Record Keeping and Inspections for Animal Feeding Operations

Animal feeding operations are the most likely type of animal agriculture operations to be subject to rules and regulations. Most of these center around the manure handling and storage practices and equipment. Record keeping and inspections are the cornerstone of compliance efforts by livestock and poultry producers.

Introduction

Record keeping and inspections are inextricably linked through the permit and nutrient management plan. In large part, only records can show an inspector that the operation is following its nutrient management plan (NMP) and permit requirements. Physical evidence of compliance or violations may only play a small part in many cases.

The NMP is only a plan and describes many issues in general terms, however records allow the producer to manage very specifically and document that the intent of the NMP has been followed. Record keeping also allows you to document small changes in implementation of the NMP that could be the result of unseasonable weather and other unexpected influences.

When all is said and done, an operation with well organized and complete records that document compliance with the permit and NMP, and where there is no physical evidence of an un-permitted discharge should pass an inspection with flying colors.

Required Records

Record keeping requirements can vary by state; however, it will be very likely that permitted operations will at a minimum be required to maintain: a basic NMP, with supporting materials and records on how the plan was followed. A CAFO, covered by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (even if administered by a state) has very prescriptive record keeping requirements. The EPA CAFO brochure titled, “What Are the Federal Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements” outlines these requirements, however the final word on what is required will be described in the permit.

General records include: manure generation and inventory; manure and waste water transfers; manure storage inspections; storage capacity and levels; amounts and dates of any discharges; and mortality management. The remaining records are linked to land application and determination of rates. They include: Manure and wastewater analysis; soil tests; crop yield expectations; rate calculation method (nutrient budgets); actual application locations, date and amounts; weather conditions; and equipment inspections and calibrations.

The LPES Curriculum includes an excellent fact sheet on record keeping titled, What Records Must I Maintain for Land Application?, fact sheet #26.

Annual Report

The records described in the previous paragraph may be reviewed during an inspection. However, many of them will also be summarized and reported to EPA or the state permitting authority on an annual basis (CAFO Reports). The same EPA brochure explains these requirements. Briefly, they include: animal inventory; annual manure production; annual manure export; acres of land applied to and acres of land included in the NMP; documentation of any discharges; and is there a valid NMP for the operation.

Other Record Keeping Benefits

Records have many other benefits beyond simply complying with the permit and validating the NMP. Records can assist in making important business decisions that impact the bottom line. New levels of efficiency can be attained by examining records such as yields, soil tests and manure and fertilizer usage. Finally, they offer a reduction in liability for producers. In the event of an accusation of environmental mismanagement, records help defend practices and document responsibility.

Inspections

Historically inspections have primarily been complaint driven. However, all NPDES permitted farms will be inspected by a regulatory agency at a routine interval (typically once a year); depending on the state, smaller AFOs may be included in a routine inspection schedule as well. Inspectors are looking for compliance with the permit and associated nutrient management plan, and that required management practices are documented. They will also look for any signs that indicate a discharge has occurred.

One producer’s solution to record management.

During an inspection, operators should have all relevant paperwork in order and available, including: permit, NMP, records and other supporting documents. The operator, planner or consultant should all be able to explain any components of the NMP. The EPA and their cooperating state counterparts are largely concerned with the 9 minimum practices for a NMP. These include:

  1. Ensure Adequate (waste) Storage
  2. Ensure Proper Management of Mortalities
  3. Divert Clean Water From Production Area
  4. Prevent Direct Contact of Livestock (with waters of the state/U.S.)
  5. Proper Chemical Handling
  6. Conservation Practices to Reduce Nutrient Loss
  7. Protocols for Manure and Soil Testing
  8. Protocols for Land Application of Manure and Wastewater
  9. Record Keeping

Inspection Preparation

It is very helpful for a producer to conduct or initiate an educational or non-regulatory mock-inspection. This can be done with the confidential help of a third party. In some states, Extension may be able to assist. Additionally, many states may make their inspection protocol available. EPA has published a fact sheet titled: What to Expect when EPA Inspects Your Livestock Operation.

Other tools are available, such as the nationally adapted Farm*A*Syst self assessment modules. These may not specifically address a permitted operation, but they help address environmental risk and liability based on practices. Conducting modules with farm/ranch staff or your county agent may give insight into areas that need improvement prior to a visit from regulators.

Participating in a USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service program may also offer an opportunity for a general assessment. Once again, this may be helpful in identifying critical areas, though likely will not directly address regulations. If a consultant is employed by the operation, that person may also assist in assessing the operation prior to a regulatory inspection.

Related FAQs

  • Question #27793, During a regulatory inspection, what is likely to be most scrutinized? link
  • Question #27791, What are the most important things a producer can do to prepare for a regulatory inspection? link

Author: Thomas Bass, Montana State University
Reviewers: Saqib Mukhtar, Texas AgriLife Extension; Carol Galloway, USEPA; and Charles Fulhage, University of Missouri

Water Programs (Regulations) That Can Affect Livestock and Poultry Producers

There are many resources available to assist producers in learning about which regulations apply to their operation. This page focuses on water-related programs.

