, salts, metals

Surface waters, aquatic organisms,waterfowl, people using the water forrecreation

The proposed regulatiofocuses on nutrients buaddress other pollutants
EXHIBIT 5-1

Anticipated Benefits of the CAFO Proposed Regulations

Category Benefit Origin of Impact Population/Resources Affected NCommercial Reduced damage to

commercial fishing andshellfish industries

Nutrients, BOD,pathogens, solids

Commercial fishing and shellfishindustries

The National Oceanic aAdministration (1995) rwere a potential or actuimpairment of 110 shelimpaired shellfish areasOutbreaks of Pfiesteria menhaden (a commerciindirectly impacted the industry as a whole. Nuof several factors that aReduction in submerge(SAV) due to excessive solids is a significant imserves as critical habitacrabs. The proposed regulatiofocuses on nutrients buaddress other pollutants

Other Avoided costs associated

with treatment orreplacement of nitratecontaminated ground water

Nitrates in drinkingwater in excess ofthe MCL of 10 mg/L

Public and private drinking watersources (ground water is generallymore susceptible than surface water)

By implementing the prfollowing treatments mwell owners needing to reach uncontaminated gbottled water, and publto obtain an uncontaminwater to meet the MCL

Other Avoided costs associated

with treatment to removealgae, odors, and disinfectionbyproducts from drinkingwater

Algae growthstimulated bynutrients

Drinking water sources (surfacewater)

Implementing the propodecrease the amount of (e.g., trihalomethanes) exceed the MCL. Disincaused by chlorination guidelines would also dalternative treatment reexcess byproducts.
5-5

5.2 REPORTED BENEFITS OF ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RELATED

NON-POINT SOURCE MEASURES IN SELECTED WATERSHEDS

Several states have successfully implemented non-point source pollution programs under

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Following are descriptions of the reported benefits derived

from some of these programs and summaries of other research on specific land application

practices. The examples provide anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of animal waste

management measures that might be implemented as a result of the proposed regulations. 

Several of the examples demonstrate the impact of a single management practice (e.g., dry litter

waste management), while others address comprehensive plans that may include several

practices.

5.2.1 Benefits of Single Practices 

The effects of riparian forest restoration, dry litter waste management, dead bird composting, and

land application practices are discussed below. All examples except the land application

practices are described in Section 319 Success Stories Volume II: Highlights of State and Tribal

Nonpoint Source Programs (USEPA, 1997b). Land application practices were investigated by

Daniel et al. (1995). Studying the effects of separate practices individually leads to a better

understanding of the impact associated with each of these practices and whether each would be a

useful component of comprehensive management plans.

Riparian Forest Restoration

In the Suwanee River basin near Tifton, Georgia, in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, a riparian

forest (trees, shrubs, and native grasses) was reestablished to ameliorate the water quality impacts

of liquid manure application to cropland. Project workers evaluated the effects of the riparian

restoration by measuring changes in the surface and subsurface water quality indicators in the

field where manure was applied and again after the runoff had moved through the restored

riparian area toward the stream. The monitoring results demonstrated that the restored riparian

area effectively removed nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the first two years of the project.

Furthermore, nitrate levels leaving the area in shallow ground water not exposed to the riparian

forest were higher than in mature riparian forest sites.

Dry Litter Waste Management

At a swine farm in Hawaii, a modified dry litter waste management system was implemented to

lessen water quality impacts. In the dry system, swine are housed in sloping pens. Dry litter or

bedding is used to help push the waste down the slope into a composting or storage pit, rather

than using water to transport the waste.

The Hawaiian farm improved the dry system by incorporating pen sizes with slopes ranging from

15:1 to 20:1. Wood chips and grass cuttings were found to be excellent bedding materials, but

the farm achieved best results with macadamia nut husks. The swine crush the bedding materials

and the manure with their hooves; the mix dries and begins to decompose, and eventually moves

down slope into a composting pit. The composted product is a good medium for organic

farming, and can be used to generate income for the swine farmer. The product can be sold in
5-6

Hawaii for about $30 per cubic yard. A typical pen can convert about 30 cubic yards of green

waste into 20 cubic yards of compost annually. 

In addition to helping protect water quality by eliminating lagoons, the dry litter waste

management system also produces very little odor. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) levels recorded

throughout the production and storage areas were considerably less than the conventional wash

down system. H2S measurements at the dry litter facility were 10.7 parts per billion (ppb) in the

production area and 5.0 ppb in the storage area. By comparison, H2S levels at the control or

conventional wash down facility were 54.3 ppb in the production area and 104.5 ppb at the entry

to the waste lagoon.

Dead Bird Composting

In 1993, 62 growers in a six-county area in south central Mississippi handled 7 million birds. By

1997, 150 growers reported a census of 16.2 million birds. Because of this expansion, the state

was concerned about potential threats to surface and ground water resources from dead birds,

which traditionally were disposed in burial pits or incinerated. Arkansas recently prohibited the

use of pits for dead bird disposal, because the carcasses often decay only partially and the

leachate from the pits poses a danger to surface water and ground water.

The project promotes composting as a preferred method of dead bird disposal. Approximately

194,400 birds per year will be disposed of by composting in a manner that reduces the chance of

ground water contamination. In addition, area farmers are saving up to $25 per ton by using the

composted material as a substitute for commercial fertilizer. (When composting is combined

with other practices such as soil testing and nutrient management planning, it reduces the risk of

nutrient enrichment to nearby surface waters.)

Land Application Practices

Daniel et al. (1995) applied animal manure to constructed plots with established grass and

measured the resulting impacts on the quality of runoff and subsurface water. The study

investigated the effect of differing application rates and other factors on the runoff of the

following animal waste constituents: total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, nitratenitrogen, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, total suspended solids, and chemical oxygen

demand.

The results of the study indicate that lower application rates resulted in lower runoff for all

constituents from poultry litter, and lower runoff of all constituents except nitrate-nitrogen from

both poultry and swine manure. Lower application rates were also associated with less nitrate

leaching into subsurface water. 

5.2.2 Benefits of Multiple Practices

The following examples demonstrate the effect of multiple practices available to farmers. These

examples are all taken from USEPA (1997b).
5-7

Cadron Creek, Arkansas

The Cadron Creek Watershed in Arkansas has a high concentration of poultry and dairy farms. 

Cadron Creek is widely used for recreation, canoeing, and fishing; Brewer Lake provides

drinking water to the cities of Morrilton and Conway. Other land uses in the project area include

forestry (41 percent), grasslands (52 percent), and croplands (6 percent).

