11 

### This 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, Streams a 

### Lakes, Ponds,

Reservoirs b



### 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.12 

### The 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 4-5Proportions of Nitrogen Sources in Selected Watersheds (1987 Base Year)Source: Puckett (1994).Note: CAFO point sources are included in the “manure” category.13 

### County 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).

14 

### As noted earlier, volatilized ammonia can have significant impacts on air quality and water quality (via
atmospheric deposition)



### .

15 

### Legumes (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-legume 15 

### 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 likely16 

### See 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. 16EXHIBIT 4-6Estimated Manure Nitrogen Production from Confined LivestockEXHIBIT 4-7Estimated Manure Phosphorus Production from Confined LivestockEXHIBIT 4-8Potential for Nitrogen Available from Animal Manure to Meet or ExceedUptake and Removal on Non-Legume, Harvested Cropland and HaylandEXHIBIT 4-9Potential for Phosphorus Available from Animal Manure to Meet or ExceedUptake and Removal on Non-Legume, Harvested Cropland and Hayland17 

### Although 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 latterexhibits 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 4-10Predicted Local Nitrogen Yield in Hydrologic Cataloging UnitsEXHIBIT 4-11Predicted Local Total Phosphorus Yield in Hydrologic Cataloging UnitsEXHIBIT 4-12Predicted Percentage Contribution of Animal Waste to LocalTotal Nitrogen Export from Hydrologic Cataloging UnitsEXHIBIT 4-13Predicted Percentage Contribution of Animal Waste to LocalTotal 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 areasin 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 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference7/1/97 IL Swine operation 800,000 gallons discharged Contaminated drinking waterof at least 5 homes withEscherichia coli; Illinois EPAlevies fines totaling $9,600 ormore, which will partiallyfund creek restorationIllinois StewardshipAlliance (1997)Macomb Journal (1999)10/17/97 Clear Creek, IA Swine operation 28,134 fish killed $4,000 direct cost+ $2,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)10/9/97 Brooke Creek, IA Swine operation 4194 fish killed $267.50 direct cost+ $2,500 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)9/18/97 Prairie Creek, IA Swine operation 93,403 fish killed $16,140.84 direct cost;fine was pendingIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)8/27/97 South Fork of Iowa River, IA Swine operation 3,232 fish killed $264.23 direct cost;fine was pendingIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/26/97 Crane Creek, IA 3,200 head swineoperation109,172 fish killed Blocked pipe resulted indischarge.$33,882.73 direct cost;fine was pendingIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)9/4/96 North Buffalo Creek, IA Swine operation More than 100,000 gallonspumped into Creek;586,753 fish killed$30,000 direct cost+ $3,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)8/26/96 Rock Creek, IA Swine operation 871 fish killed $237 direct costIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)8/19/96 Cedar County, IA Swine operation 3,676 fish killed $408.76 direct costIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference8/19/96 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 46,315 fish killed $3,908 direct cost+ $3,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)11/15/95 Indian Creek, IA Swine operation 4,928 fish killed $418 direct cost+ $3,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)9/25/95 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation 60,650 fish killed $21,436 direct cost;fine was pendingIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/23/95 Elk Creek tributary, IA Swine operation 16,280 fish killed $1,410 direct cost+ $2,500 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/20/95 Little Volga River, IA Swine operation 23,416 fish killed $8,155 direct cost+ $1,500 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/16/95 South Fork of Iowa River, IA Swine operation 8,861 fish killed $6,000 direct cost+ $2,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/1/95 Hamilton, IA 700 head swine operation 1.5 million gallons discharged;8,800 fish killed$8,000 fineClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)3/28/95 South English River tributary,IASwine operation Fish kill $4,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)9/94 Kossuth County, IA Swine operation 408 fish killed $73 direct cost+ $2,250 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)9/94 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $2,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)8/94 Otter Creek, IA Swine operation 1,882 fish killed $968 direct costIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference5/94 Church Creek, IA Swine operation 5,750 fish killed $2,118 direct costIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)5/94 Hickory Creek tributary, IA Swine operation 8,397 fish killed $722 direct cost+ $300 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)3/94 Eagle Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)12/93 Boone River, IA Swine operation Fish kill $5,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)11/93 Union County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $1,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)10/93 Middle Avery Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $9,700 fine split betweenoperation and wastemanagement design companyIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)9/93 South English River tributary,IASwine operation Fish kill $1,650 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/93 Iowa River tributary Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)6/93 Keokuk County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $4,500 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)5/93 Brush Creek, IA Swine operation 265,000 fish killed $10,000 direct cost+ $2,500 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)4/93 Brookside Creek tributary, IA Swine operation Fish kill $2,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference4/93 Iowa River tributary, IA Swine operation Fish kill $300 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)8/92 East Nishnabotna River, IA Swine operation Fish kill $1,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)8/92 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 34,994 fish killed $200 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/92 Skunk River, IA Swine operation $100 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/92 South River, IA Swine operation 6,264 fish killed From land application oflagoon contents; effects lastedfor 2 months.$3,448 direct cost+ $19,500 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/92 Wright County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $400 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)3/92 Cedar River, IA Swine operation Retention basin overflow.$250 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)2/92 Beaverdam Creek, IA Swine operation Below-building pit overflow.