1989supp09 - Appendix A

Appendix A. Respondents and Other Assumption
Description
Percent CAFOs in ID, MA, NH, NM, and OK
Percent CAFOs covered by General Permits
Annual CAFO inspection rate
Percent hearings for individual permits
%CAFOs where the permit authority require the NMP to be
submitted w/ the application?
%CAFOs in authorized states where the permit authority
does comprehensive technical review
Percent of NMP that would change enough to trigger review
Reduction in permit modifications due to the availability of
the narrative rate approach

Authorized States for CAFOs
Authorized States for CAAP
Total Number of CAAP Permittees
Flow Through and Recirculating Commercial Facilities
Flow Through and Recirculating Non-Commercial Facilities
Net Pen Facilities
Total Number of CAAP Permittees in non-authorized states
% of Permittees seeking General Permit Coverage

Number Notes
6.3% Nina J. Bonnelycke. Personal File. 7/16/2013
70.0%
20.0%
12.0%
71.51%
42.40%
45% of facilities would modify their permit once per permit cycle (5 years). 011.00% 10% would modify their permit twice. (A. Wiedeman, EPA)
ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (Final Rule) OMB Control Number: 2040-0250. EPA ICR: 1989.06.
50%
EPA retains authority for NPDES discharge permits for agricultural facilities in
Oklahoma; thus, only 44 States are authorized to issue permits to CAFOs. EPA
44 is not aware of any CAFOs in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
46 State Program Status
359 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities
166 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities
From ICIS; excludes federal facilities
178
15 From ICIS; excludes federal facilities
From ICIS; excludes federal facilities
100
52% From ICIS; excludes federal facilities

Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Feedlot cattle
Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Dairy cows
Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Hogs
Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Horses/Ponies
Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Turkeys
Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Layer Chickens
Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Broiler Chickens
Burden to Develop/Update NMP - Ducks

157 ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding
19 Operations (Final Rule) OMB Control Number: 2040-0250. EPA ICR: 1989.06.
56
54
41
14
10
22

Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Feedlot cattle
Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Dairy cows
Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Hogs
Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Horses/Ponies
Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Turkeys

26.1 ICR: NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding
3.2 Operations (Final Rule) OMB Control Number: 2040-0250. EPA ICR: 1989.06.
9.3
8.9
6.8

Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Layer Chickens

2.4

Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Broiler Chickens
Burden to Collect and Send Soil Sample - Ducks

1.6
3.6

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Fed
Cattle

85%

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Veal

67%

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Heifer

80%

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Dairy

100%

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Hogs

72%

% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Broilers

10%

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.
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.
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.
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.
Assume that operations with evaporative lagoons (~273) and pits (~822) would
not apply. [From Table C-3b of Cost Report]
Estimated in TDD (Section 9.1.2.5) that 10% of Large Broiler operations would
require a permit.

Description

Number Notes
Dry layer operations typically have no exposure to rainfall and are generally not
expected to discharge. Information from Region 5 enforcement activities in
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Layers:
2007, however, indicates the possibility of discharge from as many as 10% of
Dry
10% the sector.
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Layers:
Wet layer operations are already subject to permitting requirements, and are
Wet
100% assumed to run operations with high probability of discharge.
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 - Ducks
70%
Appx. 93% of large horse farms are racetracks, but few use lagoons. Assume
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Horses
84% 90% would need a permit (APHIS Equine 98).
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,
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - Turkeys
10% litter, and process wastewater.
% of Facilities in Sector With Possible Discharges - MediumMedium-sized CAFOs all discharge since they only became "defined" as
sized CAFOs
0% 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.