All waters within the watershed are threatened by bacteria and nutrients from confined animal

operations. At least 20 stream miles do not meet their designated uses, and it is likely that most

small streams in the watershed do not meet the standard for contact recreation. 

To restore the watershed, the Van Buren County Conservation District implemented a portable

land application system for liquid animal waste, which collects and redistributes liquid waste

from 30 to 40 dairies to return nutrients to pastures and fields in the watershed and reduce

pollution in surface waters and ground water. Other key elements of the project include

monitoring on two creeks and establishing on-farm waste management systems. Farmers are

applying the following best management practices (BMPs):

C dead poultry composting;

C nutrient management planning;

C pasture management;

C proper grazing use;

C waste management systems; and

C waste management ponds.

Water quality monitoring indicates that these systems successfully reduced nutrient and bacteria

loading to Ward Creek in this watershed. For example, fecal coliform bacteria levels in the

stream decreased by a factor of 10 (from 100,000 to 10,000 colonies per 100 ml). The count is

still far higher than the 200 colonies per 100 ml standard for recreational contact; however, with

continued efforts, the project is anticipated to restore swimming as a beneficial use of this

stream.

Benthic macroinvertebrate communities (aquatic insects) are another indicator of watershed

health and in-stream conditions. Species diversity, a standard indicator of benthic community

strength, is measured on the Family Biotic Index (FBI): the lower the FBI, the more diverse the

community. The FBI in the monitored stream improved from 5.48 (which indicates the

probability of substantial organic pollution) to 4.27 (which indicates the probability of slight

organic pollution).

Moore’s Creek and Beatty Branch Subwatershed, Arkansas

The Moore’s Creek and Beatty Branch subwatershed is part of the Muddy Fork Hydrologic Unit

Area in northwestern Arkansas. The Muddy Fork Hydrologic Unit Area encompasses 47,122

acres, the tributaries of the Illinois River and Lakes Lincoln, Budd Kidd, and Prairie Grove. 

These tributaries form Lincoln Lake, a drinking water reservoir serving the city of Lincoln.
5-8

The project implemented under Section 319 began with a monitoring project in these waters to

help establish the usefulness of nutrient BMPs. Land uses, primarily poultry production and

pasture management, are major sources of nutrients and chronic high turbidity. According to the

state’s 1996 Water Quality Inventory Report, water in the area only partially supports aquatic

life. Pathogen indicators sampled in the Muddy Fork Hydrologic Unit Area also exceed

acceptable limits for primary contact recreation. This problem, reported in the 1994 water

quality inventory, was traced to extensive poultry, swine, and dairy operations in the Moore’s

Creek basin. Essentially, all parts of the subwatershed are affected by these activities.

Nitrogen and phosphorus management practices were applied throughout the basin to help

control the flow of nutrients from CAFOs. Specifically, BMPs were used on approximately one

half of the pasture land along Moore’s Creek and two-thirds of the pasture land along Beatty

Creek. Five monitoring sites were established on Moore’s Creek and Beatty Branch to

demonstrate the integrated impact of the nutrient BMPs on water quality. Random samples were

collected at all five sites, and storm-event samples were also collected at two sites.

Monitoring during the first three years of the project (1991 to 1994) showed decreasing levels of

total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate, chemical oxygen demand, total phosphorus, ammonia, and total

suspended solids. Nitrate-nitrogen levels declined by 55 to 66 percent per year, total Kjeldahl

nitrogen levels declined by 54 to 67 percent per year, and chemical oxygen demand levels

declined by 44 to 67 percent per year. 

Lake Shaokatan, Minnesota

Lake Shaokatan is a shallow prairie lake located in western Minnesota on the South Dakota

border. The lake’s water quality severely deteriorated in the 1980s as a result of excessive

nutrient loading associated with watershed land-use practices. Harmful algal blooms dominated

the open water season and occasionally produced algal toxins alleged to have resulted in the

death of dogs and cattle. Sampling revealed extremely high levels of total phosphorus (average

summer value of 270 μg/L). Chlorophyll a concentrations were episodic with concentrations

noted to exceed 100 μg/L (with summer means of 20 to 30 μg/L). The major source of the

phosphorus was attributed to swine and dairy feedlots and drain tile operations.

A complete watershed restoration project was implemented. The goal was to achieve total

phosphorus levels of 90 μg/L or less. Since late 1991, the restoration program has included the

following practices relevant to animal operations, as well as a variety of other practices (such as

repairing septic systems):

C diverting a stream from a swine operation; and

C upgrading a dairy feedlot operation.

The combination of the full range of practices in the watershed reduced phosphorus loading rates

by 58 to 90 percent. These practices cost about $3 to $11 per kilogram of reduced phosphorus. 

The watershed’s response to these corrective actions was immediate and significant, as both

nutrient and sediment losses were reduced. Average summer total phosphorus concentrations

dropped from 270 to 89 μg/L by 1994. Furthermore, the intensity and duration of seasonal algal

blooms have been curtailed with all values now less than 20 μg/L.
5-9

Tangipahoa River, Mississippi

Animal waste from confined dairy, swine, and poultry waste lagoons is a contributing factor to

the high level of nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform found in some Mississippi streams. 

Waste management plans were implemented in southwestern Mississippi to help remedy water

quality problems in the Tangipahoa River, which flows southeast across the Mississippi and

Louisiana state lines to Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana. The project then expanded to other

districts. The plans included pumping solids from improperly functioning animal waste lagoons

and applying them to the land with a traveling gun irrigation system, in accordance with waste

management plans at various sites. Approved waste management plans may have also included

nutrient management plans. During the project time period, 12 lagoon systems (10 dairy, one

swine, and one poultry) were pumped out. The total amount of land used for the applications

included 192 acres of cropland and 206 acres of pastureland. In total, the lagoon effluent

irrigated onto these acres contained 72,402 pounds of nitrogen, 34,911 pounds of phosphorus,

and 82,715 pounds of potassium. 

The landowners who participated in the demonstration project were pleased with the outcome

and saved money on fertilizer costs. They noted that the demonstration resulted in the following

benefits:

C The irrigation system helps alleviate lagoon overflow problems. 

C Expensive and time-consuming equipment is not necessary for the adoption of this

lagoon management practice. Tank trucks and tractors, which cause soil erosion and

compaction, can be eliminated.

C Production costs are significantly lower when nutrients are recycled to crop and

pasture systems. The alternative practice, commercial fertilizers, is more expensive.

