Proposals for Large Swine Operations in Georgia
As most of you are probably aware, the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources is currently considering permits for siting two large swine operations in Georgia. Both of these operations would be farrow to wean operations that would take advantage of Georgia's climate to produce weaned piglets that would be shipped to the Midwest to be grown out. The operations are currently proposing to locate in Tatnall and Taylor Counties. The Taylor county operation is requesting a permit for 20,000 hogs and was orginally proposed by M. G. Purvis from North Carolina. Mr. Purvis has recently withdrawn his backing from this endeaver, however, Superior Farm Management Inc. still has a permit pending with the EPD. The Webb Brothers are proposing to put 10,000 head into the Tatnall county operation although the permit request was also for a 20,000 head operation. Both of these permit applications required detailed waste management plans that were developed by private engineering firms, however, the AWARE team has been very instrumental in suppling data on which to base these permits.
While each of these operations would mean millions of dollars of economic activity to the local communities, they are facing considerable opposition from members of the local community, environmental groups, and even other farmers. The main concerns seem to be water quality and odor. The EPD has already released a statement saying that these operations will be held to higher standards and will be considered "industrial operations." They will be required to meet all existing regulations as well as additional requirements such as 1) no runoff from the land application areas, 2) the use of "best available technologies for odor control, 3) the use of aerobic treatment 4) liners for all lagoons and 5) increased buffers and set-backs. These requirements, when coupled with the existing regulations that require groundwater monitoring of all land application sites, give Georgia some of the highest animal waste management standards in the nation. However, this will not guarantee that these operations will not impact water or air quality. The opposition to these facilities has been very vocal and effective at public meetings in each of the counties. It is still very difficult to determine if either of these operations will be granted their permits.

Large Confined Animal Feeding Operation Team Developed
As Jimmy Willis or Reid Torrance (County Extension Directors in Taylor and Tatnall Counties) can probaly tell you, having large operations coming into your county can cause division within the community and put the county agent in a tight spot. In addition, these issues become very emotional as soon as your backyard is being discussed and you are less prone to listen to the facts and make informed decisions. To address some of these difficulties, the AWARE team has worked with College administration and established a team that can come into a county and educate the community on the issues.
The team includes the good, the bad, and the ugly with specialist that will discuss the economic aspects, environmental considerations and the basics of modern animal agriculture, and dealing with social concerns. It has included but is not limited to individuals such as John McKissick, Mark McCann, Rick Jones, Mark Risse, and Horace Hudson. While this team will come to countys and do an educational meeting once the issue has become a "hot" topic, it would probably be much more effective to do this before any operations are proposed. That way most of the community would still have an open mind and the meeting would not be as emotional. Lamar Zipperer recently conducted such a meeting in Screven County that was very thought provoking and engaging to many in the community. As an attendee at this meeting stated: "It is important to get all sides of the issue out before it becomes an issue." If you would like to conduct one of these meetings in your county, it may be appropriate to include your county commissioners and perhaps even have them call the meeting. We may also be able to include individuals with knowledge of legal issues and zoning and well as faculty from the Insititute of Ecology.

AWARE team tours North Carolina
The AWARE team did anticipate that animal manure management would be becoming a more important issue and had actually been planning a trip to North Carolina. Recognizing that many of us would be called upon for information, the AWARE team decided to take a trip and learn from the experts. While we took a variety of people on the trip, Steve Moraitakis provided the following overview of the trip. Look to our webpage to provide more details and photos in the near future.

I recently accompanied the AWARE Team, a volunteer group of UGA faculty, FVSC faculty, NRCS professionals, EPA Professionals and UGA Graduate Students, on a trip to North Carolina to attend a two-day Water Quality & Waste Management Workshop along with Agricultural/Farm tours from December 7-11, 1997. Our mission was to learn first-hand from North Carolina's experiences regarding the issue of Water Quality in relation to Agricultural Waste Management, particularly animal waste management. The title of the two day conference was "Nutrients in the Neuse River: Working Toward Solutions."
The two day conference included sessions on Nutrient Impacts in Coastal Water, Nutrient Sources and Transport, Setting the Stage for Solutions, Focus on Solutions; Urban/Residential/Recreational Land Uses, Focus on Solutions; Agriculture/Forestry Land Uses and Implementing Solutions Successfully. We heard professionals from NCSU, UNC, NRCS, USGS, NC Department of Water Quality, NC Water Resources Research Institute, F.T. Green & Associates, Center for Watershed Protection, Neuse River COG, NC House of Representatives and NC Office of the Governor. During the Agriculture tours we saw working operations that included riparian buffer zones, different swine waste management systems along with visiting the NCSU Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center, USDA Water Quality Monitoring Stations & Constructed Wetlands, and Murphy Family Farms.

