Appendix A. Respondents and Other Assumption Description Number Notes Percent CAFOs in ID, MA, NH, NM, and OK 6.3% Nina J. Bonnelycke. Personal File. 7/16/2013 Percent CAFOs covered by General Permits 70.0% Annual CAFO inspection rate 20.0% Percent hearings for individual permits 12.0% %CAFOs where the permit authority require the NMP to be submitted w/ the application? 71.51% %CAFOs in authorized states where the permit authority does comprehensive technical review 42.40% Percent of NMP that would change enough to trigger review 11.00% 45% of facilities would modify their permit once per permit cycle (5 years). 0- 10% would modify their permit twice. (A. Wiedeman, EPA) Reduction in permit modifications due to the availability of the narrative rate approach 50% ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Final Rule) OMB Control Number: 2040-0250. EPA ICR: 1989.06.

Authorized States for CAFOs 44 EPA retains authority for NPDES discharge permits for agricultural facilities in Oklahoma; thus, only 44 States are authorized to issue permits to CAFOs. EPA is not aware of any CAFOs in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Authorized States for CAAP 46 State Program Status Total Number of CAAP Permittees 359 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities Flow Through and Recirculating Commercial Facilities 166 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities Flow Through and Recirculating Non-Commercial Facilities 178 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities
Net Pen Facilities 15 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities Total Number of CAAP Permittees in non-authorized states 100 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities % of Permittees seeking General Permit Coverage 52% From ICIS; excludes federal facilities Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Feedlot cattle 157 Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Dairy cows 19 Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Hogs 56 Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Horses/Ponies 54 Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Turkeys 41 Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Layer Chickens 14 Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Broiler Chickens 10 Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Ducks 22 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Feedlot cattle 26.1 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Dairy cows 3.2 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Hogs 9.3 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Horses/Ponies 8.9 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Turkeys 6.8 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Layer Chickens 2.4 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Broiler Chickens 1.6 Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Ducks 3.6

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Fed Cattle 85% Assume that feedlots in southwestern regions (~15%) would not apply as precipitation is minimal and managed in evaporative ponds. Remainder of sector presumed to discharge due to prevalence of use of outdoor areas for animal confinement.
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Veal 67%Assume that veal operations that use underground storage pits (~33%) would not apply. Remainder of sector presumed to discharge due to prevalence of use of outdoor areas for animal confinement.

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Heifer 80%Assume that heifer feedlots in southwestern regions (~20%) would not apply as precipitation is minimal and managed in evaporative ponds. Remainder of sector presumed to discharge due to prevalence of use of outdoor areas for animal confinement.
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Dairy 100%Assume that all dairies would apply since they have continual need for cleaning milk parlors with clean water, and dairies of this size are most likely to have an on-site lagoon. % of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Hogs 72%Assume that operations with evaporative lagoons (~273) and pits (~822) would not apply. [From Table C-3b of Cost Report] % of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Broilers 10% Estimated in TDD (Section 9.1.2.5) that 10% of Large Broiler operations would require a permit. ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Final Rule) OMB Control Number: 2040-0250. EPA ICR: 1989.06.

ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Final Rule) OMB Control Number: 2040-0250. EPA ICR: 1989.06.Description Number Notes
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Layers: Dry 10% Dry layer operations typically have no exposure to rainfall and are generally not expected to discharge. Information from Region 5 enforcement activities in 2007, however, indicates the possibility of discharge from as many as 10% of the sector. % of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Layers: Wet 100% Wet layer operations are already subject to permitting requirements, and are assumed to run operations with high probability of discharge.

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Ducks 70%Assume mid-Atlantic duck farms need permits because they use ponds and have discharges. Also a few in Midwest, although they use mostly dry manure systems. [References Indiana Poultry and the USDA Census of Ag.]
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Horses 84%Appx. 93% of large horse farms are racetracks, but few use lagoons. Assume 90% would need a permit (APHIS Equine 98).
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Turkeys 10% Similar to broilers, expect a small percentage (~10%) of operations would apply for a permit. Vast majority are under roof, with covered storage of manure, litter, and process wastewater.% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Mediumsized CAFOs 0% Medium-sized CAFOs all discharge since they only became "defined" as CAFOs due to the existence of a discharge. Notes: % of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges estimates come from the 2006 Waterkeeper proposed rule and the 2008 Waterkeeper final rule.