Crooked, Otter, and North Fork Tributaries, Missouri

This project covered an area of approximately 630 square miles in northeast Missouri, including

all of the drainage area of the Crooked, Otter, and North Fork tributaries that empty into Mark

Twain Lake. Agricultural land composes 55 percent of the project area’s land use. The land is

intensively cropped and is also a major pork producing region. Two counties within the drainage

area have over 300 swine facilities and an additional 100 dairy and beef operations.

This project expedited the adoption of innovative BMPs through technical assistance to

producers. The project is designed to help farmers:

C develop, implement, and evaluate total resource management (TRM) systems or

whole-farm plans that emphasize nutrient and pesticide strategies;

C plan, design, and install animal waste systems; and

C provide assistance to field personnel in the formulation and implementation of TRM

systems training.

The TRM plans include such practices as manure and nutrient management, intensive rotational

grazing systems, alternative water supplies for livestock, waste production storage and treatment
5-10

programs, erosion control, dead animal composting, soil and water testing, prairie restoration,

woodland and wildlife management, precision farming, crop rotation, farm dump cleanups and

alternatives to illegal dumping, insect scouting, weed mapping, pesticide container recycling, and

nitrogen-fixing legumes for reduced fertilizer applications. 

As a result of TRM plan implementation, the farms and communities reaped benefits, including

improved water quality, less field and streambank erosion, more plentiful wildlife and beneficial

pests, fewer chemicals and nutrients in runoff, and increased yields and income.

Godfrey Creek, Montana

Several dairy cattle, swine, and beef cattle operations are located immediately adjacent to

Godfrey Creek in Montana and are the major sources of impairment to the creek. Improper

grazing management, riparian area degradation, and crop farming also contribute to the problem.

A project was initiated in 1989 with two primary objectives: (1) to demonstrate agricultural

BMPs that will reduce suspended solids, fecal coliform, and nitrates in runoff from dairy

operations, grazing, and farming practices; and (2) to develop an education program for

producers in the watershed. Over 80 percent of landowners in the area participated in major

efforts such as fencing riparian areas, adopting improved grazing systems, removing livestock

from riparian areas, establishing buffer zones, improving manure-handling systems, and

improving irrigation water management. 

Post-project data, from samples taken in 1995 and 1996, suggest that water in Godfrey Creek

watershed improved as a result of project activity. Estimated reductions in mean annual

concentrations were 58 percent for total phosphorus and 64 percent for total dissolved solids

compared with pre-project conditions. A dramatic decline (82 percent) in fecal coliform also

occurred. However, nitrate-plus-nitrite data show an average increase of 24 percent. Although

the project has not yet reached its goal of 80 percent reduction in these key indicators (except for

fecal coliform), it is successfully helping landowners gain control of factors that influence

surface and bank erosion and nutrient runoff. Agricultural practices that help control nitrate

include a combination of irrigation and manure disposal methods. Future project activities may

need to emphasize these practices to ensure the full realization of Godfrey Creek’s potential. 

Bush River-Camping Creek Watershed, South Carolina 

The Bush River-Camping Creek watershed in Newberry County, South Carolina, drains directly

to Lake Murray. This 51,000-acre impoundment is used to generate power, provide a municipal

water supply serving approximately 330,000 people, and provide a major recreational resource. 

More than 175 miles of streams run through the project area, and more than 800 ponds are

located along these streams. The ponds are used for livestock watering, irrigation, and

recreation.

Although land uses vary, the potential for non-point source pollution is primarily agricultural. 

The watershed’s nearly 130,000 acres support the following uses: about 29,500 acres of cropland,

60,700 acres of forest, 22,900 acres of pasture, and 16,600 acres of development (urban,

industrial, and commercial). Over 200 farmsteads are maintained in the watershed, with an
5-11

average size of 165 acres. The farm industry is quite diversified, although the most prevalent

enterprises are confined animal operations, small grain production, and row crop farming. Over

60 confined animal operations have been inventoried in the watershed. The USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) estimates that the watershed produces about 75,000

tons of animal waste annually.

Agricultural activities in the project area are a major influence on the streams and ponds in the

watershed, and contribute to nutrient-related water quality problems in the headwaters of Lake

Murray. In fact, bacteria, nutrients, and sediment from soil erosion are the primary contaminants

affecting these resources. The NRCS has calculated that soil erosion, occurring on over 13,000

acres of cropland in the watershed, ranges from 9.6 to 41.5 tons per acre per year. At times,

excessive amounts of nutrients, especially nitrates, are found in the water, primarily as a result of

land applying too much manure, sometimes with or in addition to commercial fertilizers. Based

on these conditions, the Bush River-Camping Creek watershed was identified in the South

Carolina Non-point Source Management Plan as a high priority watershed.

A coordinated multiple agency effort to control these non-point sources began in 1990. Phase

one of the project demonstrated agricultural BMPs, provided technical assistance to agricultural

landowners implementing non-point source pollution controls, financial assistance to qualifying

landowners for BMP installations, and a water quality monitoring program. Simultaneously, the

state inventoried and inspected all confined animal facilities in the watershed. Technical

assistance was then provided to owners who were not in compliance with regulations. Potential

violations include illegal discharge pipes, overflow discharges, high vegetation around lagoons,

runoff from animal housing, improper dead animal disposal, and absence of permits. Phase two

of the project concentrates on confined animal operations in the watershed. Components include

demonstration of innovative BMPs, such as lagoon pump-out/irrigation practices and dead bird

composting. Farmers in the project area have access to a mobile nutrient testing service, which

helps them calculate the right amount of manure to apply to their fields and pastures, and

additional computerized information to help them make prudent decisions about pesticide

selection and management. Educational activities include newsletters, workshops, field days,

and one-on-one technical assistance to farmers.

Several improvements have been noted since the implementation of this project:

C Ambient water quality samples gathered between May and October 1992 from the

headwaters of Lake Murray, which receives water from the Bush River-Camping

Creek watershed, indicated statistically significant reductions in nutrients (nitratenitrite and total phosphorus) since the start of the project. These decreases might be

associated with reduced numbers of nutrients reaching the waterbody from non-point

sources. Similar data gathered between 1992 and 1996 indicate continued reductions

in nitrate-nitrite.
5-12

C Of 48 AFOs that were out of compliance with regulations at the beginning of the

project, 26 of these operations were in compliance in 1993. Twenty-two others were

working on gaining compliance through coordination with state and local entities. 

C Approximately 94,000 tons of soil in the watershed were saved through the use of

BMPs. Also, 75,000 tons of animal waste are being properly used annually according

to South Carolina guidelines (i.e., application rates, slopes, and time of year).
R-1

REFERENCES

Abt Associates Inc. 1993. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Use and Disposal of Sewage

Sludge: Benefits of Regulation. Prepared for Health and Ecological Criteria Division,

Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. January.