$300 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)6/19/97 Renville County, MN 9,000 swine 100,000 gallons discharged;690,000 fish killedLagoon overflow caused bytimer malfunction.Fined for failure to notify.Clean Water ActionAlliance (1998)8/96 Meeker County, MN 200 head swine operation Overflowing lagoonClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)4/96 Blue Earth County, MN 500 head swine operation Siphoned basin into a stream andhad an un-permitted basinClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)4/96 Blue Earth County, MN 200 head swine operation Siphoned pit/un-permitted basinClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference4/96 Nobles County, MN Swine operation Overflowing basinClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)4/96 Watonwan County, MN 700 head swine operation Overflowing basinClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)2/96 - 4/96 Osborne Township, MN Swine operation Overflow from pit onto groundand into Rock River, at rate up to12 gpmClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)10/95 Traverse County, MN 2,500 head swineoperationOverflowing pitsClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)9/95 Lincoln County, MN 2,500 head swineoperationPumped manure basin into a riverClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)8/1/95 Lincoln, MN Swine operation 5,000- 10,000 fish killedClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)5/95 Renville County, MN 700 head swine operation Manure and contaminatedwastewater flowed into a surfacetile inlet in a county ditchClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)4/94 - 8/94 Lone Tree Township, MN Swine operation Pumped about 5,000 gallons ofwastewater containing manureinto a ditch every two weeksClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)4/94 Meeker County, MN 1,500 head swineoperationMultiple runoff problemsClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)9/1/95 Gentry, MO Swine operation UnknownNRDC (1995)8/1/95 Greencastle MO 30,000 head swineoperationOver 20,000 gallons discharged;173,000 fish killedNRDC (1995)8/96 Four-Mile Creek, NE Swine operation 300-500 bullhead, 100 carp, 100cyprinids killedLagoon dischargeNebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality(1996)6/95 Scholz Pond, NE Swine operation 96 fish killed Land application and pipelinebreak.$13.25 direct cost+ $1,000 fineNebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality(1995b)3/95 Swan Creek, NE Swine operation Fish kill $971.66 direct cost+ $10,000 fineNebraska Department ofEnvironmental Quality(1995a)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference2/1/97 Pamlico, NC 4,000 swine 1,000 gallon discharge No noticeable fish killLeavenworth (1997)8/1/95 Brunswick County, NC 6,400 head swineoperation2 million gallons discharged 6th major livestock dischargein 2 weeksWarrick (1995a)8/1/95 Onslow, NC Swine operation Under 1 million gallonsdischargedWarrick (1995a)7/1/95 Bladen, NC Swine operation 1 million gallons discharged over2 daysNRDC (1995)6/1-21/95 New River, Onslow County,NC10,000 head swineoperation25 million gallons discharged;3,000-4,000 fish killed$110,000 fine, including$6,200 for fish kill and$92,000 in civil penaltiesMeadows (1995);NRDC (1995);Warrick (1995b)6/1/95 Sampson County, NC Swine operation 1 million gallons dischargedNRDC (1995)5/1/91 Duplin County, NC Swine operation“Tons of water” dischargedStith and Warrick (1995)12/10/96 West Branch TontagonyCreek, OHSwine manure Manure leaked into barn and intocreekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)10/10/96 Tributary to Beaver Creek,OHSwine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/03/96 West Branch WolfCreek/Aldrich Run, OHSwine manure Manure ran off into ditch and intocreekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)35280 Tributary to Beaver Creek,OHSwine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/03/96 Tributary to Auglaize River(RM 87.75), OHSwine manure Liquid manure applied tooheavily; runoff into tileOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/09/96 Little Tymochtee Creek, OH Swine manure Broken pipe on truck allowedmanure to enter creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)05/17/96 Painter Creek, OH Swine manure Runoff from manure spreadingOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference02/27/96 Tributary to Pipe Creek, OH Swine manure Manure spread on fields, followedby snow melt and rainOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)12/06/95 Tributary to Stillwater River,OHSwine manure 2,000,000 gallons pumped onto 54acresOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)12/02/95 Little Tymochtee Creek, OH Swine manure Liquid manure pumped onto fieldsinto tiles into creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)11/26/95 Leatherwood Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)10/25/95 Tributary to Spring Creek(RM 1.25), OHSwine manure Manure pumped onto fields, raninto tiles and to streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)10/20/95 Wolf Creek, OH Swine manure Unknown amount leaked fromstorage pit into streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/27/95 Indian Creek, OH Swine manure Lagoon pumped onto small field;drained into creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)34917 Indian Run, OH Swine manure Heavy rain after manureapplication to fieldsOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/03/95 Oak Run, OH Swine manure Accidental release from drain pipeduring applicationOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)10/01/94 Second Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/24/94 Tributary to Lake ForkMohican River, OHSwine manure Liquid manure entered field tileand creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/21/94 East Branch Salt Creek, OH Swine manure Swine fenced to stream, defecatedon land - runoff to streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference09/20/94 North Branch Salt Creek, OH Swine manure Swine fenced to stream, defecatedon land - runoff to streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/11/94 Carter Creek, OH Swine manure 800,000 gallons of manure appliedto 8 acre field; discharged into tileinto creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)05/31/94 Grog Run, OH Swine manure Lagoon drained via hose to fieldat edge of creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/15/93 Barcer Run, OH Swine manure Spray-irrigated manure ran offinto streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)04/08/93 Tributary to Wabash River,OHSwine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)11/18/92 Tributary to Lick Creek, OH Swine manure Accidental discharge due toclogged pumpOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)33841 Little Sugar Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/12/92 Tributary to Auglaize River,OHSwine manure Irrigated manure runoff into tileinto creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/18/91 Salt Creek, OH Swine manure Manure washed into streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/24/90 Thompson Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/08/90 Bear Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)06/25/90 Cloverlick Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference06/13/90 Lees Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)05/01/90 Tributary to Caesar Creek,OHSwine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/27/89 Jennings Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)05/31/89 Grassy Fork, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)04/28/89 Kale Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)32579 Wolf Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)11/15/87 Jennings Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/02/87 Mill Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/04/87 Painter Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/03/87 Camp Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)06/27/87 Buck Run, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)05/21/87 Camp Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-16Documented Discharges from Swine Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference05/05/87 Chapman Creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)01/17/87 Unnamed creek, OH Swine manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)