Federal Programs

  • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) regulations: Animal feeding operations can pose a number of risks to water quality and public health, mainly because of the amount of animal manure and wastewater they generate. Manure and wastewater from AFOs have the potential to contribute pollutants such as nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and ammonia to the environment. These pollutants can cause several types of water quality and public health impacts, such as contamination of drinking water supplies and fish kills.Concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge into waters of the U.S. are required to apply for a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
  • Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) program: If your farm stores oil, fuel, or oil products, you should take note of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) program. Regulated facilities, including some farms, must develop and implement SPCC Plans that establish procedures and equipment requirements to help prevent oil discharges from reaching waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) regulations under the Clean Water Act

  • EPA Final CAFO Regulations (July 30, 2012)
    The final 2012 federal CAFO regulations include revisions to remove the 5th Circuit Court’s vacated elements, and the 2008 and 2003 Final CAFO Rules.
  • Consolidated Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Regulations (38 pp., 452K)
    This document consolidates the current federal CAFO regulatory requirements included in the 2012 CAFO Rule Revision to remove the 5th Circuit Court’s vacated elements, and include the 2008 and 2003 final CAFO rules into a single document.
  • NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual for CAFOs
    Provides information to states, producers, and the general public including: 1) general information on Clean Water Act and NPDES requirements for CAFOs, 2) information to explain CAFO permitting requirements under the CWA, and 3) technical information to help states and producers understand options for nutrient management planning.

Additional Resources and Links

Oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) program under the Oil Pollution Prevention Program.

Additional Resources and Links

State Programs

Local Programs

In addition, you can contact your local:

  • Cooperative Extension office,
  • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS office),
  • Soil & Water conservation district, or
  • county zoning office

to find out about local or area programs or regulations that apply to you. The Soil & Water conservation districts and NRCS offices also good sources of information about cost-share or financial assistance programs that can help reduce the financial burden associated with complying with regulations.

Webcast Presentations

State Specific Manure Nutrient Management Information

Why is State Specific Nutrient Management Information Important?

State or regionally specific factors such as climate and soils impact the many manure nutrient management recommendations for application rates and best management practices (BMPs). In addition, state specific public policy may also establish minimum expectations and required practices.

Finally, state land grant university research may have identified preferred procedures for implementing crop nutrient recommendations or manure nutrient management that may differ from other states. Regardless of the driving force, it is recommended that nutrient management plans follow state specific recommendations for crop nutrient requirements, crop availability of manure nutrients, BMPs, and planning and record expectations.

Click on Your State to View Links to State-Specific Nutrient Management Information

If there is no information linked to your state on this map, it is recommended that you contact your land grant university, county Cooperative Extension office, or county or state USDA Natural Resources Conservation office. If your farm falls among those covered by state or federal regulation, your state’s environmental regulatory agency should also be contacted.

View Larger Map

Additional Information Sources on State Specific Nutrient Management

  • The Manure Management Planner computer program developed at Purdue University is one source of state specific information. The software currently supports 34 states (AL, AR, CA, CO, DE, FL, GA, IN, IL, IA, KS, MA, KY, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, ND, NJ, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA and WI) by automatically generating fertilizer recommendations and estimating manure N availability based on each state’s Extension and/or NRCS guidelines. Check with your state to be sure the Manure Management Planner meets state specific nutrient management plan criteria.

Page Manager. Rick Koelsch, University of Nebraska, rkoelsch1@ unl.edu
Reviewers: Doug Beegle, Pennsylvania State University, and John Lory, University of Missouri

EPA’s Proposed Waters of the U.S. Regulations

Update: March, 2017. The Trump administration has issued an executive order directing the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to review the rule and revise or rescind the rule as appropriate. More…

Update: February, 2016. Multiple challenges to the rule in district courts were consolidated in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Full text of ruling….

Update: October, 2015. A ruling by a district court in North Dakota (August 27) blocked the implementation of the rule. EPA felt that the injunction only applied to the 13 states that were involved in bringing the lawsuit and announced it would apply the rule in the other 37 states as scheduled. On October 9, 2015 a federal appeals court ruled that the injunction applied to all states & territories and that EPA could not implement the rule as they planned.

Update: August, 2015. The finalized rule has been published

In this webcast, Rose Kwok of EPA’s Office of Water, and Ken Kopocis, senior advisor in the EPA’s Office of Water, will explain the proposed rule and discuss what the proposal would mean to the agriculture sector. This presentation was originally broadcast on June 20, 2014. More… Continue reading “EPA’s Proposed Waters of the U.S. Regulations”

Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool

Abstract

Using the nitrogen reduction planning model involves three steps.  The first step is to select a watershed, enter hypothetical adoption rates for each BMP, and compare the effectiveness and cost of the individual BMPs.  The second step is to compare suites of the BMPs that would attain any given reduction in the N load at minimum cost.  The third step is to “drill down” to the details and assumptions behind the models of effectiveness and costs of any particular BMP and make any adjustments to reflect your particular situation.

Why Develop a Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool?

