NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule 

Analysis E: Annual Compliance 

Certifications

13 September 2010

DCN 0021
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 3

2.0 INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATIONS ................................... 10

3.0 ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITES ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATIONS .............................. 16

4.0 CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFOS) COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATIONS . 24
3

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 Background

On 15 October 2009, the Agency issued the Clean Water Act Action Plan which sets 

forth a series of commitments by the Agency to revamp its NPDES enforcement program.1 A 

major commitment from the Action Plan is to improve management and performance of the 

NPDES program by requiring electronic reporting of NPDES information from regulated 

facilities. EPA is developing a rulemaking, NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (RIN: 2020-

AA47), to solicit input and formalize the requirements for electronic reporting. Electronic 

reporting will likely reduce the burden for facilities to report to regulatory agencies and for states 

to report to EPA. Expected benefits include lower processing costs for facilities and states, 

improved data quality and accuracy, greater data accessibility and transparency for the public, 

and an increased ability to target and address noncompliance that will improve and protect water 

quality.

Compliance for most NPDES program components is not solely based on the submission 

of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). NPDES program compliance is also assessed by 

inspections and the state or EPA Region’s review of periodic or incident based reports from 

permittees. These non-DMR reports (also known as “program reports”) are required under 

EPA’s regulations and they provide an update to program implementation items beyond what is 

included in the permit application or permit issuance process. Separate rulemaking analyses 

focus on converting DMR and program reports from paper-based to electronic reporting (see

“Analysis A” and “Analysis F,” respectively). 

This document focuses on potential new annual compliance certifications to supplement 

DMRs and program reports. When entities recognize that: (1) neither EPA nor the states will 

likely conduct inspections at their facilities; (2) no requirements exist for the facilities to monitor 

and report their compliance status to regulatory agencies; and (3) neither EPA nor the states will 

likely initiate enforcement actions against their facilities, deterrence theory and empirical 

evidence suggests a low potential for compliance-enhancing deterrent impacts.2In order to 

enhance CWA compliance and direct government inspection and enforcement resources towards 

the facilities and sectors experiencing the most severe CWA noncompliance, EPA examined 

whether it should create new electronic-based annual compliance certifications to supplement 

DMRs and program reports. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule EPA opted to 

not create any new reporting requirements.

The first step is to identify where EPA might want to create new or improved electronic 

compliance certifications. This document identifies the following list of potential new electronicbased annual compliance certifications:

 

1 These commitments are documented in the 8 November 2009, “Implementation Approach for the CWA 

Enforcement Action Plan”. This document and other key CWA Enforcement Action Plan documents are available at 

EPA’s Online Tracking Information System (OTIS). [Available at: http://www.epa-otis.gov/].

2 U.S. EPA, 2010. “Proposal For Expanding NPDES Self-Monitoring, Certification And Electronic Reporting 

Requirements ” September 3rd.
4

 Section 2.0: Facilities regulated by master general permits (sector based general permits 

and industrial stormwater monitoring) that do not require DMRs or other compliance 

certifications. Initial estimates are that this might be 10% of the facilities regulated by

master general permits.

 Section 3.0: Active construction sites that are regulated by the recently promulgated 

effluent limitations guidelines.

 Section 4.0: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that are not required to 

submit DMRs or other compliance certifications. 

This analysis builds off of existing certification-like requirements (e.g., biosolids certifications 

regarding vector attraction reduction, annual noncompliance report required from vessels) as 

these existing requirements provide model language and for the above three new annual 

compliance certifications. This analysis also builds off of the work done in support of the Clean 

Water Action Plan.

1.2 Potential Design Principles for Successful Annual Compliance Certifications

The following ten design principles that will likely lead to successful application of new 

annual compliance certifications.3These principles should guide the identification regulated 

sectors and facilities that are good candidates for new electronic-based annual compliance 

certifications. These principles can also guide the development of the tools for electronic 

reporting (e.g., user interface requirements, frequency of reporting, types of data that aid in 

compliance determinations). These principles also identify that public reporting of this annual 

compliance data enhances deterrence and accountability among regulated entities. 

1. Establish clear and objective criteria: In certification programs, the substantive 

requirements against which regulators or organizations determine compliance must be 

sufficiently clear and objective to allow regulated entities and certifiers to consistently

and accurately apply the criteria and ascertain compliance.

2. Require specific, fact-based certifications: Regulated entities should certify that the meet 

specific conditions, as opposed to merely signing general compliance statements.

3. Provide technical assistance to regulated entities: Regulated entities must know and 

understand the applicable regulations and standards, including when and how these 

criteria apply to their particular operations.

4. Use uniform monitoring and certification forms and test standards: Forms containing 

consistent, objective assessment criteria advance industry compliance with certification 

programs and promote effective compliance evaluations by regulators across facilities.

5. Ensure competent and responsible certifiers: Certifiers must maintain specified 

credentials, meet particularized competence criteria, and operate independently from their 

clients.

 

3 U.S. EPA, 2010. “Proposal For Expanding NPDES Self-Monitoring, Certification And Electronic Reporting 

Requirements ” September 3rd. 
5

6. Employ effective and efficient electronic reporting systems: Reporting systems should be 

inexpensive and user friendly for regulated entities. Electronic reporting encourages 

programmatic compliance and timely submission of reports, while also improving data 

quality.

7. Maintain a formal inspection and enforcement presence: Regulatory programs that 

provide for random agency inspections, in addition to certification requirements, promote 

increased compliance incentives among regulated entities since the agencies may verify

the entities’ reported information.

8. Promote accurate reporting through personal liability requirements: Certification 

programs that include provisions for civil and/or criminal liability for inaccurate or 

falsified reporting creates increased compliance incentives for regulated entities.

9. Enhance deterrence and accountability through public reporting: Evidence suggests that 

publicly reporting information submitted pursuant to certification programs, through 

avenues such as website posting, enhances deterrence and accountability among 

regulated entities.

10. Structure programs to promote effective measurement and evaluation: Regulators 

employing certification programs must consider, when initiating the program, how to 

effectively define, ascertain, and measure program success through their receipt of the 

requested data and certifications.