We received a lot of excellent information that will be helpful since this is becoming more of an issue in Georgia. Our goal is to work proactively versus reactively. This way we will be able to implement and educate a reasonable and workable solution that the Georgia Family Farm may manage economically and be environmentally sound.
One topic that I found of interest was the Certification Training for Operators that is required by anyone responsible for managing 50 or more acres with nutrient application. This includes the residential lawns, etc. NCSU plays an important educational role in training and recertification of the managers/workers/operators. NCSU has some 50 types of Animal Waste Management Systems and is developing new technology to help the producers with this issue. It did not take long to realize that every operation is unique and requires a different set of solutions that must be tailored each operation. All this falls under a term that we are becoming to know quite well as programs for implementing best management practices or BMP's.
This group of volunteers is meeting to discuss the problem further and to relate this newly acquired knowledge to Georgia. The AWARE Team is open to anyone that would like to become a part of seeking solutions and advancing agriculture in Georgia. If you are interested in becoming a part of the AWARE Team then contact Mark Risse. It will take everyone working together to develop workable solutions that will address this issue and keep agriculture out front as the leading industry in Georgia and America.

AWARE team makes policy recommendations

One of the reasons for making the trip to North Carolina was to see if we could develop a set of proposed guidelines for swine operations since this was becoming a hot topic in Georgia. If we could agree on some issues, these might carry more weight if we spoke as a group. We met for a full day the week after our trip and (after some heated discussion) agreed on the guidelines below. These are posted on our website and we hope that this information will be useful to individuals and agencies developing policy in this area, operators, and concerned citizens.

1. Education, Training and Certification: We recommend that the State develop a mandatory educational and certification program for all swine producers with more than 200 swine at any time. Each farm should be required to have at least one certified operator and continuing education should be required to maintain this certification.

Rationale: Education is the key to ensuring that all operations know how and why they need to manage their animal waste. Numerous studies have proven the benefits of educational programs.

2. Set-backs and Riparian Buffers: We recommend that all producers be requiredto maintain a vegetated buffer zone of 100 feet from all sprayfields, lagoons,and confinement facilities to any State waters. This buffer should consist of at least 20 feet of grass or low lying surface
cover and at least 40 feet of non-grazed forest adjacent to the State waters. The 15 feet immediately adjacent to State waters of this bufferzone shall not be disturbed. For new operations, we also recommend a set-back of at least 1,320 feet (1/4 mile) from any lagoons or confinement facilities to the property line unless approved odor control strategies are
implemented. Set-backs for wellhead protection are defined in the Georgia wellhead protection act (150 feet). The set-backs between any spray fields and the property lines or roads should be 300 feet unless the manure is immediately incorporated or a multi-storied tree canopy is located within the buffer.

Rationale: Research has shown that riparian buffers can be very effective in reducing sediment and N, and to a lesser extent P, inputs to surface waters that border agricultural fields. They are especially effective in the coastal Plain region, where several studies have shown that to reduce N to near background concentrations, a buffer width of about 100 ft is required. The USDA Forest Service has developed a forested buffer system that consist of three zones: zone one is 15 ft of undisturbed forest at the stream border, zone two is 60 ft of forest that can be selectively cut, and zone three is 20 ft of grass that can be grazed or cut. The purpose of the grassed zone one is to filter sediment and spread out flow. The forested zone two is designed to provide deep rooting and further intercept surface flow. Selective harvesting of this zone removes nitrogen and phosphorus from the buffer. The undisturbed forested zone one provides shade and large woody debris for habitat in the stream. Our setback recommendations are designed to reduce odor nuisances, primarily. There is research that shows that the setbacks for preventing surface water or groundwater contamination would be on the order of 100-500 ft, but odor is very difficult to measure and so there is little research on setbacks to control odor. Therefore, our group considered setbacks that have been recommended at the county and state level in the Southeast region. These range from about 150 ft to 3,000 ft.
We agreed on an intermediate distance. Some states and counties have specifieddifferent setbacks in terms of distance to a residence rather than a property line, but this has led to complications where a neighboring property owner wanted to build a new residence or sell his property. As a result, we have specified the setbacks to property lines. Odor control is
an area where additional research may provide useful solutions in the near future.
 