A watershed-level nitrogen reduction planning tool (Excel spreadsheet) compares the effectiveness and cost of nine different “best management practices” (BMPs), alone and in combination, for reducing N loads leaving a Minnesota watershed.  The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is developing a new set of standards for nitrate nitrogen in surface waters based on aquatic life toxicity.  The tool was developed to assist the agency and local resource managers to better understand the feasibility and cost of various “best management practices” to reduce N loading from Minnesota cropland.

What Did We Do?

The BMPs are:  reducing corn N fertilizer rates to extension recommended rates, changing fertilizer application timing, seeding cover crops, installing tile line bioreactors or controlled drainage, planting riparian buffers, or converting some corn and soybean acres to a perennial crop. The spreadsheet does its analysis for a watershed that the user selects.  However, the N loadings and crop economic calculations are done first by agroecoregion before aggregating the results into the watershed of interest.  Agroecoregions are units having relatively homogeneous climate, soil and landscapes, and land use/land cover.  The spreadsheet includes area data for the fifteen high-N HUC8 watersheds that make up roughly the southern half of the state, along with the state as a whole.  When the user selects a watershed for analysis, formulas retrieve results as an area-weighted average of the agroecoregions making up that watershed.  Each of the fifteen HUC8 watersheds includes between four and nine agroecoregions.

The N loadings from each agroecoregion are calculated in three categories:  drainage tile discharges, leaching from cropland, and runoff.  Nitrogen loading amounts modeled are “edge-of-field” measures that do not account for denitrification losses that occur beyond the edge of field as groundwater travels towards and is discharged to streams.  The BMPs consider only loading from cropland, but loading from forests and impervious urban and suburban land is also included in the totals.

What Have We Learned?

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board has said that a 45% reduction in both N and P is needed in the Mississippi River to reduce the size of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone.  This tool suggests that the BMPs considered are not likely to achieve much more than half that reduction even at high adoption rates.  Reducing N fertilizer rates on corn down to extension-recommended levels and shifting from fall to spring or sidedressed applications tend to be among the cheaper BMPs to adopt, but the results vary across watersheds and weather scenarios.  Various other factors such as crop and fertilizer prices also affect the results, hence the need for a computer tool.

Future Plans

The tool and results of a larger project will be reviewed during the first half of 2013.  The tool may then play a role in implementation of the new N state standards in the state.

Authors

William F. Lazarus, Professor and Extension Economist, University of Minnesota wlazarus@umn.edu

Geoff Kramer, Research Fellow, Department of Biosystems and Bioproducts Engineering, University of Minnesota

David J. Mulla, Professor, Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota

David Wall, Senior Hydrologist, Watershed Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Additional Information

The latest version of the tool and an overview paper are available at the author’s project page.

Davenport, M. A., and B. Olson. “Nitrogen Use and Determinants of Best Management Practices:  A Study of Rush River and Elm Creek Agricultural Producers Final Report, submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  as part of a comprehensive report on nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters.” Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, September 2012.

Fabrizzi, K., and D. Mulla. “Effectiveness of Best Management Practices for Reductions in Nitrate Losses to Surface Waters In Midwestern U.S. Agriculture.  Report submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  as part of a comprehensive report on nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters.” September 2012.

Lazarus, W. F., et al. “Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool (NBMP.xlsm) for Comparing the Economics of Practices to Reduce Watershed Nitrogen Loads.” December 11, 2012, http://wlazarus.cfans.umn.edu/.

Mulla, D. J., et al. “Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading, Sources and Pathways for Minnesota Surface Waters.  Report submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  as part of a comprehensive report on nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters.” Department of Soil, Water & Climate, University of Minnesota, September 2012.

Acknowledgements

Partial support for this project was provided by the Minnesota Legislature.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.

Chesapeake Bay 2012 – Implications of the TMDL

This is a follow-up webcast to Changing Management of Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. That initial webcast told the story of why the TMDL was developed and the nuts and bolts of the TMDL as well as the next steps from 2010 to 2025. This webcasts shows the state response to the TMDL, the legal considerations of the TMDL and the effectiveness of policy interface between agriculture and the environment. This presentation was originally broadcast on February 17, 2012. More… Continue reading “Chesapeake Bay 2012 – Implications of the TMDL”

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures

If your farm stores oil, fuel, or oil products, you should take note of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) program. This rule applies to storages of a certain size and places some planning requirements on the farm. Speakers also discuss the proposed exemption for certain milk containers.

Reminder: Farms now must amend and implement their Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. The compliance date for farms is May 10, 2013.

NOTE: This presentation was originally broadcast on November 19, 2010 and the speakers discuss a proposed exemption for certain milk containers. On April 18, 2011, EPA published a final rule amending the SPCC regulations to exempt milk and milk product containers, associated piping and appurtenances. The capacity of the exempt milk and milk product containers, piping and appurtenances should not be included in a facility’s total oil storage capacity calculation to determine if the facility is subject to SPCC. For more information on the milk exemption, see EPA’s SPCC and milk page. Continue reading “Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures”