Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices (Letter Report,
07/01/1999, GAO/RCED-99-205).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on animal
waste management practices, focusing on: (1) waste management practices
used in the United States; (2) practices used in other countries; (3)
potential new practices based on technologies transferred from other
industries; (4) federal financial and technical assistance available to
producers for waste management and the processes for obtaining this
assistance; and (5) the role of federal agencies in conducting or
supporting research to develop new waste management practices, including
innovative uses of current practices.

GAO noted that: (1) a wide variety of animal waste management practices
are available to livestock and poultry producers; (2) these practices
include techniques to: (a) limit waste runoff, such as cementing and
curbing animal confinement areas or planting grassed buffers around
these areas; (b) collect and store waste; (c) alter or treat waste, such
as reformulating feed mixes or composting; and (d) use waste, such as an
organic fertilizer, an additive to animal feed, or on-farm energy
generation; (3) a farmer's selection of a particular practice or system
of practices depends on site-specific factors, cost considerations, and
state and local regulations; (4) animal waste management practices used
in other major livestock and poultry production countries are similar to
those used by U.S. farmers; (5) however, unlike the United States, some
of these countries have government-subsidized companies manage animal
waste and related structures, use waste for commercial energy
generation, and impose requirements that limit the size of herds or
flocks; (6) political and economic circumstances in these countries are
factors in choosing these approaches to animal waste management; (7)
regarding potential new practices based on technologies used in other
industries, some federal officials believe that multistage treatment
technologies used to manage municipal wastewater and sewage could be
adapted for large animal production operations; (8) the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) administers the major federal programs that provide
financial and technical assistance to producers to manage their animal
wastes; (9) most of this assistance is provided through the Department's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which shares the cost of
implementing waste management practices with farmers through direct
payments; (10) several additional assistance programs are administered
by the Environmental Protection Agency or the Fish and Wildlife Service;
(11) USDA's Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service are the principal
federal agencies conducting or supporting research to develop new or
innovative animal waste management practices; and (12) for example, in
recent years these agencies have conducted or sponsored research to
reduce and stabilize the nutrients in animal wastes and to improve waste
composting techniques.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-205
     TITLE:  Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices
      DATE:  07/01/1999
   SUBJECT:  Waste disposal
	     Waste management
	     Agricultural production
	     Agricultural programs
	     Domestic animals
	     Water pollution control
	     Agricultural research
	     Technology transfer
	     Foreign governments
	     Private sector practices
IDENTIFIER:  USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program
	     Clean Water Action Plan
	     EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
	     Denmark
	     Japan
	     Netherlands
	     Sweden
	     United Kingdom
	     USDA Agricultural Conservation Program
	     USDA Small Watershed Program
	     USDA Conservation Reserve Program
	     USDA Environmental Quality Improvement Program
	     EPA National Nonpoint Source Program
	     Clean Water State Revolving Fund
	     EPA/USDA Farm Assessment System
	     ARS National Program for Manure and By-Product Utilization

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

Cover
================================================================ COVER

Report to the Honorable Tom Harkin, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S.  Senate

July 1999

ANIMAL AGRICULTURE - WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

GAO/RCED-99-205

Waste Management Practices

(150086)

Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ARS - Agricultural Research Service
  CSREES - Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
     Service
  CTA - Conservation Technical Assistance
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  EQIP - Environmental Quality Improvement Program
  FSA - Farm Service Agency
  FWS - U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service
  GAO - U.S.  General Accounting Office
  NRCS - National Resources Conservation Service
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER

B-282871

July 26, 1999

The Honorable Tom Harkin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
 and Forestry
United States Senate

Dear Senator Harkin: 

The production of livestock and poultry animals, also known as animal
agriculture, is important to the economic well-being of the nation,
producing $98.8 billion per year in farm revenue.  This production
also contributes to the viability of many rural communities and the
sustainability of an adequate food supply for the American public. 
However, concern over pollution resulting from intensive livestock
and poultry productionï¿½in which large numbers of animals are held in
confined production facilitiesï¿½has increased in recent years. 
Nationwide, about 130 times more animal waste\1 is produced than
human wasteï¿½roughly 5 tons for every U.S.  citizenï¿½and some
operations with hundreds of thousands of animals produce as much
waste as a town or a city.\2 These large volumes of waste threaten
surface water and groundwater quality in the event of waste spills,
leakage from waste storage facilities, and runoff from fields on
which an excessive amount of waste has been applied as fertilizer. 
Furthermore, as animal production is increasingly concentrated in
larger operations and in certain regions of the country, commonly
used animal waste management practices may no longer be adequate for
preventing water pollution.  Consequently, new waste management
practices may be needed, including alternative uses for waste, new
means of treating waste, and improved methods of moving waste to
cropland where it can be used as fertilizer. 