Addis, Paul B., T. Blaha, B. Crooker, F. Diez, J. Feirtag, S. Goyal, I. Greaves, M. Hathaway, K.

Janni, S. Kirkhorn, R. Moon, D.E. Morse, C. Phillips, J. Reneau, J. Shutske, and S.

Wells. 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A

Summary of the Literature Related to the Effects of Animal Agriculture on Human Health

(K). Prepared for the Environmental Quality Board by the University of Minnesota,

College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences.

Addiscott, T. M., A. P. Whitmore, and D. S. Powlson. 1991. Farming, Fertilizers, and the

Nitrate Problem. Rothamsted Experimental Station. Oxon, United Kingdom: C-A-B

International.

Agricultural Animal Waste Task Force. 1996. Policy Recommendations for Management of

Agricultural Animal Waste in North Carolina: Report of the Agricultural Animal Waste

Task Force.

Altekruse, S. F. 1998. Campylobacter jejuni in foods. Journal of American Veterinary Medical

Association. 213(12):1734-1735.

Aneja, Viney, George C. Murray, and James Southerland. April 1998. Atmospheric nitrogen

compounds: Emissions, transport, transformation, deposition, and assessment. EM, Air &

Waste Management Association’s Magazine for Environmental Managers, pp. 22-25.

ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers). 1997. Manure Production and

Characteristics. ASAE D384.1 (ASAE Standards).

ASAE (American Society of Agricultural Engineers). 1999. Manure Production and

Characteristics. ASAE D384.1 (ASAE Standards).

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 1998. Bay pollution flows underground. Civil

Engineering. pp. 13-14. February.

The Associated Press. 1998. State traces well pollution to hog waste. The Daily Reflector. p.

B3. April 25.

Atwood, D.K., A. Bratkovich, M. Gallagher, and G. Hitchcock (eds.). 1994. Introduction to the

dedicated issue. Estuaries. 17(4):729-911.

Behm, Don. 1989. Ill waters: The fouling of Wisconsin’s lakes and streams. The Milwaukee

Journal Sentinel. Special report: a series of articles published November 5-10.
R-2

Bodek, Itamar, Warren J. Lyman, William F. Reehl, David Rosenblatt (eds.). 1988. 

Environmental Inorganic Chemistry: Properties, Processes, and Estimation Methods.

Pergamon Press, New York.

Bouzaher, A., P.G. Lakshminarayan, S.R. Johnson, T. Jones, and R. Jones. 1993. The Economic

and Environmental Indicators for Evaluating the National Pilot Project on Livestock and

the Environment, Livestock Series Report 1. Center for Agricultural and Rural

Development (CARD) at Iowa State University and Texas Institute for Applied

Environmental Research at Tarleton State University. Staff Report 93-SR 64. October.

Brady, N. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Tenth edition. New York: Macmillan

Publishing Company.

Brazos River Authority. 1998. Executive summary. Annual Water Quality Report. April. 

Available at http://www.brazos.org/pe/98wqreport.

Brooke, James. 2000. Few left untouched after deadly E. coli flows through an Ontario town’s

water. The New York Times. July 10.

Bruning-Fann, C. S., and J. B. Kaneene. 1993. The effects of nitrate, nitrite, and n-nitroso 

compounds on human health: A review. Vet. Human. Toxicol. 35(6). December.

Carpenter, Stephen, N. F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N. Sharpley, and V. H.

Smith. 1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Issues

in Ecology, Number 3. Published by the Ecological Society of America, Washington,

D.C. Summer. (Also available at: esa.sdsc.edu/.)

Casman, Elizabeth A. 1996. Chemical and Microbiological Consequences of Anaerobic

Digestion of Livestock Manure, A Literature Review. Interstate Commission on the

Potomac River Basin. ICPRB Report #96-6.

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1992. Water Quality: Agriculture’s

Role. Report 120. December.

CDCP (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1998. Report to the State of Iowa

Department of Public Health on the Investigation of the Chemical and Microbial

Constituents of Ground and Surface Water Proximal to Large-Scale Swine Operations.

CDCP (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2000. A Public Health Action Plan to

Combat Antimicrobial Resistance. Draft. June. Available at:

http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/actionplan/aractionplan.pdf.

Chai, T. J., Tj. Han, and R. R. Cockey. 1994. Microbiological quality of shellfish-growing waters

in Chesapeake Bay. J. Food Protect. 57:229-234.

Chapman, S. L. 1996. Soil and solid poultry waste nutrient management and water quality. 

Poultry Science. 75:862-866.
R-3

Cieslak, P. R., T. J. Barret, P. M. Griffin, K. F. Gensheimer, G. Beckett, J. Buffington, and M.G.

Smith. 1993. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection from a manured garden. The Lancet.

342:367.

Citizens Pfiesteria Action Commission. 1997. Final Report of the Citizens Pfiesteria Action

Commission. Governor Harry R. Hughes, Commission Chairman. November.

Clean Water Action Alliance. 1998. Minnesota Manure Spills and Runoff.

Colburn, T., F. S. vom Saal, and A. M. Soto. 1993. Developmental effects of endocrinedisrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans. Environmental Health Perspectives. 

101:378-384.

Coyne, M. S. and R. L. Blevins. 1995. Fecal bacteria in surface runoff from poultry manured

fields. In: Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface, edited by Kenneth Steele. CRC

Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.

Crane, S. R., P. W. Westerman, and M. R. Overcash. 1980. Die-off of fecal indicator organisms

following land application of poultry manure. Journal of Environmental Quality. 9:531-

537.

Daniel, T. C., D. R. Edwards, and D. J. Nichols. 1995. Edge-of-field losses of surface-applied

animal manure. In: Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface, edited by Kenneth

Steele. CRC Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.

Dazzo, F., P. Smith, and D. Hubbell. 1973. The influence of manure slurry irrigation on the

survival of fecal organisms in Scranton fine sand. Journal of Environmental Quality.

2:470-473.

Delaware’s Center for the Inland Bays. 1995. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management

Plan for Delaware’s Inland Bays. Available at: www.udel.edu/CIB.

Derbyshire, J. B., M. C. Clark, and D. M. Jessett. 1966. Observations on the fecal excretion of

adenoviruses and enteroviruses in conventional and “minimal disease” pigs. Vet. Record.

79:595.

Derbyshire, J. B. and E. G. Brown. 1978. Isolation of animal viruses from farm livestock waste,

soil, and water. J. Hygiene. 81:295-302.

Dimura, Joseph. 2000. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Personal

communication with Patricia Harrigan, USEPA, Washington, DC on direct access of

CAFO animals to surface water via e-mail. August 10.

Dunne, T., and L. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San Francisco: W. H.

Freeman and Company.
R-4

Edwards, D. R., and T. C. Daniel. 1992a. Environmental impacts of on-farm poultry waste

disposal—a review. Bioresource Technology. 41:9-33.

Edwards, D. R., and T. C. Daniel. 1992b. Potential runoff quality effects of poultry manure

slurry applied to fescue plots. Trans. ASAE, 35(6):1827-1832. Cited in Daniel et al.

(1995).

Edwards, D. R., and T. C. Daniel. 1993a. Effects of poultry litter application rate and rainfall

intensity on quality of runoff from fescuegrass plots. Journal of Environmental Quality.

22(2):361-365. Cited in Daniel et al. (1995).

Edwards, D. R., and T. C. Daniel. 1993b. Runoff quality impacts of swine manure applied to 

fescue plots. Trans. ASAE, 36(1): 81-86. Cited in Daniel et al. (1995).

Elder, R. O., J. E. Keen, G. R. Siragusa, G. A. Barkocy-Gallagher, M. Koohmaraie, and W. W.

Laegreid. 2000. Correlation of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157 prevalence in

feces, hides, and carcasses of beef cattle during processing. PNAS. 97: 2999-3003.

Fattal, B., A. Dotan, and Y. Tchorsh. 1992. Rates of experimental microbiological

contamination of fish exposed to polluted water. Water Resources Bulletin.

26(12):1621-1627. 

Fey, Paul D., Thomas J. Safranek, Mark E. Rupp, Eileen F. Dunn, Efrain Ribot, Peter C. Iwen,

Patricia A. Bradford, Frederick J., Angulo, and Steven H. Hinrichs. 2000. Ceftriaxoneresistant salmonella infection acquired by a child from cattle. The New England Journal

of Medicine. 342 (17):1242-1249. April 27.

Follett, Ronald F. 1995. Fate and Transport of Nutrients: Nitrogen. Working Paper No. 7. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Soil-Plant-Nutrient

Research Unit. Fort Collins, Colorado. September.

Front, Alan. 2000. Testimony of Alan Front, Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public Land,

Before the Senate Finance Committee, Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight

Regarding Land Conservation Issues. July 25.

Gale, J. A., D. E. Line, D. L. Osmond, S. W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J. A. Arnold, T. J. Hoban, and

R. C. Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the experimental rural clean water program. 

(Chapter 4.) In: Rural Clean Water Program Project Profiles. Published by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-841-R-93-005. May. Available at:

h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/rcwp/. 

Gerritse, R. G., and I. Zugec. 1977. The phosphorus cycle in pig slurry measured from 32PO4

distribution rates. J. Agric. Sci. 88(1):101-109.

Giddens, J., and A. P. Barnett. 1980. Soil loss and microbiological quality of runoff from land

treated with poultry litter. J. Environ. Qual. 9:518-520.
R-5

Goldman, C., and A. Horne. 1983. Limnology. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, Co.

Goolsby, Donald A., W. A. Battaglin, G. B. Lawrence, R. S. Artz, B. T. Aulenbach, R. P.

Hooper, D. R. Keeney, and G. J. Stensland. 1999. Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the

Mississippi - Atchafalaya River Basin. Topic 3 Report of the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia

Assessment. Submitted to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Hypoxia Work Group. May. 

Available at: www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html.

Gresham, C.W, R.R. Janke, and J. Moyer. 1990. Composting of Poultry Litter, Leaves, and

Newspaper. Rodale Research Center.

Griffin, P. M. 1998. Epidemiology of shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli infections in

humans in the United States. In: Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Other Shiga Toxinproducing Escherichia coli Strains, edited by J.B. Kasper and A. D. O’Brien. 

Washington, DC: ASM Press. pp. 15-22.

Hays, Jean. 1993. Troubled Kansas rivers run murky and polluted. The Wichita Eagle. June 20.

Health Canada Environmental Health Program. 1998. Blue-green Algae (Cyanobacteria) and

their Toxins. Publication of the Canadian federal government. Available at:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/general/iyh/algea.htm.

Himathongkham, S., S. Bahari, H. Riemann, and D. Cliver. 1999. Survival of Escherichia coli

O157:H7 and Salmonella typhimurium in cow manure and cow manure slurry. FEMS

Microbiology Letters. 178:251-257.

Hoosier Environmental Council. 1997. Internet home page. Accessed at:

www.envirolink.org/orgs/hecweb/monitorspring97/confined.htm. (Document is no

longer available online. Hard copy of the document is provided in the docket.)

Hrubant, G. R. 1973. Characterization of the dominant aerobic microorganisms in cattle feedlot

waste. J. Appl. Microbiol. 26:512-516.

Hubert, Cynthia. 1991. D.M. water endangered by nitrates. The Des Moines Register. 

March 27.

IEC (Industrial Economics, Incorporated). 1993. Irrigation Return Flow Fee Feasibility Study.

Prepared for Office of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. March.

Illinois Stewardship Alliance. 1997. The Adverse Impacts of CAFO’s Continue in Illinois

Without Regulation. July 10.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 1998. Prohibited Discharges at Iowa Livestock

Operations Resulting in monetary penalties and/or restitution for fish kill being proposed,

collected or pending—1992-present. June 3.
R-6

Iowa State University. 1999. Earthen Waste Storage Structures in Iowa: A Study for the Iowa

Legislature. EDC-186. August.

IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 2000. Chemical Files and Background Documents

and Papers. Washington, DC. Available at: www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/index.html. 

November.

Jackson, G., D. Keeney, D. Curwen, and B. Webendorfer. 1987. Agricultural Management

Practices to Minimize Groundwater Contamination. University of Wisconsin

Environmental Resources Center. July.

Juranek, D. D. 1995. Cryptosporidiosis: Sources of infection and guidelines for prevention. 

Clin Infect Dis. 21(Sup. 1):S57-61.

Kellogg, Robert L., C. H. Lander, D. Moffit, and N. Gollehon. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative

to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and

Temporal Trends for the U.S. 

Keyworth, V., D.E. Storm, R. Lynch, D. Altom, B.E. Haggard, and M. Matlock. 2000. 

“Determining Limiting Nutrients in Lake Eucha Tributaries.” Communication at the

North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting. June. Available at:

http://www.benthos.org/meeting/nabs2000/nabstracts2000.cfm/id/882

Kudva, I., K. Blanch, and C. Hovde. 1998. Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 survival in

ovine or bovine manure and manure slurry. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64(9):3166-3174.