3. Lagoons and Alternatives Treatments: All lagoons should meet the current NRCS design specifications. In cases where the natural soils do not meet seepage guidelines, clay liners should be installed and tested to insure that they meet seepage guidelines. All lagoons should have at least two feet of freeboard and a staff gauge that can easily be read from the lagoon surface. Emergency spillways should be provided on all lagoons above the freeboard levels.

Rationale: It is the judgement of our group that lagoons and spray fields remain the most effective and economically feasible method of managing wet swine manure, despite several drawbacks. The Natural Resource Conservationservice (NRCS) has extensive technical standards that have been recently updated for the siting and construction of lagoons and we have followed these guidelines in our recommendations. We have specified that spillways should be included because many lagoons will eventually experience a storm that exceeds the one for which they are designed (24 hour duration, 25 year return period). The spillway will allow some discharge in such storms but
will prevent the catastrophic failure that occurs when the entire dam is washed away. Alternative treatment systems for lagoons is another area where more research could be productive.
 

4. Sprayfields and Nutrient Management Planning: All producers should have an approved nutrient management plan. On new operations the nutrient management plans should be based on phosphorus if the soil in the spray field reaches a threshold level of P ("high" category). This applies to operationswith more than 2,500 pigs. The rate of application of liquid waste to a spray field should never exceed the infiltration rate of the soil.

Rationale: The question of whether to base nutrient management plans on N or P was the most difficult decision our group faced. Stream and lakeecologists believe that algal growth in the surface waters of Georgia aresensitive to both N and P. Concentrations of P in runoff from fields withhigh soil-test P in the topsoil may reach levels that will trigger algalblooms in nearby waters. Requiring nutrient management plans to be based onP will increase the amount of land required for land application 3-8 fold,epending on the relative concentrations of N and P in the effluent.
Measures to reduce P in the feed ration are likely to become economical.Our group felt that small operators would be less able to afford thesemodifications. Although small operations may provide a diffuse source overa large area, a large operation may be a greater risk for a fishkill along agiven stream reach. For these reasons, we confined our requirements forP-based nutrient management plans to large operations.

5. Inspection, Records, and Monitoring: We recommend that all producers,
regardless of size, be required to keep thorough records. These recordscould be modeled after the National Pork Producers Environmental QualityAssurance Program or the North Carolina Certification Training Program butat a minimum should include: nutrient management plan, annual soil testresults, annual waste analysis, all waste application amounts, locations,
and times, weekly measurements of lagoon freeboard, monthly inspections of entire system and emergency plans, and records of mortality and disposal.Wealso believe that annual inspections should be conducted by a persontrained in animal waste management. These inspections should be on-site andduring this time all records should be reviewed. In terms of monitoring, we
recommend that the current regulations calling for monitoring of surface andgroundwater on most "large" (2,500) facilities be maintained. In certainenvironmentally sensitive areas or after complaints have been filed,additional monitoring may be required. The EPD may also request analysisfor phosphorus at any time they would like.

Rationale: Adequate records are the key to proper waste management. Notonly do they provide a record of the history of an operation that aids thegrower in management decisions, but they also show whether or not anoperator is following the legally prescribe BMP's. Records keeping is not aburden on the farmer and many that have begun to keep records actually viewthem as beneficial to the operation.Inspections are also necessary to insure that producers are maintaining the
systems as they should. By viewing the waste management system and the recordsfrom the last year, most trained professionals could rapidly assessthe impact that this farm is having on the environment. These inspectionsshould also be used as educational opportunities. Very few producers havethe time to stay on top of all current technologies and these inspections
will allow for annual updates. They will also allow for pollutionprevention assessments that will show the farmer the areas in his operationthat can be improved even if it is not legally required.