### EXHIBIT 4-17

Docu m ented Hu m an Health Related I m pacts fro m Swine Operations

Date Location S o u rce E n viro n m e n tal I m p act Co m m e n ts Refere n ce

1990 Del m ar v a Peninsula (DE, MD, VA) Swine o perati o n A m m oniu m -nitr og en concentrati o ns o f 1,000 m g /L in shall o w m o nit o ring

wells ar o und swine waste l a goo n s Scientific study Ritt e r and Chirnside (1990)

4/98 Duplin C o unt y , NC Swine o perati o n Gr o und water c o nta m inati o n Nitrate le v els fi v e ti m es state standards T h e A s s o c i a t ed P r e s s (1998)

12/1/95 F o ur Oa k s, NC Swine o perati o ns 13 pri v ate wells c o nta m inated W arrick (1995 e )

10/1/95 Shann o n, NC 1,200 head swine

o perati o n Fa m il yco m plains o f ov erp o wering

stench and m ist o f m anure when

far m er spra y s his fields W arrick (1995d)

10/1/95 NC Swine o perati o n 4 pri v ate wells were f o und t o ha v e nitrate le v els 10 ti m es the health standard equal t o the MCL o f 10 m g /L Lin k ed c o nclusi v ely

t o the swine

o perati o ns W arrick (1995c; 1995d)

4/1/95 Br o wnt o wn, NC Swine o perati o ns Residents fi g htin g with swine far m ers

ov e r o d or Stith and W arrick (1995)EXHIBIT 4-18Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference1997 NC rivers Swine operations 450,000 fish killedPfisteria piscicidaoutbreakU.S. Senate(1997)1985-1995 Sampson County, NC Mainly swine (Livestockresponsible 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 industryContributes toeutrophication viaatmospheric depositionAneja et al.(1998)9/1/95 NC Swine Zinc and copper in manure building topotentially harmful levels on fieldsZinc and copper added tofeedWarrick andStith (1995)9/1/95 Neuse River, NC Swine 500,000 fish killed Toxic dinoflagellateoutbreakLeavenworth(1995c)6/13/95 Neuse River, NC Swine 1 billion fish killed Toxic dinoflagellateoutbreakLeavenworth(1995a)1995 Coastal wetlands of NC Swine operations Closed shellfish bedsU.S. Senate(1997)NC Swine Low dissolved oxygen, fish kills, lossof submerged vegetationTotal Maximum DailyLoad (TMDL) case studyUSEPA(1999)10/17/97 Clear Creek, IA Swine operation 28,134 fish killed $4,000 direct cost+ $2,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)10/9/97 Brooke Creek, IA Swine operation 4194 fish killed $267.50 direct cost+ $2,500 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)9/18/97 Prairie Creek, IA Swine operation 93,403 fish killed $16,140.84 direct cost;fine was pendingIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-18Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference8/27/97 South Fork of IowaRiver, IASwine operation 3,232 fish killed $264.23 direct cost;fine was pendingIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/26/97 Crane Creek, IA 3,200 head swine operation 109,172 fish killed Blocked pipe resulted indischarge.$33,882.73 direct cost;fine was pendingIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)9/4/96 North Buffalo Creek, IA Swine operation More than 100,000 gallons pumpedinto Creek;586,753 fish killed$30,000 direct cost+ $3,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)8/26/96 Rock Creek, IA Swine operation 871 fish killed $237 direct costIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)8/19/96 Cedar County, IA Swine operation 3,676 fish killed $408.76 direct costIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)8/19/96 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 46,315 fish killed $3,908 direct cost+ $3,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)11/15/95 Indian Creek, IA Swine operation 4,928 fish killed $418 direct cost+ $3,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-18Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference9/25/95 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation 60,650 fish killed $21,436 direct cost;fine was pendingIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/23/95 Elk Creek tributary, IA Swine operation 16,280 fish killed $1,410 direct cost+ $2,500 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/20/95 Little Volga River, IA Swine operation 23,416 fish killed $8,155 direct cost+ $1,500 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/16/95 South Fork of IowaRiver, IASwine operation 8,861 fish killed $6,000 direct cost+ $2,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/1/95 Hamilton, IA 700 head swine operation 1.5 million gallons discharged;8,800 fish killed$8,000 fineClean WaterAction Alliance(1998)3/28/95 South English Rivertributary, IASwine operation Fish kill $4,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)9/94 Kossuth County, IA Swine operation 408 fish killed $73 direct cost+ $2,250 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)9/94 Williams Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $2,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-18Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference8/94 Otter Creek, IA Swine operation 1,882 fish killed $968 direct costIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)5/94 Church Creek, IA Swine operation 5,750 fish killed $2,118 direct costIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)5/94 Hickory Creek tributary,IASwine operation 8,397 fish killed $722 direct cost+ $300 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)3/94 Eagle Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)12/93 Boone River, IA Swine operation Fish kill $5,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)11/93 Union County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $1,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)10/93 Middle Avery Creek, IA Swine operation Fish kill $9,700 fine split betweenoperation and wastemanagement designcompanyIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-18Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference9/93 South English Rivertributary, IASwine operation Fish kill $1,650 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/93 Iowa River tributary Swine operation Fish kill $3,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)6/93 Keokuk County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $4,500 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)5/93 Brush Creek, IA Swine operation 265,000 fish killed $10,000 direct cost+ $2,500 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)4/93 Brookside Creektributary, IASwine operation Fish kill $2,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)4/93 Iowa River tributary, IA Swine operation Fish kill $300 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)8/92 East Nishnabotna River,IASwine operation Fish kill $1,000 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)EXHIBIT 4-18Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference8/92 Tipton Creek, IA Swine operation 34,994 fish killed $200 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/92 South River, IA Swine operation 6,264 fish killed From land application oflagoon contents; effectslasted for 2 months.$3,448 direct cost+ $19,500 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)7/92 Wright County, IA Swine operation Fish kill $400 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)6/19/97 Renville County, MN 9,000 swine 100,000 gallons discharged;690,000 fish killedLagoon overflow causedby timer malfunction.Fined for failure tonotify.Clean WaterAction Alliance(1998)8/1/95 Lincoln, MN Swine operation 5,000- 10,000 fish killedClean WaterAction Alliance(1998)8/1/95 Greencastle MO 30,000 head swine operation Over 20,000 gallons discharged;173,000 fish killedClean WaterAction Alliance(1998)8/96 Four-Mile Creek, NE Swine operation 300-500 bullhead, 100 carp, 100cyprinids killedLagoon dischargeNebraskaDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality (1996)6/95 Scholz Pond, NE Swine operation 96 fish killed Land application andpipeline break;$13.25 direct cost+ $1,000 fineNebraskaDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality (1995b)3/95 Swan Creek, NE Swine operation Fish kill $971.66 direct cost+ $10,000 fineNebraskaDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality (1995a)EXHIBIT 4-18Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Swine OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference6/21/95 New River, NC Swine operation 25 million gallons discharged;3,000-4,000 fish killed$6,200 direct cost+ $92,000 fineMeadows(1995); Warrick(1995b)6/1/95 Onslow County, NC 10,000 head swine operation 25 million gallons discharged;3,000-4,000 fish killed$110,000 fine, including$6,200 for fish kill and$92,000 in civil penaltiesNRDC (1995);Warrick(1995b)

### EXHIBIT 4-19

Docu m ented Discharges fro m Poultry Operations to Surface Waters

Date Location S o u rce Descri p tio n of Eve n t Co m m e n ts Refere n ce

9/5/95 East Branch Bea v erda m C ree k

, IA P o ultr y o perati o n 9,002 fish k illed $839 direct c o st + $500 fine I owa Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1998)

10/1/91 Deep Run, MD P o ultr y o perati o n 10,000 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

3/97 Grant C o unt y , MN 2,000 chic k en p o ultry

o perati o n Pu m ped waste int o wetland C l e an W at e r A cti o n Allianc e (1998)

7/1/95 Duplin, NC 75,000 chic k en

o perati o n 8.6 m illi o n g all o ns dischar g ed;

fish k ill resulted NRDC (1995)

02/04/97 T ributar yt o T o wn Run, OH P o ultr y m anure Manure spread o n fr o zen fields,

f o ll o wed b y rainfall Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)

10/22/96 Dahlin g haus Ditch, OH Chic k en m anure Manure entered field tiles and into

stream Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)

10/10/96 Dahlin g haus Ditch, OH Chic k en m anure Manure entered field tiles and into

stream Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)

07/15/96 T ributar yt o Bea v er Cree k , OH Chic k en m anure Manure enterin g strea m fr o m field

tile Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)

07/10/96 Dahlin g haus Ditch, OH Chic k en m anure Run o ff fr o m field applicati o n o f

m anure Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)

06/24/96 Little Chippewa Cree k and

T ributar y , OH Chic k en m anure Manure run o ff int o ditch fr o m farm (retenti o n p o nd o v erfl o w) Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)

03/20/95 Little Chippewa Creek Chic k en m anure Chic k en m anure p o ssibl ydu m ped

int o field tile Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)

12/03/94 Kraut Cree k , OH Chic k en m anure Manure entered field tile Accidental re m o v al o f plan k all o wed m anure to
enter tile Oh i o Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1997)EXHIBIT 4-19Documented Discharges from Poultry Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference9/13/94 Stillwater River, OH Chicken manure Manure entered tile, then streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)05/09/93 Henry Ditch, OH Chicken manure Approximately 4 milesaffected in IndianaOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/14/92 Mississinewa River, OH Chicken manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)11/03/91 Sugar Creek, OH Chicken manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/13/90 Tributary to Blanchard River,OHChicken manure Runoff from fields into creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)11/02/87 Powderlick Run, OH Chicken manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-20Documented Human Health Related Impacts from Poultry OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference1982 Sussex County, DE Poultry operations Nitrate levels greater than 10 mg/L in32 percent of wellsChapman(1996)FL Poultry operations Nitrate levels greater than 10 mg/L inone-third of wellsChapman(1996)EXHIBIT 4-21Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Poultry OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference1997 Chesapeake Bay Poultry operations 30,000 fish killedPfiesteria piscicidaoutbreakU.S. Senate(1997)DE Poultry industry Eutrophication, fish kills and redtideNot clear how much toattribute to poultry wasteDelaware’sCenter for theInland Bays(1995)8/97 Pokomoke River, MD Poultry operations20,000-30,000 fish killedPfiesteria piscicidaoutbreak; 13 humans alsoaffectedShields (1997)6/20/95 Kings Creek, MD Poultry operations Fish killPfiesteria piscicidaoutbreakShields andMeyer (1997)6/19/95 MD Poultry Extensive fish kill in theChesapeake BayPfiesteria piscicidaoutbreakNew YorkTimes (1997)Double Pipe Creek, MD Poultry (700,000 chickens) High fecal coliform counts Threatens water supply aswell as aquatic life andrecreationGale et al.(1993)1998 Tulsa, OK Poultry (82.5 millionchickens in the watershed)Excessive algal growth in LakeEucha; impacts on drinking watertaste and odorTulsa spends $100,000 peryear to address taste andodor problems in thedrinking waterLassek (1998);Lassek (1997)9/5/95 East Branch Beaverdam Creek,IAPoultry operation 9,002 fish killed $839 direct cost+ $500 fineIowaDepartment ofNaturalResources(1998)10/1/91 Deep Run, MD Poultry operation 10,000 fish killedMarylandDepartment oftheEnvironment(1987)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference3/1/98 Olmsted, MN Dairy feedlot 125,000 gallons discharged Contaminated local wellsClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)7/97 Lyon County, MN 250 head cattle operation runoffClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)5/97 Wabasha County, MN Dairy operation 16,500 minnows and whitesuckers killedFish kill caused by ammonia.Clean WaterActionAlliance(1998)4/97 Lyon County, MN 800 head cattle operation Open lot runoffClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)3/97 LeSueur County, MN 1,960 head cattle operation Overapplication and runoffClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)3/97 Lyon County, MN 1,000 head cattle operation Open lot runoffClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)8/96 Nicollet County, MN 1,400 head cattle operation Overapplication and runoffClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)6/96 Clay County, MN 500 head cattle operation Multiple runoff culverts to riverClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)4/96 Crow Wing, MN 100 head dairy operation Stockpile runoffClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference4/96 Houston County, MN 1,500 head cattle operation Overflowing basinClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)11/95 Morrison County, MN 100 head cattle operation Runoff to riverClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)11/95 Olmsted County, MN 10,000 head cattle operation Multiple runoff concernsClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)5/95 Slayton Township, MN Steer operation Runoff into a tributary of BeaverCreekClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)3/95 Lyon County, MN 400 head cattle operation Tile inlet in feedlotClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)3/95 Lyon County, MN 2,000 head cattle operation Runoff and unpermittedconstructionClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)4/94 LeSueur County, MN 1,000 head cattle operation Multiple runoff concernsClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)4/94 Redwood County, MN 750 head cattle operation Unpermitted basin and dischargeClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)1985 - 1994 Tyrone Township, MN 950 steer cattle operation Various problems, includingmassive runoffClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference1/92 Green Isle Township, MN Dairy operation 225,000 gallons of manurepumped onto a field in 5 hours,flowed through a drainage tileinto Curran LakeClean WaterActionAlliance(1998)5/19/97 Tributary to Chickasaw Creek,OHCattle manure Manure from cattle yarddischarged to stream via tileOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)3/25/97 Prairie Outlet, OH Cattle manure Manure leached from holdingponds into creekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)2/4/97 Tributary to Little Scioto River(RM 23.66), OHCattle manure Manure spray gun malfunctionedand flooded fieldOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)11/13/96 Scherman Ditch, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)10/27/96 Little Tymochtee Creek, OH Cattle manure Manure leaking from pit at dairyoperationOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)9/30/96 Tributary to Coldwater Creek,OHCattle manure Manure spread on fields ran intocreekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference9/25/96 Tributary to Chickasaw Creek,OHCattle manure Runoff from cattle feedlot intofield tile into creekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/13/96 Blacklick Creek, OH Cattle manure Manure sprayed on field ran intotile drainOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)7/15/96 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)6/20/96 Threemile Creek, OH Cattle manure Runoff from field application ofmanureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)5/23/96 Tributary to Pymatining Creek(RM 23.95), OHCattle manure Runoff after spreading manure OhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)5/22/96 Little Bear Creek, OH Cattle manure 300,000 gallons of manure spreadon fields, washed into creekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)5/16/96 Tributary to Red Run, OH Cattle manure Manure spread directly intoseveral ditchesOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference3/29/96 Tributary to Little Short Creek,OHCattle manure Manure pumped into ravine andinto streamOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)2/21/96 East Branch Sugar Creek, OH Cattle manure No fish kill; unsure if pollutantsentered streamOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)1/9/96 Tributary to East Fork WhiteEyes Creek, OHCattle manure No fish kill; unsure if pollutantsentered streamOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)9/1/95 Indian Creek, OH Cattle manure 600,000 - 800,000 gallonspumped onto 40 acresOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/20/95 Montezuma Creek, OH Cattle manure Sprinkling system to cool animalscreated excess runoffOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/19/95 Tributary to Anderson Fork,OHCattle manure Tractor got stuck; manure tankemptied; rain washed manure intocreekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)7/10/95 East Fork White Eyes Creek,OHCattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference5/3/95 Tributary to Killbuck Creek,OHCattle manure Periodic discharges of manure tostreamOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)5/3/95 Sugar Creek, OH Cattle manure Broken pipe at pit, manure flowinto tile and then creekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)12/5/94 Big Run, OH Cattle manure Runoff from pasture and feedlots OhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)6/16/94 Harmon Brook, OH Cattle manure Crack in lagoon led to manureleakOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)12/15/93 Tributary to Grand Lake St.Mary’s, OHCattle manure Manure in ditch and tile leadingto streamOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/20/93 Stony Creek, OH Cattle manure Runoff from feedlot enteredcreekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/11/93 Middle Fork Sugar Creek, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference7/12/92 Tributary to Black ForkMohican River, OHCattle manure Drainage from manure pitthrough field tile to creekOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)4/18/91 Tributary to Little Scioto River,OHCattle manure Manure liquids ran off farm intoditchOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)2/20/91 Mohican River, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/20/90 Olentangy River, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/18/90 Tributary to Cowan Creek, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/16/90 Schenck Creek, OH Cattle manure Manure pit overflowed into ditch OhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)6/16/90 Clear Creek, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-22Documented Discharges from Beef and Dairy Operations to Surface WatersDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference8/12/89 North Fork of Deer Creek, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)6/29/89 Painter Run, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)8/2/88 Tributary to Red Run, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)5/2/87 Big Run, OH Cattle manureOhioDepartmentof NaturalResources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-23Documented Human Health Related Impacts from Beef and Dairy OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments ReferenceWI Dairy operation Contamination of surface waters;ear and skin infections, as well asintestinal illnesses common toswimmers in manurecontaminated waterwaysBehm (1989)Door County, WI Dairy operations Well contamination State will spend $3 millionto protect Door Countyground water.Families have had to drillnew wells.Behm (1989)EXHIBIT 4-24Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Beef and Dairy OperationsDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments ReferenceTaylor Creek, FL Dairy and beef operations Eutrophication of LakeOkeechobeeGale et al.(1993)Tillamook Bay, OR Dairy operations High fecal coliform levels in thewaters of the BayAffecting tourism andoyster industries. May becausing health hazards aswell.Gale et al.(1993)6/18/95 Waco, TX Dairy operations, as well asurban runoff and cropfertilizationAn algal bloom of Anabaena,which caused a foul-smelling and-tasting chemical in watersuppliesWallace (1997)6/16/95 Erath, TX Dairy operations Total N and P above screeninglevels in Upper North BosqueRiverPratt et al.(1997)1991 Tierra Blanca Creek, TX Cattle operations Elevated sediment concentrationsof copper and zinc; elevatedaqueous concentrations ofammonia, chemical oxygendemand, chlorophylla, coliformbacteria, chloride, conductivity,total Kjeldahl nitrogen, andvolatile suspended solidsRelative contribution fromvarious sources (e.g.,runoff, lagoon discharges,leachate) was not assessedUSFWS (1991)Eau Claire, WI Dairy operations Swimming and water skiing areprohibited in Tainter Lakebecause of bacterialcontaminationSedimentation fromdevelopment and croprunoff also causingproblemsBehm (1989)Osh Kosh, WI Dairy operations, as well asdevelopmentAlgal blooms in Lake Winnebago Lake Winnebagorepresents 17% of thestate’s water surface. Cityof Osh Kosh spends$30,000 a year to killalgae.Behm (1989)Black Earth Creek Watershed,WIDairy operations EutrophicationUSGAO(1995a)5/97 Wabasha County, MN Dairy operation 16,500 minnows and whitesuckers killedFish kill caused byammonia.USGAO(1995a)