1.3 Proposed Tools for Electronic Data Collection

This paper identified two business models for developing new annual compliance 

certifications: (1) Closed Platform Model (EPA Built Tool; and (2) Open Platform Model (Third 

Party Commercial Software Vendors). These represent the user interface for inputting data and 

digitally signing the new annual compliance certifications. These two business models are not 

mutually exclusive and both can be developed to accommodate the different NPDES program 

sectors and the different needs of regulated entities.

Additionally, both models will need to conduct similar tasks in defining how the data 

from the annual compliance certifications will be migrated from the regulated entity into ICISNPDES. The following tasks can be used to support both business models. Both models will 

need to establish the procedures consistent with the Exchange Network that will enable 

permittees to submit their annual compliance certification data with an option to allow state 

addendums. The two models will also need to create an Extensible Markup Language (XML) 

schema for each annual compliance certification that feeds data into ICIS-NPDES. The data 

element crosswalk for each program report should be harmonized with the EPA's Environmental 

Data Standard (EDSC) and Exchange Network. Development of this crosswalk might include the 

following tasks:

 Link data element names with the EDSC to ensure that the data element naming 

and definition are consistent with the EDSC standards.
6

 Link the data elements with the EPA's Shared Schema Components (SCC) to 

select/reuse current SCC to form the building blocks for the XML schema. In 

some cases, there might be a need to extend the current SCCs to accommodate 

new data elements based on the Exchange Network XML schema design 

guidelines.

 Create a XML schema with schema documentation. Create a schema 

conformance report and submit it to the Exchange Network Network Technical 

Group (NTG) to get approval and be adopted as the standard for future data flow 

schema.

These steps will help support both business models and will help prepare EPA Regions 

and states to share annual compliance certification data with EPA via the Centralized Data 

Exchange (CDX).

EPA will also need to develop the Flow Configuration Documents (FCD) for defining 

how EPA Regions, states, and facilities will share annual compliance certification data via the 

Exchange Network node protocols and the CDX. A FCD is intended to define the supported data 

services and processes that are used to exchange information. This document will also identify

entity responsible for reporting each data element and how this data will be transmitted to EPA 

(e.g., web-based submission, network submission, web services) and whether the submissions 

will be from an EPA built electronic collection tool or an open platform (third party commercial 

software vendor tool). This document will also describe any software or information technology 

needed to complete these annual compliance certification. This document will also show how the 

standardized program report data comply with CROMERR.

1.3.1 Closed Platform Model (EPA Built Tool)

This model relies on EPA to build and maintain an electronic reporting tool. This model 

has the benefits of EPA controlling all aspects of electronic data collection and offering this tool 

to regulated entities at no cost. The challenges for this tool would be the costs for EPA to build 

and maintain this tool, market the tool, and provide customer support. EPA’s netDMR is an

example of this type of tool for electronic data collection.4

1.3.2 Open Platform Model (Third Party Commercial Software Vendors)

This model involves partnering with commercial software vendors in order to lower the 

burden for facilities to report annual compliance certification data. The open platform model is 

based on the IRS model for collection and transmission of tax data. See Figure 1-1.

 

4

See http://www.epa.gov/netdmr/
7

Figure 1-1: Schematic of IRS Open Platform Model for Collecting Tax Data

Similar to the IRS system EPA’s open platform ‘e-File’ system would rely on third-party 

commercial software vendors to provide the user interface with the regulated community. EPA’s 

open platform model would also specify how these third-party commercial software vendors 

would share annual compliance certification data with EPA and the states through the Central 

Data Exchange and the Environmental Information Exchange Network.

1.3.3 CROMERR Compliance

EPA will need to ensure that both the closed model (EPA built tools) and open model 

(third party commercial software) includes the appropriate identity-proofing, authentication, and 

encryption standards for demonstrating compliance with Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation (CROMERR). EPA will need to show how the annual compliance certification data 

from the user front end tool will identify the name of the responsible official attesting to the 

accuracy of the submission and how this official is subject to criminal sanctions for misreporting 

or other fraud. 

1.4 Federal and State Examples of Compliance Certifications

There are a variety of ongoing programs that rely on self-monitoring, reporting, and/or 

certification (self and third-party) to assure regulatory compliance and/or participant 

performance.5The selected programs represent a variety of regulatory and voluntary approaches 

to self-monitoring, reporting, and certification. This section focuses on the CWA compliance 

certifications (“program reports”) required by New York State (NYS) Department of 

Environmental Conservation (DEC). These compliance certifications are not new nor are they

submitted electronically. However, the NYSDEC paper-based program reports, required under 

existing Federal and state regulations, do demonstrate the effectiveness of compliance 

certifications and some of the ten design principles described above.

NYSDEC requires five types of permittee compliance self-certifications or “program 

reports” (see related discussions in Analysis F). NYSDEC believes its certification requirements

have increased permittee and industry awareness of their compliance obligations. Because the 

 

5 U.S. EPA, 2010. “Proposal For Expanding NPDES Self-Monitoring, Certification And Electronic Reporting 

Requirements ” September 3rd. Much of this section is taken from this reference.
8

permittees know that NYSDEC is enforcing the reporting requirements, they generally provide 

the required information to NYSDEC in a timely and correct manner. The following list 

includes each type of self-certification and its corresponding approximate volume of 

transactions/year:

1. CAFO General Permit - Annual Compliance Report6- 600/year

2. POTW Annual Flow Management Certification* - 620/year

3. MS4 General Permit Annual Municipal Compliance Certification (MCC) - 500/year

4. CAFO General Permit CNMP Certification** - 600 total

5. CAFO General Permit Annual NMP certification - 600/year

* required by NYS SPDES regulations for POTWs subject to individual permits

** one-time initial plan certification

The NYSDEC considers annual reports for MS4s and CAFOs to be analogous to 

traditional DMRs and treats them similarly from a timeliness standpoint. While some of the 

certifications are one-time requirements (e.g., CAFO has completed its Comprehensive Nutrient 

Management Plan or CNMP) and others are annual (e.g., POTW flow certification), the 

compliance response is the same. Facilities that fail to submit the required certification within 

30 days after the permit due date receive a Notice of Violation (NOV), with an additional 30 

days to submit the certification or face formal enforcement. Failure to comply with the NOV 

results in the issuance of a Short Form Consent Order (SFCO) with penalty. Failure to sign the 

SFCO leads to the filing of a Notice of Hearing/Complaint (NOHC) with an increased penalty. 