Lander, Charles H., David Moffitt, and Klaus Alt. 1998. Nutrients Available from Livestock

Manure Relative to Crop Growth Requirements. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, DC. Available at: 

www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/pubs/nlweb.html.

Lassek, P. J. 1997. Lake Eucha drowning in algae. Tulsa World. August 17.

Lassek, P. J. 1998a. Tulsa officials seek long-term solution to protect watershed. Tulsa World.

March 16. Available at: http://search.tulsaworld.com/archivesearch/

default.asp?WCI=DisplayStory&ID=980315_Ne_a11tulsa.

Lassek, P. J. 1998b. Tulsa demands help from poultry industry. Tulsa World. March 16.

Available at: http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~engelb/abe526/iatp.txt.

Leavenworth, Stuart. 1995a. Airborne threats rain down on Neuse. The News and Observer. 

May 8.

Leavenworth, Stuart. 1995b. Ammonia rain: Study suggests spills not only way hog farms

pollute. The News and Observer. August 12.
R-7

Leavenworth, Stuart. 1995c. Half-million fish die in Neuse River. The News and Observer.

September 22.

Leavenworth, Stuart. 1997. State probes new hog waste spills; neither incident causes big fish

kills. The News and Observer. February 27.

LeChevallier, M. W., W. D. Norton, and R. G. Lee. 1991. Occurrence of Giardia and

Cryptosporidium spp. in surface water supplies. Appl Environ Microbiol. 57(9):2610-6.

Letson, David, and Noel Gollehon. 1996. Confined Animal Production and the Manure

Problem. CHOICES. Third Quarter. American Agricultural Economics Association

(AAEA). 

Letson, David, and Noel Gollehon. 1998. Spatial economics of targeting manure policy. Journal

of the American Water Resources Association. American Water Resources Association. 

34(1):185-193. 

Loehr, R. C. 1972. Animal waste management: Problems and guidelines for solutions. Journal

of Environmental Quality. 1(1):71-78.

Macomb Journal. 1999. State settles with farmers in 1997 manure spill. August 8.

Maryland Department of the Environment. 1987. Manure Induced Fish Kills in the State of

Maryland, 1984-1987.

Maule, A. 1999. Survival of verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli O157 in soil, water and on

surfaces. In: Society for Applied Microbiology Summer Conference Handbook.

McFall, Warren. 2000. USEPA Region X. Personal communication with Patricia Harrigan,

USEPA, Washington, DC on direct access of CAFO animals to surface water via e-mail. 

August 2. 

Meadows, R. 1995. Livestock legacy. Environmental Health Perspectives 103(12):1096-1100.

Meyer, M. 1994. How common is methemoglobinemia from nitrate contaminated wells? A

South Dakota perspective. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Midwest Ground Water

Conference, Bismarck, ND. October. Cited in Michel et al. (1996).

Michel, Kristin, J. R. Bacon, C. M. Gempesaw II, and J. H. Martin Jr. 1996. Nutrient

Management by Delmarva Poultry Growers: A Survey of Attitudes and Practices. 

University of Delaware, College of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Food and

Resource Economics. August.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. SWQD Actions in Response to Manure

Discharges. Surface Water Quality Division.
R-8

Millard, P. S., K. F. Gensheimer, D. G. Addis, D. M. Sosin, G. A. Beckett, A. Houck-Jankoski,

and A. Hudson. 1994. An outbreak of cryptosporidiosis from fresh-pressed apple cider. 

JAMA. 272(20):1592-1596.

Morris, J. Glenn Jr., D. L. Matuszak, J. L. Taylor, C. Dickson, G. C. Benjamin, and L. M.

Grattan. 1998. Focused Issue: Pfiesteria—Beginning to unravel the mystery. Maryland

Medical Journal. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 

May. Cited in Brown (1998).

Mulla, David, A. Sekely, A. Birr, J. Perry, B. Vondracek, E. Bean, E. Macbeth, S. Goyal, B.

Wheeler, C. Alexander, G. Randall, G. Sands, and J. Linn. 1999. Generic

Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A Summary of the Literature

Related to the Effects of Animal Agriculture on Water Resources (G). Prepared for the

Environmental Quality Board by the University of Minnesota, College of Agriculture,

Food, and Environmental Sciences.

NRC. National Research Council. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC. National Research Council. 1995. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

NRC. National Research Council. 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing

the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NCAES (North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service). 1982. Best Management Practices for

Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control: Animal Waste. North Carolina State University,

Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department. Raleigh, NC.

NCSU (North Carolina State University). 2000. Aquatic Botany Laboratory Pfiesteria piscicida 

homepage.

Neal, Brandon, and Daniel E. Storm. 1999. “Using GIS to Identify Sensitive Areas for Land

Application of Poultry Litter in the Lake Eucha Basin.” Spatial and Environmental

Clearinghouse, Department of Geography, Oklahoma State University. Abstract

available at: http://www.seic.okstate.edu/reu.

Nebraska Cooperative Extension. 1995. Drinking water: Nitrate and methemoglobinemia

(“blue baby” syndrome). NebGuide document G98-1369. July. Available at:

www.ianr.unl.edu/PUBS/water/g1369.htm.

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 1995a. Quarterly Report of Fish Kill Activity, 

October 1994 - March 1995. Surface Water Section, Field Unit.

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 1995b. Quarterly Report of Fish Kill Activity,

April 1995 - June 1995. Surface Water Section, Field Unit. 
R-9

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. 1996. Quarterly Report of Fish Kill Activity,

April 1996 - September 1996. Surface Water Section, Field Unit. 

Nelson, H. 1997. The contamination of organic produce by human pathogens in animal

manures. Ecological Agriculture Projects, McGill University, Canada. Available at:

http://eap.mcgill.ca/_private/vl_head.htm.

New York Times. 1997. Why the fish are dying. The New York Times. Editorial. September

22. Available at: www.nytimes.com.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1997. The 1995 National Shellfish

Register of Classified Growing Waters. Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and

Assessment. National Ocean Service, U.S. Department of Commerce. August.

Nolan, Bernard T., and Barbara C. Ruddy. 1996. Nitrate in Ground Waters of the United States

- Assessing the Risk. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment

Program, Fact Sheet FS-092-96. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/FS-092-

96.html.

North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1995. Tar-Pamlico River Nutrient

Management Plan for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.

North Carolina’s Nicholas School of the Environment's Agricultural Animal Waste Task Force. 

1994. Water resource characterization DSS-phosphorus and nitrate-nitrite. Available at:

http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/info/.