### EXHIBIT 4-25

Docu m ented Discharges to Surface Waters fro m Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Ani m al Types

Date Location S o u rce Descri p tio n of Eve n t Co m m e n ts Refere n ce

7/1/95 Fa y ette, IA 16,000 g all o ns dischar g ed;

584 s m all m o uth bass, 22,011

m inn o ws/ shiners k illed NRDC (1995)

7/1/95 H o ward, IA 110 blac k bullheads, 16,000

m inn o ws k illed NRDC (1995)

3/92 Ha m ilton Count y , IA Swine, turke y , and dairy

o perati o n Fish k ill $1,000 fine I owa Depa r t ment of

Natural R e s o urc e s (1998)

7/11/95 T uscar o ra Cree k , MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) 1,000 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

7/26/94 T o m s Run, MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) 1,500 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

6/22/90 W a g ra m Cree k , MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) 19,000 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

9/24/87 Far m P o nd, MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) 1,000 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

3/30/87 M o r g an Cree k , MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) 2,500 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

7/30/86 Liitle Pipe Cree k , MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) 150 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

7/15/86 Cabba g e Run, MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) 175 fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)

9/30/85 Deep Run, MD Manure (ani m al

t y pe un k n o wn) Hundreds o f fish k illed Mar y land

D e partm e nt o f the

En v ir o nm e nt (1987)EXHIBIT 4-25Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference9/29/85 Jennings Run, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)3,900 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)8/10/85 Deer Creek, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)100,000 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)1994 Belle River, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill Overflow and misapplication ofmanure.$5,150 direct cost+ $5,000 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality1994 Macon Creek, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill Euipment failure caused manuredischarge.$1,330 direct cost+ $5,000 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality1994 Salt River, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill Over-application of manure to field,causing runoff.$20,000 direct cost+ $2,500 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality1993 Crockery Creek, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)$1,650 enforcement costs+$2,500 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality1993 Deer Creek tributary, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)$4,000 enforcement costs+ $20,000 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality2/98 Lake Wagonga, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Manure-contaminated runoffdischarged to lakeClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)1/98 Nokasippi, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Manure-contaminated runoff(from feedlot and stockpile)discharged to riverFailed to notify authorities, madeno attempt to abate or recoverdischargeClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)9/97 Blue Earth River, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill of 6,626 catfish,small-mouth bass, rock bass,white bass, and minnowsClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)EXHIBIT 4-25Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference8/97 Hay Creek, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill of 6,000 brown troutand white suckers.Clean Water ActionAlliance (1998)8/97 Speltz Creek, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)300 gallons discharged;130 minnows killedClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)6/97 Roseau County, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Manure discharge Discharge from un-permitted tank,caused by improper constructionand pump failure.Clean Water ActionAlliance (1998)1996 Mankato, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Drained manure intoWatonwan and Blue EarthRiversClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)8/95 - 9/95 Larkin Township, MN Various animals 3 weeks worth of overflowfrom lagoon through trenchand into Kanaranzi CreekClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)7/95 - 8/95 Drammen Township, MN Manure (animal typeunknown)Overflow of pits which drainedinto a ditch;19,641 fish killed in MedaryCreekClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)1994 Nicollet County, MN Manure (animal typeunknown)Constant diversion of manureinto streams from unknownfacilitiesClean Water ActionAlliance (1998)6/96 Lost Creek, NE Unclear if swine or cattle 2,120 fish killed $1,079.50 direct cost;fine was pendingNebraskaDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality (1996)10/28/96 Apple Ditch, OH Manure Manure coming from field tileOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/18/96 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/31/96 Montezuma Creek, OH Cattle and swine manure Manure entered stream fromfield tileOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-25Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference7/7/96 Cedar Fork, OH Manure Hose sprung leak and manurespread onto ground and intotileOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/05/96 Wabash River, OH Manure Manure runoff from milkhouseinto field tileOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/04/96 Wabash River, OH Cattle and swine manure Runoff from field applicationof manureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)06/17/96 East Fork Vermilion River, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)10/26/95 Tributary to Mile Creek (RM4.15), OHManure Liquid manure applied tooheavilyOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/03/95 Tributary to Poplar Creek, OH Manure Accidental manure spillOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/24/95 Martins Creek, OH Manure and milk products Manure and milk washed intodrains into creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/05/95 Rock Creek, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)04/22/95 Newman Creek, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)03/27/95 Kiber Run, OH Cattle and swine manure Runoff from spraying fieldsran into field tilesOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)10/16/94 Prairie Creek, OH Manure Irrigated manure entered tileinto creekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/29/94 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH Cattle and swine manure Crack in holding pit into tileOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-25Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference7/17/94 Black Run, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/08/93 Little Beaver Creek, OH Milkhouse wastewater andmanureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/09/92 Subtributary to Pawpaw Creek,OHCattle and swine manure Possible runoff from feedlotsOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/18/92 Tributary to Coldwater Creek,OHManure Manure applied to field enteredcreekOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/08/92 Little Miami River, OH Manure Runoff and leachate intostreamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)04/29/91 Tributary to Bear Creek, OH Manure Manure entered field tile andinto streamOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)03/02/91 Middle Fork Little BeaverCreek, OHManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)07/30/90 Sycamore Creek, OH Manure and householdwastesOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)11/09/89 Tributary to Beaver Creek, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/19/89 Tributary to Jerome Fork, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)08/07/89 Elkhorn Creek, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)10/20/88 Indian Creek, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-25Documented Discharges to Surface Waters from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Description of Event Comments Reference9/27/87 Big Run, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)09/18/87 Spring Creek, OH ManureOhio Department ofNatural Resources(1997)EXHIBIT 4-26Documented Human Health-Related Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference3/1/91 Des Moines, IA Animal waste, as well asfertilizersContamination of drinking waterwith nitrateWaterworks will spend$5 million on a nitrateremoval systemHubert (1991)6/15/95 Wichita, KS Nutrients from farm runoff,including animal manureContamination of drinking watersupplySome algal strains growingin the reservoir are thoughtto produce a liver toxinlinked to stomach flu.Wichita is installing aspecial filtering mechanismwhich will cost $1 millionper year to operateHays (1993)WI Varied (including AFOs) WI DNR estimates that 10% ofthe state’s 700,000 wells exceedhealth standardsMajor pollutant sourcesinclude CAFOs,development, crop farms,and ski slopes.Behm (1989)EXHIBIT 4-27Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments ReferenceAppoquinimink River, DE Poultry, dairy, and beef Eutrophication Fish kills and hinderedboatingGale et al. (1993)GA, AL, FL Animal waste Excess nutrients in theApalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint watershedUSGS (1996)6/15/95 KS Feedlots, as well as farms Eutrophication in Arkansas River 37 species of fish are indangerHays (1993)1995 NC Livestock waste 8-fold increase in ammoniaemissionsContributes toeutrophication viaatmospheric deposition.Leavenworth(1995b)Tar-Pamlico River Basin, NC Eutrophication resulting in dieoff of benthic life and toxicdinoflagellate growthWinter algal bloomsoccur regularly. Shellfishbeds have been closedbecause of fecal coliform.North CarolinaDivision ofEnvironmentalManagement(1995); USGAO(1995a)Nansemond-Chuckatuckwatershed, VA448,000 chickens 24,000swine, 2724 beef cows, 125dairy cowsEutrophication andcontamination with fecalcoliformMajor source is runofffrom agricultural areas.Shellfish areas have beenclosed.Gale et al. (1993)WI Excessive nutrients 90% decline in bass populationin one yearBehm (1989)7/1/95 Fayette, IA 16,000 gallons discharged;584 smallmouth bass, 22,011minnows/ shiners killedNRDC (1995)7/1/95 Howard, IA 110 black bullheads, 16,000minnows killedNRDC (1995)3/92 Hamilton County, IA Swine, turkey, and dairyoperationFish kill $1,000 fineIowa Department ofNatural Resources(1998)7/11/95 Tuscarora Creek, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)1,000 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)EXHIBIT 4-27Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference7/26/94 Toms Run, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)1,500 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)6/22/90 Wagram Creek, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)19,000 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)9/24/87 Farm Pond, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)1,000 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)3/30/87 Morgan Creek, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)2,500 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)7/30/86 Liitle Pipe Creek, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)150 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)7/15/86 Cabbage Run, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)175 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)9/30/85 Deep Run, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)Hundreds of fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)9/29/85 Jennings Run, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)3,900 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)8/10/85 Deer Creek, MD Manure (animaltype unknown)100,000 fish killedMarylandDepartment of theEnvironment (1987)1994 Belle River, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill Overflow andmisapplication of manure.$5,150 direct cost+ $5,000 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality1994 Macon Creek, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill Equipment failure causedmanure discharge.$1,330 direct cost+ $5,000 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQualityEXHIBIT 4-27Documented Ecological, Recreational, and Other Impacts from Operations with Unspecified or Multiple Animal TypesDate Location Source Environmental Impact Comments Reference1994 Salt River, MI Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill Over-application ofmanure to field, causingrunoff.$20,000 direct cost+ $2,500 fineMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality9/97 Blue Earth River, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill of 6,626 catfish, smallmouth bass, rock bass, whitebass, and minnowsMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality8/97 Hay Creek, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)Fish kill of 6,000 brown troutand white suckers.MichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality8/97 Speltz Creek, MN Manure (animaltype unknown)300 gallons discharged;130 minnows killedMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality7/95 - 8/95 Drammen Township, MN Manure (animal typeunknown)Overflow of pits which drainedinto a ditch;19,641 fish killed in MedaryCreekMichiganDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality6/96 Lost Creek, NE Unclear if swine or cattle 2,120 fish killed $1,079.50 direct cost;fine was pendingNebraskaDepartment ofEnvironmentalQuality (1996)