The NYSDEC CAFO program has contained self-certification requirements since the 

inaugural 1999 permit. The certification requirement applies to both the CAFO permittee and

the certified CNMP planner to co-certify that the CNMP is in place and being fully 

implemented. NYSDEC used to send letters to CAFOs to remind them to send in annual 

reports, but it discontinued this process once it felt comfortable that the facilities understood this 

requirement. Approximately 600 CAFOs operate in New York, but only about 35 certified 

CNMP planners work in the state. In 1996, NYSDEC established a CAFO work group with 

NYSDAM, NRCS, the Cornell School of Agriculture, environmental groups, agribusiness and 

county soil and water districts to address related implementation issues. According to 

NYSDEC, this communication has helped make the program successful and allows NYSDEC to 

monitor CNMP and CNMP planner quality.

NYSDEC added the POTW flow certification requirement to the NYS SPDES 

regulations in 2003, but the agency did not implement it until 2007. The POTW flow 

certification requires the annual reporting of influent flow and loads against the DEC-approved 

POTW design capacity. If the POTW reaches threshold levels (e.g. annual flow over 95 percent

of design capacity), it must comply with specific compliance schedule items. According to 

NYSDEC, in practice, it has already issued enforcement orders to the majority of the POTWs 

that trigger the threshold levels to address any existing violations.

 

6

 Federal and state-issued NPDES CAFO permits require annual reporting, pursuant to 40 CFR §122.42(e)(4). 

NYSDEC’s systematic approach to the review and evaluation of its Annual Compliance Reports may comprise a 

best practice that EPA could encourage and build on nationally.
9

The MS4 annual report/MCC allows co-reporting by cooperating MS4s. NYSDEC 

achieved efficiencies by changing from a traditional report to a compliance checklist form.

NYSDEC reports that coordination with, and funding of, regional planning councils to work with 

the MS4s in preparing their reports has promoted a high compliance rate. NYSDEC is assessing 

MS4 on-the-ground performance by inspecting the MS4s over the last few years (NYSDEC must 

conduct several additional years of inspections to cover all of the MS4s). Generally, MS4 

performance has been uneven, but improving.

The self-monitoring, reporting, and certification approaches employed by NYSDEC to 

regulate CAFOs, POTWs, and MS4s parallel, in certain respects, how DMR requirements 

operate. In 2008, NYSDEC averaged about 90 late DMRs per month (5 percent SNC for DMR 

nonsubmittal). NYSDEC’s noncompliance rate for DMR submissions and response to 

noncompliance highlight the value, when employing self-certification systems, of responding 

promptly to non-reporting and monitoring the content of submitted reports. Accordingly, in 

2008, NYSDEC broke the annual report review process into two steps. First, DEC began 

ensuring that permittees submit the reports and started responding to any non-submissions in a 

streamlined fashion with the issuance of NOVs. Second, DEC began performing detailed 

reviews of the content in the submitted reports. NYSDEC now receives about 50 late DMRs per 

month (2.7 percent SNC for DMR non-submittal). The residual noncompliance occurs for a 

myriad of reasons, such as factors related to improper permit transfers, failure to submit DMRs 

for no-discharge limits, and failure to contact NYSDEC to suspend DMRs for non-operating 

facilities. 

In comparison to the DMR program, the compliance rate for the annual submittals under 

the NYSDEC programs remains in the high 90-percentage range. The 90 plus percent 

compliance rate encompasses the submission of the reports, without accounting for issues related 

to the quality of the programs on which the permittees are reporting. During the first several 

years of DEC’s implementation of the certification requirements, it did not perform compliance 

follow up for non-submissions until it received and reviewed the annual reports. 

1.5 If such a requirement were included in the regulation, would it be feasible to impose a 

single nationwide submission date

The due date for each new electronic-based annual compliance certification should be 

evaluated separately. To assess compliance across the state, Regional or national scale it may not 

be necessary for compliance certifications to be sent on one date. It may help with 

implementation to stagger submissions as the Agency’s resources can be measured out 

incrementally. EPA can also stagger the requirements of new electronic-based compliance 

certifications so as iteratively improve the process. Additionally, EPA’s NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule may require NPDES permit writers to implement requirements for electronic 

reporting through the renewal of permits, which are not synchronized. This would be an 

appropriate question to solicit input during the public comment period.
10

2.0 INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATIONS 

2.1 Overview

Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act provides that stormwater discharges associated 

with industrial activity, including those related to construction activity, entering waters of the 

United States must receive authorization under a NPDES permit. There are ten categories of 

industrial activity incorporating 29 industrial sectors requiring NPDES permits for stormwater 

discharges. Since all but four states are authorized to implement the stormwater NPDES 

permitting program (NH, MA, NM, ID), the vast majority of industrial facilities get permit 

coverage through delegated state NPDES permit programs. Permit coverage for this universe 

includes individual permits and general permits.

Stormwater runoff can have a significant impact on water quality. Several studies reveal 

that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include a variety of pollutants, such as turbidity, 

pathogens, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and grease, and debris. Stormwater can 

pick up a variety of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum products, 

chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the receiving 

stream or river. These pollutants can harm the environment and public health. According to 

EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory: 2002 Report, prepared under Section 305(b) of the 

Clean Water Act, 40% of surveyed rivers & 45% of surveyed lakes are not clean enough to meet 

basic uses (e.g. fishable, swimmable and drinkable). The Report further showed that sediment 

contributes to the impairment of 31% of impaired rivers and streams (84,503 river miles) and 

21% of impaired lake areas (1.5 million acres) and is the #2 cause of impairment for rivers and 

streams and the #3 cause for lakes. 

EPA estimates that there are over 100,000 industrial stormwater permittees nationwide, 

contained within 29 industrial sectors. According to the ICIS-NPDES database, there are 9,683 

permits with an industrial stormwater component. Due to system limitations in PCS (currently 22 

states), permits with an industrial stormwater component are unable to be identified and 

evaluated for compliance and enforcement rates. The data entry requirements for industrial 

stormwater permits are based on the type of permit that is issued. Therefore, the data entry

requirements for a permit with an industrial stormwater program component are based on 

whether the permit is a major, minor, or general permit. 

EPA manages the stormwater program for four states, District of Columbia, and federal 

facilities. EPA has a web-based permit application system (eNOI) to manage coverage for EPAissued stormwater permits (see “Analysis B”). Industries with stormwater control requirements 

can apply for coverage under EPA’s the Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) or submit a no 

exposure certification. EPA’s eNOI system also contains an electronic reporting system that 

enables industrial permittees to submit quarterly DMRs, annual reports, and non-compliance 

reports as required under EPA’s 2008 MSGP. Facilities are overwhelmingly using the electronic 

submission feature (727 electronically submitted DMRs as opposed to 7 hardcopy DMRs). 

Industrial stormwater has been an EPA CWA compliance and enforcement priority since 

2000 and continues to be a national priority.
11

2.2 Scope of New Electronic-based Annual Compliance Certification

This paper proposes to extend the annual reporting requirement in EPA’s MSGP to all 

facilities with industrial stormwater dischargers. Under this new compliance certification 

facilities must conduct annual comprehensive site inspections. Facilities may be waived from 

having to perform a comprehensive site inspection for an inspection period if they obtain 

authorization to discharge less than three months before the end of that inspection period.

Should their coverage be administratively continued after the expiration date of their permit, the 

industrial facility must continue to perform inspections annually until they are no longer covered.

Qualified personnel must conduct comprehensive site inspections with at least one 

member of the industrial facility’s stormwater pollution prevention team participating in the 

comprehensive site inspections. Each comprehensive site inspections must cover all areas of the 

facility affected by the requirements in their permit, including the areas identified in the facility’s 

stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as potential pollutant sources where industrial 

materials or activities are exposed to stormwater, any areas where control measures are used to 

comply with the effluent limits, and areas where spills and leaks have occurred in the past 3 

years. The inspections must also include a review of any discharge monitoring data. Inspectors 

must consider the results of the past year’s visual and analytical monitoring when planning and 

conducting inspections. Inspectors must examine the following:

 Industrial materials, residue, or trash that may have or could come into contact with 

stormwater;

 Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks, and other containers; 

 Offsite tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or exit 

the site;

 Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste materials from areas of no exposure to 

exposed areas; and

 Control measures needing replacement, maintenance, or repair.

Stormwater control measures must be observed to ensure that they are functioning correctly. If 

discharge locations are inaccessible, nearby downstream locations must be inspected. 

2.3 Example Form for a Potential Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

The following is an example form for a potential industrial stormwater annual 

compliance certification. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule EPA opted to not 

create any new reporting requirements.
12

Industrial Stormwater Annual Compliance Certification Reporting Form

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Facility Name: [Text Field]

2. NPDES Permit Tracking No.: [Text Field]

3. Facility Physical Address

a. Street: [Text Field]

b. City: [Text Field]

c. State: [Text Field]

d. Zip Code: [Text Field]

4. Lead Inspectors Name: [Text Field]

Title: [Text Field]

Additional Inspectors Name(s): [Text Field]

Title: [Text Field]

5. Contact Person: [Text Field]

Phone: [Text Field]

E-mail: [Text Field]

6. Inspection Date: [Text Field]

B. GENERAL INSPECTION FINDINGS 

1. As part of this comprehensive site inspection, did you inspect all potential pollutant sources, 

including areas where industrial activity may be exposed to stormwater?

 YES  NO

If NO, describe why not: [Text Field]

NOTE: Complete Section C of this form for each industrial activity area inspected and included 

in your SWPPP or as newly identified in B.2 or B.3 below where pollutants may be exposed to 

stormwater.

2. Did this inspection identify any stormwater or non-stormwater outfalls not previously

identified in your SWPPP?  YES  NO 

If YES, for each location, describe the sources of those stormwater and non-stormwater 

discharges and any associated control measures in place. [Text Field]

3. Did this inspection identify any sources of stormwater or non-stormwater discharges not 

previously identified in your SWPPP?  YES  NO 

If YES, describe these sources of stormwater or non-stormwater pollutants expected to be 

present in these discharges, and any control measures in place. [Text Field]
13

4. Did you review stormwater monitoring data as part of this inspection to identify potential 

pollutant hot spots?  YES  NO  NA, no monitoring performed 

If YES, summarize the findings of that review and describe any additional inspection activities 

resulting from this review. [Text Field]

5. Describe any evidence of pollutants entering the drainage system or discharging to surface 

waters, and the condition of and around outfalls, including flow dissipation measures to prevent 

scouring. [Text Field]

6. Have you taken or do you plan to take any corrective actions since your last annual report 

submission (or since you received authorization to discharge under this permit if this is your first 

annual report), including any corrective actions identified as a result of this annual 

comprehensive site inspection?

 YES  NO 

If YES, how many conditions requiring review for correction action were addressed by these 

corrective actions? [Text Field]

NOTE: Complete the attached Corrective Action Form (Section D) for each condition identified, 

including any conditions identified as a result of this comprehensive stormwater inspection.

C. INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY AREA SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Complete one block for each industrial activity area where pollutants may be exposed to 

stormwater. Copy this section for additional industrial activity areas.

In reviewing each area, you should consider:

 Industrial materials, residue, or trash that may have or could come into contact with 

stormwater;

 Leaks or spills from industrial equipment, drums, tanks, and other containers; 

 Offsite tracking of industrial or waste materials, or sediment where vehicles enter or exit 

the site;

 Tracking or blowing of raw, final, or waste materials from areas of no exposure to 

exposed areas; and

 Control measures needing replacement, maintenance, or repair.