As for the monitoring, we feel it is essential for large operations to provethat the operations are not impacting water quality or to catch problems assoon as possible. Georgia monitoring requirements for large operations arecurrentlysome of the toughest in the nation and they should remain thatway. For the smaller operations, the cost of groundwater monitoring can be
substantial and could represent too great of a financial burden.

6. Mortality Disposal: Acceptable means of mortality disposable shouldinclude the following in order of preference: (1) rendering with dailypick-up, (2) composting in permitted facilities, and (3) incineration.

Rationale: Any of these means provide safe disposal of carcasses if properlydone. Rendering provides the most efficient use of the resources in thecarcass, but farms must be large enough or closely spaced to make dailypickup routes by the rendering company economically feasible.
Composting with land application of products provides recycling of nutrients, but requires more
work, management, and investment by the grower. Incineration is easy, butcostly and uses
natural resources (gas) to a greater extent than the other methods.

7. Bad Actor Provision: A "Bad Actor" clause should be included, similar tothat contained in the guidelines for handling solid waste (12-8-28.1of theofficial code of Georgia), to prevent owners or other individuals associatedwith operations that have repeatedly violated environmental guidelines inGeorgia or other states from operating in Georgia.

Rationale: This provision protects operators that are abiding by environmental guidelines from unscrupulous competition.
 
 

Many New Regulations Proposed for Georgia and the United States
The AWARE team was not the only group working on policy as was evident by the flurry of regulatory proposals submitted at both the State and National level in recent months. A few of the noteworthy national proposals are discussed below and we are trying to get each new proposal placed on our webpage as soon as possible (See Policy Section). It is too early to tell what, if anything, will happen at the National level but one thing is certain- manure management will become more important. While many argue that it is not the Federal Government's Job to regulate agriculture in each state (I do not think the constitution mentions this), proponents of Federal regulation believe that it is necessary to prevent the animal industry from moving to States that are not as environmentally strict. This is certainly true as it is obvious that the moratorium in North Carolina is causing the swine industry to look to other States for expansion, but as Garth Boyd of Murphy Family Farms in North Carolina stated, "many factors besides regualtions are more important to siting of new productions centers." Some of these include markets, feed availability, land prices, labor availability, etc.
Perhaps more pressing than the National regulation is House Bill 1265 recently proposed by Senator Dobbs. This is the first proposal that Georgia has seen in a while that proposes substantial new regulation on agriculture. The bill is essentailly a duplulication of legislation that passed in South Carolina a couple of years ago. In South Carolina, this law has essentially killed the swine industry; both small and large producers.
The bill has several problems that we will not discuss in detail here but that warrant further consideration. Some of these include the fact that the bill defines "animal" as a porcine species, it defines farm sizes by animal live weight instead of animal units, separation distances seem excessive and are not scientifically sound, and that it leaves entirely too much up to a Board that is not really defined. There are a few positive points to this bill and it is a step in the right direction, however, as written, the bill stands very little chance of gettin serious consideration.
While several sources feel that this bill will not make it out of committee, it will result in further actions. Some suggest that the bill will be replaced in the near future with better and more defendable text that could receive further consideration. This may occur but Harold Rehis, director of the DNR has already stated on the record that he does not feel that the EPD needs greater regulatory power. Therefore, he and others in the agricultural community are looking to appoint an animal waste study committee that could look into this issue further. Look for this committee to get apointed in the near future and hopefully the AWARE team can work closely to insure that both the animal industries and environment of Georgia can prosper.