### 4

- 61 

### 4.4. 1 Lake Eucha

L ake Eucha is located in the L ower Neosho Watershed in northeast Oklahoma. I t is a major drinking water source for the cit y of Tulsa. L ake Eucha was included on the Oklahoma L ist of

I mpaired Waters for 1998 as a result of nutrients. Recentl y , there have been taste and odor problems in Tulsa’s drinking water due to accelerated eutrophication ( L assek, 1998a; Front, 2000; Ke y worth et al., 2000).

Officials estimate that appro x imatel y 750 chicken houses are located within the lake’s watershed, each containing about 110,000 birds ( L assek, 1998b). I n the L ake Eucha basin, a popular method of fertilizing permanent pasture is the surface application of poultr y litter. L itter is highly effective, due to its high content of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) and organic matter. However, if not properl y managed, these nutrients could reach surface water and cause eutrophication and consequentl y , algae blooms (Neal and Storm, 1999).

Detailed monitoring of L ake Eucha in 1997 showed that the algae balance was t ypical of eutrophic lakes. I n addition, although the lake was free of harmful bacteria (an indicator of possible impacts from animal waste), e x cessive bacteria were found in the tributaries. This

stud y , b y the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, linked phosphorus from poultr y waste runoff

to e x cessive algae growth in the lake (Wagner and Woodruff, 1997; L assek, 1998a). The algae causes taste and odor problems in the water, costing Tulsa thousands of dollars for treatment ( L assek, 1998a; Front, 2000).

The Oklahoma legislature has announced that drinking water contamination due to CAFOs is a priorit y issue to be addressed. Studies are being conducted at Oklahoma State Universit y and

Texas A&M Universit y to determine limitin g nutrients in L ake Eucha tributaries. These studies

will be used in combination with other on g oin g research to develop a total maximum dail y load (TMD L ) for L ake Eucha (Ke y worth et al., 2000). I n addition, the cit y of Tulsa is working to design a land conservation plan to address the problem (Front, 2000). Tulsa has also begun to

bu y land around L ake Eucha in an effort to create a buffer zone for the cit y ’s drinking water suppl y ( L assek, 1998b).

4.4. 2 The Chino Basin

The Santa Ana River watershed has the highest densit y of dair y cows in the nation, averaging 25- 30 cows per acre. Currentl y , 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 qualit y is enormous. The 1998 California 303(d) L ist and Total Maximum Dail y L oad (TMD L ) Priority

Schedule issued b y 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, salinit y , 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 dair y waste. The Santa Ana River and the ground water basin it recharges suppl y over 2 million residents with appro x imatel y 75 percent of their water. The impact of large-scale dairies on recharge water qualit y is a critical issue in protecting Orange

### 4

- 62 

### Count y ’s primar y drinking water suppl y . The Orange Count y Water District (OCWD), along with other concerned water agencies, has dedicated considerable resources to remove salts and nitrates from the Orange Count y ground water basin in order to improve the qualit y of water. Projects completed or in the construction phase that are directed at the removal of salts and

nitrates include:

C Santa Ana River I nterceptor (SAR I ) - $100 million

C SAR I Extension to L ake Elsinore - $25 million

C Arlington Desalter (Riverside) - $13.5 million

C Water Factor y 21 (Fountain Valle y ) - $20 million

C Chino Desalter - $39 million

C 7 th 

### Street Desalter (Tustin) - $7 million

C Prospect Desalter (Tustin) - $3 million

C Garden Grove Nitrate Reduction - $2 million

Efforts are currentl y underwa y at OCWD on two additional projects aimed at reduction of salts and nitrates. The proposed Ground Water Replenishment S y stem (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 significantl y lower the basin’s salt

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

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

4.4.3 Lake Waco and the Bosque River Watershed

L ake Waco is located in the Bosque River watershed in Te x as. I t is the public water suppl y for

the cit y of Waco and several adjoining communities. I n 1996, 23 river or lake segments caused concern or possible concern for six different criteria, including over 40 percent (19 instances)

caused b y nutrients (Te x as Office of Water Resource Management, 1997). I n 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 e x cessive 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 occasionall y , bacteria (TNRCC, 2000a). The

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

densit y (T I AER, 1998).

The Upper North Bosque River (Segment 1255) is located in Erath Count y . Erath Count y is home to a large dair y industr y , which has become increasingl y concentrated over the last few

decades. These dair y operations produce over 1.5 million tons of waste per y ear (PEER, 2000). A judge in upstream Erath Count y requested a waste management stud y for the count y ’s dairy

industr y , which generates over 1 million cubic y ards of dr y -state dair y manure per y ear. The application of dair y waste to fields resulted in non-point nutrient runoff into the Bosque River during storm events, resulting in degraded water qualit y (Brazos River Authorit y , 1998). The

state of Te x as has a TMD L goal of reducing annual average soluble phosphorus loading b y about 50 percent. The draft TMD L for the North Bosque River is due to be published this fall (TNRCC, 2000a).