Nowlin, Michelle, David Harris, and Joe Rudek. 1997. Industrialization of animal production in

North Carolina: Impacts on the environment and public health. Memorandum. 

August 19.

NRDC (National Resources Defense Council). 1995. Recent Animal Waste Spills and Fish Kill

Impacts.

NYSDOH (New York State Department of Health). 2000. Health Commissioner Releases E.

coli Outbreak Report. 3/31/00. March 31. Available at:

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/commish/2000/ecoli.htm.

OCWD (Orange County Water District). 2000. Impacts of the Chino Dairy Industry on Local

Water Supplies. Issue Paper. September.

ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources). 1997. Division of Wildlife Pollution

Investigation Report - Manure Related Spills and Fish and Wildlife Kills. June 9. 

O’Neill, D. H. and V. R. Phillips. 1992. A review of the control of odour nuisance from

livestock buildings: Part 3, properties of the odorous substances which have been

identified in livestock wastes or in the air around them. Journal of Agricultural

Engineering Research. 53:23-50.
R-10

PEER (Texas Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility). 2000. Erath County’s

booming dairy industry pollutes Texas waterways. Available at:

http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/Erath.html.

Phillips, J. M., H. D. Scott, and D. C. Wolf. 1992. Environmental implications of animal waste

application to pastures. In: Proceedings from the South Pasture Forage Crop

Improvement Conference. USDA/Agricultural Research Service. September. pp. 30-38.

Poultry Water Quality Consortium. 1998. Poultry waste management. In: Poultry Water

Quality Handbook, second edition. Chattanooga, TN. September. Available at:

www.poultryegg.org/other.

Pratt, Staci, Ron Jones, and Charles Allen Jones. 1997. Livestock and the Environment:

Expanding the Focus. Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research. EPA

Contract No. CR 820374-02. 

Puckett, L. J. 1994. Nonpoint and Point Sources of Nitrogen in Major Watersheds of the United

States. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment.

Ritter, W.F., F.J. Humenik, and R.W. Skaggs. 1989. Irrigated agriculture and water quality in

east. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 115(5):807-821.

Ritter, W. F., and A. E. M. Chirnside. 1990. Impact of animal waste lagoons on groundwater

quality. Biological Wastes. 34:39-54.

Robinson, J. S., and A. N. Sharpley. 1995. Release of nitrogen and phosphorous from poultry

litter. Journal of Environmental Quality. 24(1):62-67.

Schiffman, S. S., E. A. Sattely Miller, M. S. Suggs, and B. G. Graham. 1995. The effect of

environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of

nearby residents. Brain Research Bulletin. 37:369-375.

Sharpe, R. M., and N. E. Skakkebaek. 1993. Are oestrogens involved in falling sperm count and

disorders of the male reproductive tract? Lancet. 341:1392-1395.

Shelton, Daniel R. 2000. Sources of pathogens in a watershed: Humans, wildlife, farm animals? 

Managing Nutrients and Pathogens from Animal Agriculture, Proceedings of a

Conference for Nutrient Management Consultants, Extension Educators, and Producer

Advisors. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service. pp. 108-115. March

28-30.

Sherer, B. M., J. R. Miner, J. A. Moore, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1988. Resuspending organisms

from a rangeland stream bottom. Trans. ASAE. 31:1217-1222.

Sherer, B. M., J. R. Miner, J. A. Moore, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1992. Indicator bacterial survival

in stream sediments. J. Environ. Qual. 21:591-595.
R-11

Shields, T. 1997. Fish kills seen as “alarm bell” for Chesapeake, tributaries. The Washington

Post. August 17. B1.

Shields, T., and E. L. Meyer. 1997. New fish kills found miles from Pocomoke. The

Washington Post. September 11. A1.

Shih, J. C. H. 1993. Recent developments in poultry waste digestion and feather utilization - a

review. Poultry Science. Poultry Science Association. 72(9):1617-1620. September.

Shore, L. S., D. L. Correll, and P. K. Chakraborty. 1995. Relationship of fertilization with

chicken manure and concentrations of estrogens in small streams. In: Animal Waste and

the Land-Water Interface, edited by Kenneth Steele. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Lewis

Publishers.

Sims, J. Thomas. 1995. Characteristics of animal wastes and waste-amended soils: An overview

of the agricultural and environmental issues. In: Animal Waste and the Land-Water

Interface, edited by Kenneth Steele. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Lewis Publishers.

Smith, V. 1994. Disaster in Milwaukee: Complacency was the root cause. EPA Journal. 

20:16-18.

Smith, R., G. Schwarz, and R. Alexander. 1997. Regional interpretation of water-quality

monitoring data. Water Resources Research. 33(12):2781-2798. December.

Stanley, K., R. Cunningham, and K. Jones. 1998. Isolation of Campylobacter jejuni from

groundwater. J. Appl. Microbiol. 85:187-191.

Stehman, Susan M. 2000. Ag-Related water borne pathogens. In: Managing Nutrients and

Pathogens from Animal Agriculture, Proceedings of a Conference for Nutrient

Management Consultants, Extension Educators, and Producer Advisors. Natural

Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service. pp. 93-107. March 28-30.

Stelma Jr., G. N., and L. J. McCabe. 1992. Nonpoint pollution from animal sources and

shellfish sanitation. Journal of Food Protection. 55(8):649-656.

Stith, Pat, and Joby Warrick. 1995. Boss hog: North Carolina’s pork revolution. The News and

Observer. Raleigh, NC. Five part series published February 19-26, 1995. Available at: 

www.nando.net/sproject/hogs/hoghome.html.

Tetra Tech. 2000a. Literature Review and Assessment of Pathogens, Heavy Metals, and

Antibiotic Content of Waste and Wastewater Generated by CAFOs. EPA contract 68-C99-263.

Tetra Tech. 2000b. Development of Pollutant Loading Reductions from the Implementation of

Nutrient Management and Best Management Practices. November 21.
R-12

Texas Office of Water Resource Management. 1997. The Middle Brazos Basin Report.

August 27. Available at:

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/data/wmt/mid_bra_assmt.html.

TIAER (Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research). 1998. Relationship of Fecal

Coliform Bacteria with Water Quality and Land Uses in the Upper North Bosque River

Watershed. WP 98-06. August. 

TNRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission). 2000a. Improving Water Quality

in the North Bosque River. TNRCC TMDL Program. Available at:

http://tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/tmdl/index.html.

TNRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission). 2000b. DRAFT Response to

Public Comment on the 2000 Texas Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. August 31. 

Available at: http://tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/tmdl/index.html.