Senate Study Warns of Dangers From Manure
A new U.S. Senate study report states that the United States produces 130 times more livestock manure than human waste, and it may have adverse environmental consequences. The Report, "Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem -- Environmental Risks of Livestock and Poultry Production," produced by the Minority Staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee, was released earlier this month.
The report found that 60% of rivers and streams have been impaired by agricultural runoff. Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, stated that the problem is no longer confined to rural areas. In 1996 alone, 40 animal waste spills killed 670,000 fish in Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri, up from 20 spills in 1992. The increase in waste spills appears to correlate with the industrialization of agriculture. In the past 15 years, the number of hog farms has dropped from 600,000 to 157,000, yet more hogs have been raised. Likewise, between 1969 and 1992, the number of farms with broiler houses fell by 35%, but poultry production nearly tripled.
Harkin has proposed setting national environmental standards for the management of livestock waste. He believes the guidelines are needed to prevent states from adopting lax standards to lure large livestock operations. Wayne Newton, vice-president of the Iowa Cattlemen's Association, disagrees. "By and large, I hate to see the whole industry get overregulated. We don't need a manure cop."

"Animal Waste Pollution in America:" is available on-line at: http://www.senate.gov/~agriculture/animalw.htm Highlights of the report include the following proposed waste management legislation for all large livestock and poultry operations:
* Limit the application of both phosphorous and nitrogen to amounts that can be used by crops.
* Detail safe methods for handling, storing and applying or disposing of manure.
* Specify how excess manure that cannot be used for crop nutrients or another beneficial purposes will be treated to minimize environmental threats.

Framework For Hog Farmers Released
The National Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production, a group of pork producers and government representatives, released recommendations to the pork industry after an eight-month study. These recommendations can also be accessed from the AWARE Webpage. The recommendations are only guidelines for state agency officials and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). NPPC praised the recommendations as a step towards national, uniform regulations. Major recommendations include setbacks from homes, hospitals, and schools; required soil tests prior to land application of manure and then applied under approved nutrient management plans; required certification of operators and education of employees; and protection from frivolous nuisance suits for producers who maintain these guidelines.
These recommendations have generally been accepted by the pork industry as difficult but necessary changes. However, environmental and family farm organizations have not been supportive of the study. The National Resources Defense Council, The Environmental Defense Fund, and the Center for Rural Affairs withdrew from the dialogue last June, citing a flawed process and inadequate community representation.
 

TMDLS Are Coming
The implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) may significantly hasten the restoration of impaired water bodies. States have been slow to implement TMDLs, however, Georgia leads the nation as they were the first to lose a lawsuit. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State EPD have now begun has implementation. The speed of implementation will increase in the future, as environmental organizations are forcing the EPA to take action.
A TMDL, defined under the Clean Water Act, provides a framework for assessing the environmental problems in a watershed and identifying pollution reductions needed to protect drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat and recreational activities. TMDLs consider all pollution sources, both point and nonpoint, and therefore offer a holistic approach to pollution reduction.
State governments have primary responsibility for identifying watersheds in need of TMDLs and establishing the target load. However, until 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offered little guidance on identifying watersheds in need of TMDLs. Revisions in the Clean Water Act in 1992 helped specify the states' responsibilities. EPA describes the TMDL process as the following: states identify specific waters with pollution problems; states set priorities; states allocate pollution loadings among sources; and EPA approves state actions or acts in lieu of the state, if necessary.

Environmental organizations have forced action in some cases by bringing suits against the EPA. The EPA currently has 28 pending lawsuits. Theresa Tuano, a member of the TMDL team of the EPA, states that, "There have been larger numbers of TMDL development plans as a result of the court settlements. It's been a good thing." For more information on TMDLs, visit EPA's TMDL Program Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/ratepace.html.
In Georgia, we have felt the first ramifications of TMDL's as the Taylor County permit that is pending is on a stream that has a TMDL. Therefore, the permit is required to document that no pollutants can enter the TMDL stream (Whitewater Creek). In addition, several members of the AWARE team are working with the EPD and other organizations to begin a TMDL pilot project that addresses how to remove streams from the TMDL list.

Minnesota Debates Moratorium on Feedlots
Minnesota State Legislator Ted Winter stated that Minnesota needs a moratorium on hog feedlots because smaller pork producers cannot compete and are leaving the state. The moratorium was originally recommended by State Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III. Winter added that the manure is not being disposed of properly and minorities are hired "to do the dirty work." Winter recommended that feedlot permits be limited to operations with less than 250 animal units until a study is completed on the social, environmental, and economic impacts of livestock expansion. The study will take two years and cost about $3 million.
Opponents of a moratorium include Governor Arne Carlson and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Commissioner Peder Larson. Larson states that Minnesota has some of the nation's most stringent feedlot permit requirements, and most producers act responsibly. "Environmentally, it just doesn't make sense to have a moratorium," he added.
Several Minnesota counties have already adopted ordinances that limit the expansion or construction of animal feedlots. 45 counties currently have feedlot ordinances, and Steele County is considering the implementation of an ordinance.

Researchers Link Gulf Hypoxia to Nutrients
Farm organizations continue to debate agriculture's responsibility for the enlarged region of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. However, regardless of fault, the link between excessive nutrients and hypoxia is becoming clearer.
R. Eugene Turner of Louisiana State University and Nancy Rabalais of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium pioneered research into the causal link between nutrients from the Mississippi River and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Using sediment cores, the researchers have associated increased nitrogen levels with the greater accumulation of diatoms on the seafloor. Most oceanographers agree with the assertions of the study.
Rabalais and Turner believe that the ratio of nitrogen to silicate is the crucial variable. Nitrogen has increased, due to increased fertilizers and waste, while silicates have decreased, due to the increased planktonic activity upstream. The changing nutrient balance may eventually benefit harmful algae. Evidence alreadt suggests that harmful algae has been thriving, as red tides have become more common in the Gulf as well as other polluted coastal regions.
Several cooperating agencies announced an 18 month study of hypoxia in the Gulf this past summer. However, a management group is looking for measures that can be implemented in the near future.
 

Resources
EPA's Office of Water has recently published a new document entitled "A Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection," which provides information to state and local water resource professionals and watershed groups. The catalog contains one-page fact sheets for each of the 52 funding sources that explain to the reader the type of projects funded and eligibility. Copies of the catalog are available by calling (800) 490-9198, (513) 489-8695. The document number is EPA841-B-97-008. It is also available on the Watershed Academy's homepage at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/its/html.

"Water Quality: A Report of Progress," by the U. S. Department of Agriculture's Working Group on Water Quality, describes some of the department's recent efforts and accomplishments in reducing agricultural nonpoint-source pollution. The report is available at http://www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/wgwq/progress.html.

"Give Water A Hand Action Guide" is now available in both English and Spanish. Give Water A Hand is a program for local environmental action for children ages 9-14. The program promotes the protection of local water quality and wildlife habitat through a watershed approach. Copies are available for $5.00 each by calling (800) 928-3720. For more information on Give Water A Hand visit the web site at http://www.uwex.edu/erc.

"60 Ways Farmers Can Protect Surface Water." A new book from the University of Illinois Extension that offers practical information on no-till and other water-protecting practices. Available for $10 plus shipping by calling (800) 345-6087.
 

Events
Watershed Stewardship Seminar- workshop on grazing and nutrient management, March 11-12, UGA Central Branch Experiment Station, Contact: Mark Risse, 706-542-9067, mrisse@bae.uga.edu.

Agricultural Phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, April 6-8, State College, PA. Contact:Andrew Sharpley, ans3@psu.edu.

"Team Wetlands: 101 Ways to Win for Wetlands," Apr 15-17, Hyatt Crystal City, Arlington, VA. Contact: c/o Terrene Institute, 4 Herbert Street, Alexandria, VA 22305, phone: (800) 726-4853, fax: (703) 548-6299, email: terrinst@aol.com.

Extension Natural Resources Conference, May 17-20, Deerwood, MN Contact: Elaine Andrews 608-262-0142, E-mail:eandrews@facstaff.wisc.edu

Soil and Water Conservation Society 53rd Annual Conference, July 5-9, San Diego, CA. Contact:515-289-2331 E-mail: sueb@swcs.org

Animal Production Systems & the Environment- An International Conference on Odor, Water Quality, Nutrient Management and Socioeconomic issues: July 19-22, Des Moines, IA. Contact: Kay Synder, 515-294-4202, E-mail: kjsnyder@iastate.edu.

http://www.engr.uga.edu/service/extension/aware/vol3_1.html