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY AREA No: [Text Field]

1. Brief Description: [Text Field]

2. Are any control measures in need of maintenance or repair?  YES  NO 

3. Have any control measures failed and require replacement?  YES  NO

4. Are any additional/revised control measures necessary in this area?  YES  NO 

If YES to any of these three questions, provide a description of the problem: (Any necessary 

corrective actions should be described on the attached Corrective Action Form) [Text Field]
14

D. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

Complete this section for each specific condition requiring a corrective action or a review 

determining that no corrective action is needed. Copy this section for additional corrective 

actions or reviews. Include both corrective actions that have been initiated or completed since the 

last annual report, and future corrective actions needed to address problems identified in this 

comprehensive stormwater inspection. Include an update on any outstanding corrective actions 

that had not been completed at the time of your previous annual report.

1. Corrective Action No. [Text Field] of [Text Field] for this reporting period.

2. Is this corrective action:

 An update on a corrective action from a previous annual report; or

 A new corrective action?

3. Identify the condition(s) triggering the need for this review: 

 Unauthorized release or discharge

 Numeric effluent limitation exceedance 

 Control measures inadequate to meet applicable water quality standards 

 Control measures inadequate to meet non-numeric effluent limitations 

 Control measures not properly operated or maintained 

 Change in facility operations necessitated change in control measures 

 Average benchmark value exceedance 

 Other (describe): [Text Field]

4. Briefly describe the nature of the problem identified: [Text Field]

5. Date problem identified: [Text Field]

6. How problem was identified: 

 Comprehensive site inspection

 Quarterly visual assessment 

 Routine facility inspection 

 Benchmark monitoring 

 Notification by EPA or State or local authorities 

 Other (describe): [Text Field]

7. Description of corrective action(s) taken or to be taken to eliminate or further investigate the 

problem (e.g., describe modifications or repairs to control measures, analyses to be conducted, 

etc.) or if no modifications are needed, basis for that determination: [Text Field]

8. Did/will this corrective action require modification of your SWPPP?  YES  NO

9. Date corrective action initiated: [Text Field]
15

10. Date correction action completed: [Text Field] or expected to be [Text Field] completed:

11.If corrective action not yet completed, provide the status of corrective action at the time of the 

comprehensive site inspection and describe any remaining steps (including timeframes 

associated with each step) necessary to complete corrective action. [Text Field]

E. ANNUAL REPORT CERTIFICATION

1. Compliance Certification 

Do you certify that your annual inspection has met the requirements of this permit, and that, 

based upon the results of this inspection, to the best of your knowledge, you are in compliance 

with the permit?  YES  NO

If NO, summarize why you are not in compliance with the permit: [Text Field]

2. Annual Report Certification

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my 

direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 

properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or 

persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the 

information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, 

and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, 

including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Authorized Representative Printed Name: [Text Field]

Title: [Text Field]

The form will be digitally signed (in compliance with CROMERR) and dated by the user 

interface. 
16

3.0 ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITES ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATIONS

3.1 Overview

Construction takes place on approximately 853,000 acres in the coterminous United 

States and results in the discharge of more than 5 billion pounds of sediment each year.7 All 

major surface water types receive construction discharges, including streams, rivers, wetlands, 

lakes, estuaries, and other coastal waters. In any given year, some level of construction activity

occurs in the majority of U.S. watersheds. However, most construction acreage is concentrated in 

a relatively limited number of watersheds. Between 1992 and 2001, more than half of all 

construction activity took place in less than 5 percent of U.S. watersheds. A common 

development pattern is for new construction to concentrate in rural and suburban watersheds 

adjacent to more densely developed urban areas. Because construction is a temporary activity, 

the locations of the most highly impacted watersheds in the United States shift over time.

Permit coverage under the construction stormwater program is primarily through general 

permits, and construction sites regulated under the program are generally required to submit a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to the applicable permitting authority. Some authorized states may have a 

different permit application process. Because there is no central database for NOIs or other 

permit application information, information on the construction stormwater universe would have 

to be compiled from EPA and authorized states’ databases, and nationwide information is 

therefore not readily available. An important feature of this sector is its transient nature 

(discharges from active construction sites are of a temporary nature).

Currently, construction stormwater permits do not have “end-of-pipe” numeric effluent 

limits and do not require submittal of discharge monitoring reports (DMRs). This will change, 

however, beginning in August 2011 as the new Construction and Development Effluent 

Guidelines are implemented. Under the new rule, DMRs (or an equivalent) are required to be 

submitted to the permitting authority on at least an annual basis.

3.2 Key Environmental Impacts/Footprint

Stormwater runoff, including discharges from municipal storm sewers, industrial 

facilities and construction sites, can have a significant impact on water quality. Such discharges 

are responsible for beach closings, swimming and fishing advisories, and habitat degradation. 

Several studies reveal that stormwater discharges from urban areas can include a variety of 

pollutants, such as turbidity, pathogens, organic nutrients, hydrocarbons, metals, oil and grease, 

and debris. As stormwater flows over a construction or industrial site or urbanized areas, it can 

pick up a variety of pollutants such as sediment, debris, pesticides, petroleum products, 

chemicals, solvents, asphalts and acids, and in extreme cases it can alter the pH of the receiving 

stream or river. These pollutants can harm the environment and public health. According to 

EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory: 2002 Report, prepared under Section 305(b) of the 

Clean Water Act, 40% of surveyed rivers & 45% of surveyed lakes are not clean enough to meet 

 

7 U.S. EPA, 2009. “Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for 

the Construction and Development Category,” EPA-821-R-09-012, November. [Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/guide/construction/].
17

basic uses (e.g. fishable, swimmable and drinkable). The Report further showed the sediment 

contributes to the impairment of 31% of impaired rivers and streams (84,503 river miles) and 

21% of impaired lake areas (1.5 million acres) and is the #2 cause of impairment for rivers and 

streams and the #3 cause for lakes. 