Thomann , R. V., and J. A. Muller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and

Control. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.

Thu, Kendall. 1998. Presentation at the Center for Disease Control Workshop on Public Health

Issues Related to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. June 23-24.

Thu, Kendall (general editor). 1995. Understanding the Impacts of Large-Scale Swine

Production. Proceedings from an Interdisciplinary Scientific Workshop. Des Moines,

Iowa. June 29-30.

U.S. Senate. 1997. Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem.

Report Compiled by the Minority Staff of the United States Senate Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry for Senator Tom Harkin.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field

Handbook. 210-AWMFH. April.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1998. Agricultural Uses of Municipal Animal, and

Industrial Byproducts. Agricultural Research Service. Conservation Research Report

Number 44. January.

USDA/ARS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service). 1999. 

Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication. ARS-149. July.

USDA/NASS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service). 1999. 

1997 Census of Agriculture. Volume 1 (Part 51).

USDA/NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1996. 

Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. 210-AWMFH. 
R-13

USDA/NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2000. 

Calculations by USDA/NRCS based on 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA/NASS)

using procedures in Lander et al. (1998).

USDA/USEPA (U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. 

Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. March. Available at:

www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm.

USDC (U.S. Department of Commerce)/Census Bureau. 1994. 1992 Census of Agriculture.

Volume 1 (Part 51). Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Policy Options for Stabilizing Global

Climate. Draft Report to Congress. Washington, DC. February. Cited in USEPA

(1992a).

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. National Survey of Pesticides in

Drinking Water Wells, Phase I Report. EPA570990015.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992a. Global Methane Emissions from

Livestock and Poultry Manure. Office of Air and Radiation. EPA/400/1-91/048.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992b. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: 

Final Report to Congress. Office of Water.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993a. Guidance Specifying Management

Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Office of Water. 

840-B-92-002. January.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993b. The Report of the EPA/State Feedlot

Workgroup. Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993c. Standards for the Use or Disposal of

Sewage Sludge. 40 C.F.R. 503.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. National Water Quality Inventory

1996 Report to Congress. EPA 841-F-97-008.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume

II. Highlights of State and Tribal Nonpoint Source Programs. Office of Water. 

Washington, DC. EPA-R-97-001. October. Available at:

www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/Section319II.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Environmental Impacts of Animal

Feeding Operations. Office of Water. December 31.
R-14

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. TMDL Case Study: Tar-Pamlico

Basin, North Carolina. March. Available at:

www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/cs10/cs10.html.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. National Water Quality Inventory: 

1998 Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-00-001.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Case Study Summary: Manure

Application. November.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1991. Contaminants in Buffalo Lake National

Wildlife Refuge, Texas. Report by the Arlington Field Office. October. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. Environmental Contaminants Associated with

Confined Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impacts to a Service Waterfowl

Production Area. Report by Region 6. June. 

USGAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1995a. Agriculture and the Environment:

Information on and Characteristics of Selected Watershed Projects. Report to the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate.

USGAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1995b. Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste

Management and Water Quality Issues. Briefing Report to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate. GAO/RCED-95-200BR. June. 

USGAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 1997. Drinking Water: Information on the Quality

of Water Found at Community Water Systems and Private Wells. Report to

Congressional Requesters. GAO/RCED-97-123. Available at: 

www.gao.gov/AIndexFY97/abstracts/rc97123.htm. June. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1996. Nutrient Sources and Analysis of Nutrient WaterQuality Data, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, Georgia, Alabama, and

Florida, 1972-90. Report 96-4101.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1997. Nutrients in the Nation’s Waters—Too Much of a Good

Thing? National Water Quality Assessment Program. USGS Circular 1136.

Vallentyne, J. 1974. The Algal Bowl: Lakes and Man. Miscellaneous Special Publications 22. 

Dept. of the Environment Fisheries and Marine Service. Quebec: Canadian Government

Publishing Center Supply and Services.

Van Donsel, D., E. Geldreich, and H. Clark. 1967. Seasonal variations in the survival of

indicator bacteria in soil and their contribution to storm water pollution. Appl Microbiol

15:1362-1370.
R-15

Van Dyne, Donald L., and Conrad B. Gilbertson. 1978. Estimating United States Livestock and

Poultry Manure and Nutrient Production. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service. Washington, DC.

Vanderholm, D. H. 1975. Nutrient losses from livestock waste during storage, treatment and

handling. In: Managing livestock wastes. Proceedings of 3rd Inter. Symp.on Livestock

Wastes, Urbana-Champaign, Ill. 21-24 Apr. 1975. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. 

282-285.

Wagner, Kevin, and Scott Woodruff. 1997. Phase I Clean Lakes Project: Diagnostic and

Feasibility Study of Lake Eucha. Oklahoma Conservation Commission. Final Report. 

February.

Wallace, Mike. 1997. Special report: Our rivers, our choices, the future of Waco’s water supply. 

Waco Tribune-Herald. June 8. 

Warrick, Joby. 1995a. The year’s sixth major spill: Brunswick County lagoon leaks hog waste. 

The News and Observer. August 9.

Warrick, Joby. 1995b. Hog farm is fined $110,000 for spill. The News and Observer. August

23. 

Warrick, Joby. 1995c. Contaminated wells linked to Robeson hog operation. The News and

Observer. October 14. Available at:

http://www.nando.com/sproject/hogs/1014hog3.htm.

Warrick, Joby. 1995d. Tainted wells, poisoned relations. The News and Observer. October 15. 

Available at: http://www.nando.com/sproject/hogs/1015hog4.htm.

Warrick, Joby. 1995e. Tainted wells worry families. The News and Observer. December 17.

Warrick, Joby, and Pat Stith. 1995. Heavy metal amounts in the soil pose a new concern for

farmers. The News and Observer. September 17.

Wendt, R. C., and R. B. Corey. 1980. Phosphorus variations in surface runoff from agricultural

lands as a function of land use. Journal of Environmental Quality. 9(1):130-136.

Westerman, P. W., L. M. Safley, J. C. Barker, and G. M. Chescheir. 1985. Available nutrients

in livestock waste. In: Agricultural Wastes Utilization and Management, Proceedings of

5th International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, edited by J. C. Converse. pp. 490-

496. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI.

Wetzel, R. G. 1983. Limnology. 2nd Edition. Saunders College Publishing, London.
R-16

Zirbser, Kathy. 1998. Memo to administrative record, feedlots point source category study, re:

bacterial count information from Dorothea Paul, February 5. (Ms. Zirbser reported

results of independent monitoring of a stream flowing through Ms. Paul’s property,

downstream of a hog farm.)