### 4

- 63 

### I n public comment on the 2000 Te x as Clean Water Act Section 303(d) L ist, a representative of the National Wildlife Federation contended that there were taste and odor problems in L ake Waco and that these are due to algae. The Te x as Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) response to the comment notes that the TMD L currentl y being developed for the North Bosque River is e x pected to significantl y reduce nutrient loading to L ake Waco. This may address the periodic taste and odor problem in L ake Waco if it is caused b y algae (TNRCC, 2000b).

4.5 CASE STUDY SUMMARY

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

Summar y : 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 5-1Anticipated Benefits of the CAFO Proposed RegulationsCategory Benefit Origin of Impact Population/Resources Affected NotesHumanHealthReduced risk ofmethemoglobinemia (“bluebaby syndrome”)Nitrates in drinkingwater in excess ofthe MCL (MaximumContaminant Level)of 10 mg/LPrimarily infants drinking water nottreated by public treatment facilities(private rural wells; ground water ismore susceptible than surface water)Nitrate is extremely mobile in the environment,and nitrate contamination of ground water is awell-recognized historical problem in theagricultural community. According to the EPA’sNational Survey of Pesticides in Drinking WaterWells(1990), nitrate is the most widespreadagricultural contaminant in drinking water wells.The EPA estimates that 4.5 million people areexposed to nitrate levels in excess of the MCL.HumanHealthAvoided illness frompathogenic organisms (e.g.,gastrointestinal illness;infections of the skin, eye,ear, nose, or throat)Pathogens indrinking andrecreational watersPeople drinking or swimming incontaminated water. Surface waters,and ground waters in sandy orfractured soils, are most susceptible tocontamination.Over 150 pathogens in manure are linked tohuman risk (e.g.,Salmonella,Cryptosporidiumparvum,Giardia lamblia,Escherichia coli).A U.S. General Accounting Office study (1997)of bacterial contamination of ground water overa four-year period found contamination in 3 to 6percent of community water systems each year,and 15 to 42 percent of private wells.Drinking water disinfection does not eliminatethe need for source water protection; sourcewater protection is an integral part of themultiple barrier approach to drinking watertreatment. Drinking water disinfection also doesnot address recreational risks.HumanHealthAvoided 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 5-1Anticipated Benefits of the CAFO Proposed RegulationsCategory Benefit Origin of Impact Population/Resources Affected NotesEcological,RecreationalAvoided fish kills and otherenvironmental damage (e.g.,fish and wildlife disease,clogged fish gills, benthichabitat destruction,eutrophication) due todischarges of waste directlyto surface waterBOD, ammonia,pathogens, solids,nutrientsSurface waters, aquatic organisms,waterfowl, people using the water forrecreationStates have documented hundreds of cases ofdischarges from CAFOs, resulting in the death ofmillions of fish, over the past decade.Discharges directly to surface water areprohibited by the existing effluent guidelinesexcept in the event of the 25-year, 24-hourstorm, but implementation of the guidelines hasbeen problematic. The proposed regulations arelikely to call attention to the problem of suchdischarges and result in improvedimplementation. The proposed regulations alsoexpand the scope of regulatory coverage andestablish operation and maintenancerequirements for storage lagoons to reduce thelikelihood of discharge.Ecological,RecreationalReduced contribution toeutrophication effects(harmful algae blooms,decreased dissolved oxygen,fish kills, reducedbiodiversity, reducedabundance of desirableaquatic plants) due to runofffrom land application sitesNutrients Surface waters, aquatic organisms,people using the water for recreationThe EPA’sNational Water Quality Inventory(1997) indicates that nutrients are the leadingcause of impairment of U.S. lakes and rivers andare the fifth leading cause of impairment of U.S.estuaries.Ecological,RecreationalReduced contribution toenvironmental damage dueto runoff of other (nonnutrient) pollutants from landapplication sitesBOD, pathogens,solids, salts, metalsSurface waters, aquatic organisms,waterfowl, people using the water forrecreationThe proposed regulations’ CNMP requirementfocuses on nutrients but would also incidentallyaddress other pollutants.EXHIBIT 5-1Anticipated Benefits of the CAFO Proposed RegulationsCategory Benefit Origin of Impact Population/Resources Affected NotesCommercial Reduced damage tocommercial fishing andshellfish industriesNutrients, BOD,pathogens, solidsCommercial fishing and shellfishindustriesThe National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (1995) reported that feedlotswere a potential or actual contributor to theimpairment of 110 shellfish beds (3 percent of allimpaired shellfish areas).Outbreaks ofPfiesteriahave directly impactedmenhaden (a commercially harvested fish), andindirectly impacted the commercial fishingindustry as a whole. Nutrient enrichment is oneof several factors that affect growth ofPfiesteria.Reduction in submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV) due to excessive algae and suspendedsolids is a significant impact because SAVserves as critical habitat for juvenile fish andcrabs.The proposed regulations’ CNMP requirementfocuses on nutrients but would also incidentallyaddress other pollutants.Other Avoided costs associatedwith treatment orreplacement of nitratecontaminated ground waterNitrates in drinkingwater in excess ofthe MCL of 10 mg/LPublic and private drinking watersources (ground water is generallymore susceptible than surface water)By implementing the proposed regulations, thefollowing treatments may be avoided: privatewell owners needing to drill deeper wells toreach uncontaminated ground water or purchasebottled water, and public water suppliers needingto obtain an uncontaminated source or treat thewater to meet the MCL.Other Avoided costs associatedwith treatment to removealgae, odors, and disinfectionbyproducts from drinkingwaterAlgae growthstimulated bynutrientsDrinking water sources (surfacewater)Implementing the proposed regulations maydecrease the amount of disinfection byproducts(e.g., trihalomethanes) in drinking water thatexceed the MCL. Disinfection byproducts arecaused by chlorination of organic matter. Theguidelines would also decrease additional oralternative treatment required to avoid or removeexcess 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 (H 2 

### S) levels recorded throughout the production and storage areas were considerably less than the conventional wash down system. H 2 

### S 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, H 2 

### S 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 thefollowing 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-CampingCreek 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 32 

### PO 4 

### 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.)