Concerned over the adequacy of current animal waste management
practices to meet the needs of intensive animal production
operations, you asked us to provide information on (1) waste
management practices used in the United States; (2) practices used in
other countries; (3) potential new practices based on technologies
transferred from other industries; (4) federal financial and
technical assistance available to producers for waste management and
the processes for obtaining this assistance; and (5) the role of
federal agencies in conducting and/or supporting research to develop
new waste management practices, including innovative uses of current
practices. 

--------------------
\1 Animal waste generally refers to manure but also includes
wastewater, urine, bedding, poultry litter, and animal carcasses. 

\2 Animal Waste Pollution in America:  An Emerging National Problem. 
Report compiled by the Minority Staff of the United States Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (Dec.  1997). 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

A wide variety of animal waste management practices are currently
available to livestock and poultry producers.  These practices
include techniques to (1) limit waste runoff, such as cementing and
curbing animal confinement areas or planting grassed buffers around
these areas; (2) collect and store waste, such as scraping or
flushing systems and storage tanks or retention ponds; (3) alter or
treat waste, such as reformulating feed mixes or composting; and (4)
use waste, such as an organic fertilizer, an additive to animal feed,
or on-farm energy generation.  A farmer's selection of a particular
practice or system of practices depends on site-specific factorsï¿½the
type and volume of waste to be managed and the proximity of the
production facility to surface water or groundwaterï¿½cost
considerations, and state and local regulations. 

Generally speaking, animal waste management practices used in other
major livestock and poultry production countries are similar to those
used by U.S.  farmers.  However, unlike the United States, some of
these countries have government-subsidized companies manage animal
waste and related structures, use waste for commercial energy
generation, and impose requirements that, in effect, limit the size
of herds or flocks.  Political and economic circumstances in these
countries, which may differ from those in the United States, are
factors in choosing these approaches to animal waste management.  For
example, the use of animal waste for commercial energy generation
reflects the relatively high cost of energy inputs, such as oil and
natural gas, in some of these countries. 

Regarding potential new practices based on technologies used in other
industries, some federal officials believe that multistage treatment
technologies used to manage municipal wastewater and sewage could be
adapted for large animal production operations.  However, issues
related to the cost of constructing, maintaining, and operating such
facilities on farms must be resolved first. 

The U.S.  Department of Agriculture administers the major federal
programs that provide financial and technical assistance to producers
to manage their animal wastes.  Most of this assistance is provided
through the Department's Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
which shares the cost of implementing waste management practices with
farmers through direct payments.  Several additional assistance
programs are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency or
the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Producers generally learn about the availability of this assistance
through locally based officials, such as district conservationists
and county extension agents, who work with producers to help them
select waste management practices and apply for financial assistance. 
For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, federal agencies provided a total
of $384.7 million in financial and technical assistance to producers
for animal waste management; these agencies estimate they will
provide about $114 million for this purpose in fiscal year 1999,
although estimates were not available for each program. 

The U.S.  Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service
and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service are
the principal federal agencies conducting or supporting research to
develop new or innovative animal waste management practices.  For
example, in recent years these agencies have conducted or sponsored
research to reduce and stabilize the nutrients in animal wastes and
to improve waste composting techniques.  For fiscal years 1996
through 1998, the Agricultural Research Service spent $13.5 million
for this type of research; it expects to spend an additional $9.1
million in fiscal year 1999.  The Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service spent $6.9 million for this type of
research in fiscal year 1997; data for fiscal years 1996 and 1998, as
well as an estimate for fiscal year 1999, were not available. 

   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Animal waste runoff can impair surface water and groundwater by
introducing pollutants, such as nutrients (including nitrogen and
phosphorous), organic matter, sediments, pathogens (including
bacteria and viruses), heavy metals, hormones, antibiotics, and
ammonia.  These pollutants are transported by rainwater, snowmelt, or
irrigation water through or over land surfaces and are eventually
deposited in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters or introduced into
groundwater.  These pollutants can affect water quality and public
health in several ways, such as contaminating drinking water supplies
and killing fish.  Other potential environmental problems associated
with animal production include odors, the loss of wildlife habitat,
and the depletion of groundwater.  According to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), agricultural activity,\3 including the
production of livestock and poultry animals, is a leading source of
impairment to the nation's rivers and lakes, and a significant source
of impairment to its coastal waters and groundwater.\4

As the result of domestic and export market forces, technological
changes, and industry restructuring, the past several decades have
seen substantial changes in the animal production industry.  As we
reported in 1995,\5 the concentration of animal production in large,
confined operations has increased since the 1970s for livestock (beef
feedlot cattle, dairy cows, and hogs) and poultry (broilers, laying
hens, and turkeys) sectors.  For example, in the hog industry's top
10 production states,\6 the inventory controlled by operations with
500 or more hogs increased from about 40 percent of these states'
inventory in 1978 to about 77 percent in 1994.  Similarly, in the
broiler sector, sales attributable to operations with 100,000 or more
birds sold increased from about 70 percent of national sales in 1974
to about 97 percent in 1992.  According to the U.S.  Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and other sources, the concentration of production
in these livestock and poultry sectors has further increased in
recent years. 

In light of animal agriculture's contribution to water pollution and
the increasing concentration of livestock and poultry production in
the United States, the administration recently took actions designed
to reduce animal agriculture's contribution to impaired water
quality.  For example, in February 1998, the administration proposed
a plan to address the nation's remaining water quality problems.\7
Known as the ï¿½Clean Water Action Plan,ï¿½ this plan identifies polluted
runoff as the most important remaining source of water pollution and
provides for a coordinated effort to reduce polluted runoff from a
variety of sources, including livestock and poultry production
operations.  As part of this effort, USDA and EPA developed a unified
national strategy\8 to minimize the water quality impacts of confined
ï¿½animal feeding operations.ï¿½

The unified national strategy, issued in March 1999, establishes an
expectation that all of the approximately 450,000 animal feeding
operations nationwide will develop and implement comprehensive
nutrient management plans by 2009.  According to the strategy, these
plans should include, among other things, provisions to (1) modify
animal diets and feed to reduce the amounts of nutrients in manure;
(2) improve manure handling and storage to reduce the chances of
leaks or spills; (3) apply manure to cropland in a manner that does
not introduce an excess of nutrients and minimizes runoff; and/or (4)
employ alternative uses of manure, such as the sale of manure to
other farmers, composting and the sale of compost to homeowners, and
the use of manure for on-farm power generation, especially in
situations where the potential for land application is limited. 

In addition to the unified strategy, EPA is currently revising its
effluent guidelines for large confined animal feeding operations. 
These guidelines limit the discharge of liquid waste from these
operations into the environment and are enforced through permits
issued under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 
According to EPA, when completed, the revised guidelines may require
an estimated 5,800 to 20,000 of these operations to obtain permits;
currently, only about 2,000 permits have been issued to confined
animal feeding operations.  In general, permits may be required for
the largest operations (those with herds or flocks above a certain
size); operations with unacceptable conditions, such as direct
discharge into waterways; and operations that significantly
contribute to water quality impairment within a watershed.\9 EPA
anticipates completing the guidelines for hog and poultry operations
in December 2001; it anticipates completing these guidelines for beef
and dairy operations in December 2002. 

--------------------
\3 Agricultural activity includes irrigated and nonirrigated crop
production and the use of rangeland, pastureland, feedlots
(facilities where animals are fattened and confined at high
densities), and animal holding areas (facilities where animals are
confined briefly before slaughter). 

\4 In general, impaired waters are those waters that do not fully
support one or more designated uses, such as providing drinking
water, allowing swimming, or supporting the existence of edible fish
and shellfish. 

\5 Animal Agriculture:  Information on Waste Management and Water
Quality Issues (GAO/RCED-95-200BR, June 28, 1995). 