3.3 Number of Regulated Entities

The construction universe is continually changing with new sites obtaining permit 

coverage in order to initiate construction activity and other sites terminating permit coverage 

once construction is complete and the site is stabilized. The construction industry is divided into 

three major subsectors: general building contractors, heavy construction contractors, and special 

trade contractors. General contractors build residential, industrial, commercial, and other 

buildings. Heavy construction contractors build sewers, roads, highways, bridges, and tunnels. 

Special trade contractors typically provide carpentry, painting, plumbing, and electrical services. 

EPA’s Office of Water estimates that nationwide the NPDES program regulates approximately

200,000 construction sites annually.

In the recent Construction and Development effluent guidelines rulemaking EPA 

estimates the annual amount of newly developed land in the conterminous United States as being 

approximately 590,000 acres between 1992 and 2001.8 By overlaying geographic information 

system layers of states and watersheds, EPA was able to estimate the annual number of future 

acres of new development at both the state and watershed for that time period. EPA also used the 

eNOI data to estimate the number and type of construction sites. See the table below for this 

estimate of future construction acreage.

Estimated Number and Type of Future Construction and Development Sites

Source: Construction and Development Technical Development Document, Page 4-10.

 

8

See http://www.epa.gov/guide/construction/
18

3.4 Current Data Entry Requirements

Most of the facilities in this sector are not “majors,” which means that states are not 

currently required to enter data on them in ICIS-NPDES. As with any inspected facility, states 

and regions should enter facility (construction site) information and permit information resulting 

from the inspection. Violations found during inspections (single-event violations) are required to 

be entered for EPA inspections, but not for state inspections. An additional problem with data 

collection on this sector is that many operators fail to file a ‘Notice to Terminate Coverage,” 

which affects EPA’s estimate of facilities regulated by the CGP. 

EPA manages the stormwater program for four states (NH, MA, NM, ID), the District of 

Columbia, and federal facilities. EPA has implemented a web-based permit application system 

(eNOI) to manage coverage for EPA-issued stormwater permits. Alaska was partially delegated 

NPDES program authority and has adopted the use of eNOI. Construction site operators can 

apply for coverage under EPA’s Construction General Permit (CGP) or submit a low erosivity

waiver, if applicable, for exclusion from the CGP. The objectives of the eNOI system include: 

(1) more efficient NOI processing for EPA and operators; (2) reduce or eliminate paper handling 

burdens; and (3) enable electronic data collection, management, analysis, and reporting. 

3.5 Current Permitting Requirements

The NPDES Phase I and Phase II stormwater permit programs are now fully

implemented.9 However, the new Construction and Development effluent guidelines (published 

1 December 2009) add new regulatory requirements (40 CFR 450). These new requirements will 

require additional costs to state and regional NPDES programs. Specifically, these programs will 

incur costs for:

 Revising NPDES permits for incorporating the Construction and Development effluent 

guidelines (Part 450);

 Processing and analyzing discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) for construction sites 

regulated by Part 450; and

 Reviewing the regulation, developing a plan for implementation, disseminating 

information to relevant parties, and potentially updating DMR data management systems.

3.6 New Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act provides that stormwater discharges associated 

with industrial activity, including those related to construction activity, entering waters of the 

United States must receive authorization under a NPDES permit. Once operators of construction 

sites regulated by the NPDES stormwater program obtain permit coverage, they must develop 

stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), as well as implement sediment, erosion, and 

pollution prevention control measures in accordance with the SWPPPs, at their sites. 

 

9

See http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/const.cfm..
19

The SWPPPs contain the parameters with which facilities must comply to meet the terms 

and conditions of their permit. Facilities must develop SWPPPs in accordance with sound 

engineering practices and based on site-specific criteria. The SWPPPs focus on identifying 

sources of pollution in stormwater discharges on the sites, as well as developing and 

implementing appropriate measures to reduce pollutants in the stormwater discharges to ensure 

compliance with their permit.

This paper proposes to extend the annual reporting requirement in EPA’s Construction 

General Permit (CGP) to all facilities with industrial stormwater dischargers. This new annual 

compliance certification will require that permittees inspect designated areas on their sites at 

least once per week and within 24 hours after any storm event of 0.5 inches or greater. Inspectors 

must visually assess the disturbed areas and discharge points on the site, the condition and 

effectiveness of implemented sediment and erosion controls, and the quality of the receiving 

waters near the site, with regard to any evidence of pollutant introductions. 

The CGP specifies requirements for inclusion in inspection reports, such as the inspection 

date, pertinent weather information, and BMP descriptions. The CGP also provides standardized 

inspection forms, as attached below, as well as checklists, for potential utilization by the 

facilities, to be supplemented with any necessary site-specific information. The inspection 

reports must identify any incidents of non-compliance at the construction sites, as well as any 

actions taken by the facilities to return them to compliance with the CGP terms and conditions. 

If the permittees do not identify any incidents of non-compliance, the inspection reports must 

contain a certification that the sites are operating in compliance with their SWPPPs and the CGP.

The CGP requires that qualified personnel, either employed by the construction site 

operators or hired as consultants, perform the site inspections. The inspectors must possess the 

necessary skills to assess conditions at construction sites pertaining to pollutant laden stormwater 

runoff, the effectiveness of implemented pollution control measures, and potential water quality 

impacts to nearby water bodies. Following the inspections, a responsible officer, a general 

partner or proprietor of a partnership, or a principal executive officer for the construction site 

operators must sign and certify the inspection reports. The operators face EPA enforcement 

actions, including penalties, for knowingly making false statements, representations, or 

certifications on their inspection reports.

Construction site operators covered by the CGP must retain inspection reports, with their 

SWPPPs, on site for three years after the permit expires or terminates. Facilities must make 

copies of their SWPPPs readily available to authorized inspectors during any normal business 

hours. In addition, permittees must make SWPPPs available, upon request, to EPA and any 

federal, state, or local agencies responsible for approving stormwater management plans, 

including sediment and erosion control plans, or evaluating water quality and habitat 

maintenance near the construction sites. 

Since the NPDES stormwater program requires construction site operators to develop and 

maintain SWPPPs, including updated inspection reports generated and retained on site in 

accordance with the SWPPPs, EPA could develop an electronic reporting system through which 

site operators could scan, certify, and submit their inspection reports to EPA on an annual basis, 
20

without requiring any substantial increased costs or resource demands on the facilities. While 

EPA would need to use resources to manage and systematically review this information, having 

this information available for “desktop” types of compliance auditing could create efficiencies 

that would allow for fewer, resource intensive on-site inspections. Another benefit of obtaining 

this information electronically is that EPA would be able to improve targeting aimed at 

identifying serious noncompliance for those on-site inspections that are conducted and would 

facilitate compliance reviews at a corporate and/or watershed level, as opposed to facility-byfacility. 

3.7 Example Form for Potential Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

The following is an example form for construction stormwater annual compliance 

certification. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule EPA opted to not create any

new reporting requirements.

Construction Stormwater Annual Compliance Certification Reporting Form

General Information

Project Name

NPDES Tracking No. Location

Date of Inspection Start/End 

Time

Inspector’s Name(s)

Inspector’s Title(s)

Inspector’s Contact 

Information

Inspector’s Qualifications

Insert qualifications or add reference to the SWPPP. (See Section 5 of 

the SWPPP Template)

Describe present phase of 

construction

Type of Inspection:

 Regular  Pre-storm event  During storm event  Post-storm event

Weather Information

Has there been a storm event since the last inspection? Yes No

If yes, provide:

Storm Start Date & Time: Storm Duration (hrs): Approximate Amount of 

Precipitation (in):

Weather at time of this inspection?

 Clear Cloudy  Rain  Sleet  Fog  Snowing  High Winds 

 Other: Temperature: 

Have any discharges occurred since the last inspection? Yes No

If yes, describe:
21

Are there any discharges at the time of inspection? Yes No

If yes, describe:

Site-specific BMPs

 Number the structural and non-structural BMPs identified in your SWPPP on your site 

map and list them below (add as many BMPs as necessary). Carry a copy of the 

numbered site map with you during your inspections. This list will ensure that you are 

inspecting all required BMPs at your site.

 Describe corrective actions initiated, date completed, and note the person that completed 

the work in the Corrective Action Log. 

BMP BMP 

Installed?

BMP 

Maintenanc

e Required?

Corrective Action Needed and Notes

1 Yes No Yes No

2 Yes No Yes No

3 Yes No Yes No

4 Yes No Yes No

5 Yes No Yes No

6 Yes No Yes No

7 Yes No Yes No

8 Yes No Yes No

9 Yes No Yes No

10 Yes No Yes No

11 Yes No Yes No

Overall Site Issues

Below are some general site issues that should be assessed during inspections. Customize this 

list as needed for conditions at your site.

BMP/activity Implement

ed?

Maintenan

ce 

Required?

Corrective Action Needed and Notes

1 Are all slopes and 

disturbed areas not 

actively being 

worked properly 

stabilized? 

Yes No Yes No

2 Are natural resource 

areas (e.g., streams, 

wetlands, mature 

trees, etc.) protected 

with barriers or 

similar BMPs? 

Yes No Yes No
22

BMP/activity Implement

ed?

Maintenan

ce 

Required?

Corrective Action Needed and Notes

3 Are perimeter 

controls and 

sediment barriers 

adequately installed 

(keyed into 

substrate) and 

maintained? 

Yes No Yes No

4 Are discharge points 

and receiving waters 

free of any sediment 

deposits?

Yes No Yes No

5 Are storm drain 

inlets properly

protected? 

Yes No Yes No

6 Is the construction 

exit preventing 

sediment from being 

tracked into the 

street?

Yes No Yes No

7 Is trash/litter from 

work areas collected 

and placed in 

covered dumpsters? 

Yes No Yes No

8 Are washout 

facilities (e.g., paint, 

stucco, concrete) 

available, clearly 

marked, and 

maintained? 

Yes No Yes No

9 Are vehicle and 

equipment fueling, 

cleaning, and 

maintenance areas 

free of spills, leaks, 

or any other 

deleterious material? 

Yes No Yes No

10 Are materials that 

are potential 

stormwater 

contaminants stored 

inside or under 

cover?

Yes No Yes No

11 Are non-stormwater Yes No Yes No
23

BMP/activity Implement

ed?

Maintenan

ce 

Required?

Corrective Action Needed and Notes

discharges (e.g., 

wash water, 

dewatering) 

properly controlled?

12 (Other) Yes No Yes No

Non-Compliance

Describe any incidents of non-compliance not described above:

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my 

direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 

properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or 

persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the 

information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, 

and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, 

including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.”

Print name and title: 

___________________________________________________________________________

The form will be digitally signed (in compliance with CROMERR) and dated by the user 

interface. 
24

4.0 CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFOS) COMPLIANCE 

CERTIFICATIONS

4.1 Overview

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that operations that confine 

livestock and poultry animals generate about 500 million tons of manure annually – three times 

the amount of EPA’s estimate of 150 million tons of human sanitary waste produced annually in 

the U.S. Pollutants commonly associated with manure include nutrients (mainly nitrogen and 

phosphorus), organic matter, solids, and pathogens. Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), states have consistently reported that agricultural activities – including animal 

feeding operations – are leading sources of pollutants such as nutrients, pathogens (bacteria), and 

organic enrichment (low dissolved oxygen) that are contributing to water quality impairment in 

U.S. surface waters. Adverse environmental and human health impacts associated with pollutants

in animal manure include: eutrophication or nutrient over-enrichment of surface waters, fish 

kills, reductions in dissolved oxygen available for aquatic life, increase in suspended solids 

resulting in an increase in turbidity of surface waters and inhibition of the functioning of aquatic 

plants and animals, nitrate contamination of drinking water, and transmission of pathogens 

associated with food and waterborne diseases in humans.

EPA and the states receive inconsistent information about the CAFO sector because most 

CAFOs do not have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, do not 

have traditional effluent discharge points and controls and, therefore, do not submit discharge 

monitoring reports (DMRs). Permit coverage for this universe includes individual permits and 

general permits. Many states have their own permit programs for livestock operations, but 

because these operations do not meet EPA's definition of NPDES "major," the states are not 

required to submit much data to EPA.