\6 As of 1994, these states were Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, and South
Dakota. 

\7 Clean Water Action Plan:  Restoring and Protecting America's
Waters, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (Feb.  1998). 

\8 Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture and the U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency (Mar.  9, 1999). 

\9 A watershed is an area of land in which all surface water drains
to a common point, such as a stream or river. 

   ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
   PRACTICES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

A wide variety of animal waste management practices are currently
available to livestock and poultry producers.\10 A farmer's selection
of a particular practice or system of practices depends on (1)
site-specific factors, such as the type and volume of waste, the
proximity of a production facility to surface water or groundwater,
and the availability of farm equipment; (2) cost considerations; and
(3) state and local regulations. 

--------------------
\10 A more detailed listing and discussion of the various practices
livestock and poultry producers may use to manage their animals'
wastes may be found in USDA publications such as the National
Handbook of Conservation Practices (USDA/NRCS, Apr.  26, 1999),
available on the Internet (http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/nhcp_2.html)
and field office technical guides, derived from the handbook,
available at NRCS field offices in each state. 

      PRACTICES USED TO LIMIT
      WASTE RUNOFF
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Waste management practices used to limit or reduce animal waste
runoff include a variety of barriers and buffers.  Barriers include
cementing and curbing animal confinement areas, such as feedlots and
barnyards, to capture runoff as well as fencing to restrict
livestock's access to rivers, streams, lakes, or ponds to prevent
animals from depositing wastes directly into these waters and from
breaking down and contributing to the erosion of the banks that line
these waters.  Figure 1 depicts cemented and curbed barnyards. 

   Figure 1:  Cemented and Curbed
   Barnyards

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Buffers include vegetated filter strips, grassed waterways, and
constructed wetlands.  These practices are intended to remove
nutrients, organic solids, and sediments from animal waste runoff
before they can reach surface waters.  For example, vegetated filter
stripsï¿½areas planted with grassesï¿½may be located around animal
holding areas, between animal production facilities and surface water
bodies, and along the banks of surface water bodies.  They may also
serve as buffers between these water bodies and rangeland where
livestock graze and cropland to which manure has been applied as a
fertilizer or soil conditioner.\11 Figure 2 depicts a grassed filter
strip separating a barnyard from a nearby stream. 

   Figure 2:  Grassed Filter Strip

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

--------------------
\11 As a soil conditioner, animal waste is applied to soil to improve
its organic content. 

      PRACTICES USED TO COLLECT
      AND STORE ANIMAL WASTES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Waste management practices used to collect and store animal wastes
include a variety of scraping and flushing systems and storage
structures such as tanks, lagoons, ponds, and sheds.  The choice of a
collection method and storage structure depends, in part, on the
volume and moisture content of the waste being handled.  For example,
wastes with a relatively high moisture content, such as dairy and hog
waste, are suitable for a mechanized scraping or water-based flushing
system.  In contrast, drier wastes, such as beef cattle and poultry
waste, are typically moved with a tractor or through manual labor. 
Figure 3 depicts a mechanized scraping system in which a scraper sled
is drawn along by a chain or cable located in a floor groove. 

   Figure 3:  Mechanized Scraping
   System for Collecting Dairy Cow
   Waste

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Similarly, the choice of a storage structure depends on waste volume
and moisture content.  Structures such as lagoons, retention ponds,
and tanks are suitable for very wet waste, such as waste slurry.\12
Lagoons and retention ponds can be lined with packed clay or a
synthetic material to minimize the leaching of liquid waste into
groundwater.  Structures such as sheds or synthetic covers are used
for dry wastes such as poultry litter.  \13 Dry wastes are ï¿½stackedï¿½
in these structures to shelter them from rain and snow.  In general,
wastes are held in storage structures until they can be applied to
agricultural land as a fertilizer or soil conditioner.  Irrigation
equipment can be used to pump liquid waste from storage structures
onto fields; dry waste is usually applied with a tractor-drawn manure
spreader.  Figure 4 depicts a storage lagoon for hog waste and an
above-ground storage tank for dairy cow waste. 

   Figure 4:  Storage Lagoon for
   Hog Waste and Storage Tank for
   Dairy Cow Waste

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

--------------------
\12 Waste slurry is a watery mixture of insoluble matter with a
mud-like consistency. 

\13 Poultry litter consists of poultry manure and other materials,
such as feathers, and bedding materials, such as wood shavings or
straw. 

      PRACTICES USED TO ALTER OR
      TREAT ANIMAL WASTES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Management practices used to alter or treat animal wastes include
feed manipulation, composting, and anaerobic digestion.  In general,
these practices are used to reduce the volume of waste and/or to
stabilize nutrients, control odors, and/or eliminate pathogens.  Feed
manipulation includes changing the composition of an animal's diet or
adding enzymes to feed to enable an animal to more efficiently absorb
nutrients, thereby reducing the nutrient content of the animal's
excrement.  Composting, which can be performed in sheds or open-air
manure stacks, is the biological decomposition of solid animal waste
in the presence of air to form a humus-like material.  This material,
or compost, can then be applied to agricultural land as a fertilizer
or soil conditioner.  Figure 5 depicts open-air composting in which
manure stacks, or ï¿½windrows,ï¿½ are periodically churned to keep them
aerated. 

   Figure 5:  Open-air Manure
   Composting

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Anaerobic digestion, which is generally performed in lagoons or
tanks, is the biological treatment of liquid animal waste using
bacteria in the absence of air to promote the decomposition of
organic solids.  The resultant nutrient-rich liquid can be pumped
onto fields as fertilizer.  Figure 6 depicts an anaerobic digestion
tank. 

   Figure 6:  Anaerobic Digestion
   Tank

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

      PRACTICES FOR USING ANIMAL
      WASTES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

Practices relating to the use of waste include nutrient management
and the use of waste in animal feeds and for on-farm energy
generation.  Nutrient management includes, among other things,
testing the nutrient content of manure and soil to determine
appropriate application rates of animal waste as fertilizer to
agricultural lands.  It may also include practices such as injecting
or incorporating animal waste into the soil at the time of
application to limit runoff and the volatilization of nitrogen in
this waste in the air.  Regarding the use of waste in animal feeds,
some livestock feed formulations include poultry litter as an
additive because of its high nutrient and protein content.  The use
of animal waste for energy generation is done in conjunction with
anaerobic digestion systems.  One of the by-products of the digestion
process is methane, a colorless, odorless, flammable gas.  As
discussed, anaerobic digestion is done in either lagoons or tanks. 
Lagoons must be covered to capture this gas; the methane is already
captive in tanks.  The methane is then drawn off from these
structures to power an electricity-producing generator or to fuel a
water heater.  The electricity or heat produced can then be used for
a variety of on-farm purposes.  Figure 7 depicts a covered lagoon in
which methane is drawn off with a vacuum pump as well as an electric
generator and water heater powered by this methane. 

   Figure 7:  Covered Lagoon to
   Capture Methane Gas and
   Electric Generator and Water
   Heater Powered by This Methane

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

      WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
      USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

Generally speaking, animal waste management practices used in other
major livestock and poultry production countries are similar to those
used by U.S.  farmers.\14 However, some differences in the approach
to animal waste management exist that are related to political and
economic circumstances in these countries. 

--------------------
\14 Other major livestock and poultry production countries include
Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom.  We selected these countries because they (1) are considered
major producers by virtue of their metric tons of production during
calendar years 1991 through 1997 in one or more livestock or poultry
sectors and/or (2) were recommended by USDA officials and university
extension agents as leaders in proactive animal waste management. 

      PRACTICES ARE GENERALLY
      SIMILAR
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.6

As in the United States, livestock and poultry producers in other
major production countries generally use waste management practices
that are based on the eventual application of animal waste to
agricultural land as a fertilizer or soil conditioner.  According to
reports prepared by officials of USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) who periodically visit these countries,
as well as other relevant literature, these foreign practices,
including those used to limit runoff and to collect, store, alter,
treat, and/or utilize waste, are similar to practices used by U.S. 
farmers.  However, there are some differences in emphasis on the
practices selected.  For example, the use of anaerobic digesters to
produce methane for on-farm energy generation is more prevalent in
European countries, such as Germany, than it is in the United States. 
According to one expert, there are approximately 400 digesters on
farms in Germany compared with 28 on U.S.  farms.  Officials from
EPA, USDA, and the Department of Energy indicated that the relatively
high cost of energy inputs in European countries make on-farm energy
generation using anaerobic digestion a more economically attractive
option in these countries than in the United States. 

Furthermore, as in the United States, some European countries
encourage nutrient management through incentive payments.  For
example, a number of countries, including Denmark, Germany, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, offer incentive payments to
producers to implement conservation practices on their farms to,
among other things, better manage animal wastes to protect water
quality.  In some cases, the availability and amount of these
payments is determined on the basis of ratios of cropland acreage to
animals.  In this connection, several of these countries have
published guidelines addressing preferred practices for managing
livestock and poultry wastes. 

      DESPITE SIMILAR PRACTICES,
      SOME DIFFERENCES EXIST
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.7

Although practices are generally similar, some notable differences in
waste management exist between other major animal production
countries and the United States.  For example, in some European
countries, such as Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, commercial
or quasi-governmental companies operate centralized plants that
accept animal and other organic waste for anaerobic digestion.  In
turn, these plants may market the by-products of the digestion
process, including methane gas, nutrient-rich liquid fertilizer, and
compost made from the residue of organic solids.  These plants may
also collect user fees from the farms, industrial firms, and
municipalities that furnish the organic waste.  In addition, some of
the plants receive government subsidies to cover their operating
expenses.  As of 1997, about 40 such plants in Europe accepted animal
waste, compared with only 2 in the United States.  This discrepancy
is explained, in part, by differences in individual national
conditions, such as energy prices, the costs of regulatory
compliance, and the amount of available landï¿½either for application
or landfillï¿½for organic wastes. 

In some countries, animal waste is also used for commercial energy
generation.  For example, in the United Kingdom, an electric power
company has been generating electricity since the early 1990s in two
plants that incinerate poultry litter.  To date, these plants have
required government subsidies to remain competitive with power plants
that use fossil fuels such as oil and coal.  However, the managing
director of the company operating these litter-incineration plants
has indicated that many consumers would be willing to pay slightly
higher prices for ï¿½green powerï¿½ electricity, that is, power generated
from nonfossil fuel sources.  The company planned to open a third and
much larger poultry litter incineration plant in June 1999. 

Some countries have imposed specific nutrient management requirements
on farmers.  For example, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom have implemented programs that regulate and
limit the application of animal wastes to agricultural land. 
Denmark, for instance, requires its farmers to meet specific cropland
acreage-to-animal ratios to ensure that they have ample land to
absorb the animal waste nutrients produced on their farms; in effect,
this ratio limits the size of a farmer's livestock herd or poultry
flock. 

      POTENTIAL PRACTICES BASED ON
      TECHNOLOGIES USED IN OTHER
      INDUSTRIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.8

Regarding potential practices based on technologies transferred from
other industries, some EPA officials believe that a multistage
treatment technology used to manage municipal wastewater and sewage
could be adapted for use in large animal production operations. 
Another technology, according to one expert, appears to have a more
limited potential for transference--reverse osmosis, a technique used
for water purification.  However, issues related to the cost of
constructing, maintaining, and operating this technology on farms
must be resolved first. 

EPA officials indicated that the treatment technology used for
municipal wastewater and sewage could be used for handling large
volumes of liquid or slurry waste associated with large dairy or hog
production operations.  However, they also noted that this technology
would require modifications to handle the more concentrated wastes
produced by these dairy and hog operations.  This technology, which
involves several stages of treatment--solids separation, filtration,
and chemical purification--represents a considerable capital
investment; it is also costly to operate and maintain.  According to
EPA officials, this technology results in an effluent that is free of
organic solids, has been treated for pathogens, and has a greatly
reduced nutrient level, but it also produces a residual sludge that
must either be placed in landfills, incinerated, or applied to
agricultural land as a fertilizer. 

According to an EPA official, the construction of an on-farm
wastewater treatment facility may require financial assistance, as
has often been the case in constructing municipal wastewater
facilities.  For example, under provisions of the Clean Water Act,\15
as amended, the federal government has assisted communities in
meeting these construction costs, first through grants, and then,
starting in 1989, through loans made under state revolving funds.\16
Producers may have access to loans under these revolving funds for
certain activities, such as constructing animal waste management
facilities.  In this connection, USDA officials noted that some
municipal systems may have excess treatment capacity available that
could be used to handle animal wastes from one or more farms, like a
municipal wastewater treatment facility in southern California that
accepts animal waste from a nearby dairy farm. 