EPA’s Office of Water estimates there are approximately 19,000 CAFOs. Under the 

terms of the NPDES CAFO regulations at 40 CFR §122.23, an animal feeding operation is 

defined as a large CAFO based on the number of animals raised in confinement, for example, 

700 mature dairy cows, 1,000 beef cattle, or 2,500 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or more). An 

animal feeding operation is defined as a medium CAFO based on both type and number of 

animals confined, for example 200 to 699 mature dairy cows or 300 to 999 beef cattle, 750 to 

2,499 swine (each weighing 55 pounds or more) as well as certain other conditions at the facility, 

including pollutants discharged to jurisdictional waters via a man-made ditch or other man-made 

device or pollutants are discharged directly into waters of the United States which pass 

over/through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the confined animals. 

Predominant animal agriculture sectors include dairy, beef cattle, poultry, egg laying operations, 

and swine. Every EPA region has CAFOs. The states with the highest numbers of CAFOs 

include: Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, Texas, and California. Collectively, these 

states have more than a third of all CAFOs in the U.S,

4.2 Current Program Reporting

Under the terms of EPA’s CAFO NPDES regulations as revised in 2008, only CAFOs 

that either discharge or propose to discharge must seek NPDES permit coverage. This aspect of 
25

the NPDES program requires NPDES permit authorities to obtain site-specific information in 

order to require CAFOs to seek permit coverage if CAFOs do not seek coverage independently. 

Simple, easily enforceable NPDES permit requirements for CAFOs are difficult to develop 

because CAFOs do not have outfalls and effluent controls like other industrial point sources. 

Instead, CAFO permits require implementation of best management practices. A CAFO that 

believes it does not need to seek NPDES permit coverage can voluntarily certify to the 

permitting authority that it does not discharge or propose to discharge. EPA does not receive 

copies of the CAFO certifications. The Office of Water estimates that approximately 15,000 

large and medium CAFOs need permits and approximately 8,000 CAFOs currently have NPDES 

permit coverage. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.42(e)(4) require permitted CAFOs to submit an annual 

report to the NPDES Director. The annual report must include: (1) the number and type of 

animals, whether in open confinement or housed under roof; (2) estimated amount of total 

manure, litter and process wastewater generated by the CAFO in the previous 12 months 

(tons/gallons); (3) estimated amount of total manure, litter and process wastewater transferred to 

other person by the CAFO in the previous 12 months (tons/gallons); (4) total number of acres for 

land application covered by the CAFO’s nutrient management plan; (5) total number of acres 

under control of the CAFO that were used for land application of manure, litter and process 

wastewater in the previous 12 months; (6) summary of all manure, litter and process wastewater 

discharges from the production area that have occurred in the previous 12 months, including 

date, time, and approximate volume; (7) a statement indicating whether the current version of the 

CAFO's nutrient management plan was developed or approved by a certified nutrient 

management planner; (8) actual crop(s) planted and actual yield(s) for each field; the actual 

nitrogen and phosphorus content of the manure, litter, and process wastewater; calculations of 

maximum amounts of manure, litter, and process wastewater to be land applied at least once per 

year; and the amount of manure, litter, and process wastewater applied to each field in the 

previous 12 months; results of any soil testing for nitrogen and phosphorus taken during the 

previous 12 months; and any supplemental fertilizer applied during the previous 12 months.

4.3 Example Form for Potential Electronically Reported Compliance Certification

The following is an example form that might assist EPA and the states in better 

identifying CAFOs that might require permitting. For the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting 

Rule EPA opted to not create any new reporting requirements.

CAFO Stormwater Annual Compliance Certification Reporting Form

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. CAFO Name: [Text Field]

2. Has this CAFO applied for a NPDES Permit?

 YES  NO

If YES, NPDES No.: [Text Field]
26

3. CAFO Physical Address

a. Street: [Text Field]

b. City: [Text Field]

c. State: [Text Field]

d. Zip Code: [Text Field]

e. Location (longitude and latitude) of the CAFO

4. CAFO Owner Name: [Text Field]

a. Title: [Text Field]

b. Street: [Text Field]

c. City: [Text Field]

d. State: [Text Field]

e. Zip Code: [Text Field]

f. Phone: [Text Field]

g. E-mail: [Text Field]

5. Is the CAFO Operator is different than the CAFO Owner? 

 YES  NO

If YES, a. CAFO Owner Name: [Text Field]

b. Title: [Text Field]

c. Street: [Text Field]

d. City: [Text Field]

e. State: [Text Field]

f. Zip Code: [Text Field]

g. Phone: [Text Field]

h. E-mail: [Text Field]

6. Is the CAFO a contract operation? 

 YES  NO

If YES, a. CAFO Integrator Name: [Text Field]

b. Title: [Text Field]

c. Street: [Text Field]

d. City: [Text Field]

e. State: [Text Field]

f. Zip Code: [Text Field]

g. Phone: [Text Field]

h. E-mail: [Text Field]

7. Type of CAFO Facility: [Text Field]

8. Number [Text Field] and type(s) of animals [Text Field]

9. Type [Text Field]and capacity of manure storage: [Text Field]

10. Quantity of manure, process wastewater and litter generated annually by the CAFO [Text 

Field]
27

11. Does the CAFO land-apply manure?

 YES  NO

If No,

a. What (if any) are the alternative uses of manure, litter, and/or wastewater? [Text Box]

b. Who if anyone receives your CAFO manure [Text Box] and how much do they receive in the 

last year [Text Box]. 

If YES, 

a. Does the CAFO implement a nutrient management plan for land application?  YES  NO

b. Does the CAFO employ nutrient management practices and keeps records on site consistent 

with 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(e)?  YES  NO

12. What is the available acreage for land application: [Text Field]

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my 

direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 

properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or

persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the 

information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, 

and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, 

including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.”

Print name and title: 

___________________________________________________________________________

The form will be digitally signed (in compliance with CROMERR) and dated by the user 

interface.