Reverse osmosis, a technology in which saltwater or polluted water is
forced through a membrane under pressure to produce potable water,
may have potential for treating animal waste.  Like multistage
treatment systems, reverse osmosis could be used to treat large
volumes of liquid or slurry waste, filtering out fine solids,
pathogens, and much of the nutrient content, according to a former
consultant to the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.  However, according to this consultant, this technology
is extremely expensive to install, maintain, and operate; it would
also result in residual sludge that must be disposed of. 

--------------------
\15 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 
92-500, Oct.  18, 1972. 

\16 Capital for the state revolving funds is provided by federal
funds and a 20-percent state match.  The revolving funds are operated
by the states and provide loans generally to local governments to
finance wastewater treatment and certain other water pollution
projects; the repayment of these loans replenishes the funds. 

   FEDERAL FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL
   ASSISTANCE FOR ANIMAL WASTE
   MANAGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

USDA administers the major federal programs that provide financial
and technical assistance to producers to manage their animal wastes. 
Most of this assistance is provided through USDA's Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which shares the cost of
implementing waste management practices with farmers through direct
payments.  Several other assistance programs are administered by EPA
or the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 
Producers generally learn about the availability of federal financial
and technical assistance through locally based officials such as
district conservationists, USDA's NRCS and Farm Service Agency (FSA)
county office employees, and extension agents; leaflets, pamphlets,
and websites describing these assistance programs; advertisements or
articles in farm journals or other publications; and conversations
with other farmers.  Locally based officials work with producers to
assist them in selecting waste management practices and applying for
financial assistance. 

For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, federal agencies provided a total
of $384.7 million in financial and technical assistance to producers
for animal waste management.\17 Furthermore, these agencies estimate
they will provide about $114 million for this purpose in fiscal year
1999, although estimates were not available for all of the programs. 
USDA provided most of this financial and technical assistanceï¿½about
85 percentï¿½to animal producers through its programs, especially EQIP. 
Figure 8 shows the relative share, by agency, of the financial and
technical assistance provided to livestock and poultry producers for
animal waste management from fiscal years 1996 through 1998. 

   Figure 8:  Proportions of
   Financial and Technical
   Assistance for Animal Waste
   Management, by Federal Agency,
   Fiscal Years 1996-98

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  While not depicted in the figure, the Farm Assessment System,
jointly administered by USDA and EPA, provided about $200,000 in
technical assistance for animal waste management during this period. 
This amount represents less than 1 percent of the total federal
assistance provided for animal waste management. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of USDA, EPA, and FWS' data. 

--------------------
\17 No cost-share payments for installing animal waste management
practices were made by the Conservation Reserve Program in fiscal
year 1996. 

      USDA'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

USDA provides financial and/or technical assistance to producers for
animal waste management through several programsï¿½EQIP, the Small
Watershed Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program.  In addition
to these programs, some animal producers continue to receive
financial assistance under long-term agreements related to USDA's
Agricultural Conservation Program; although this program was
terminated by the 1996 Farm Bill,\18 USDA will continue making
payments until these agreements expire in several years. 

In general, EQIP and the Small Watershed Program share the cost of
implementing animal waste management or other conservation practices
with farmers through direct payments.  By statute, at least 50
percent of EQIP's funding is used to assist livestock and poultry
producers; most of this assistance, according to USDA officials, has
been for animal waste management practices.  In addition, EQIP
assistance is generally targeted to farms in areas or regions of the
country that have water quality or other natural resource problems. 
Similarly, the Small Watershed Program assists farms in watersheds
smaller than 250,000 acres with water quality problems. 

Under the Conservation Reserve Program, USDA provides annual rental
payments to producers who agree to retire highly erodible or other
environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production.  USDA
also provides cost-share assistance to producers to plant a vegetated
cover, such as grasses or trees, on this land.  In cases where this
land is located near animal confinement areas, this cover vegetation
acts as a buffer to capture animal waste runoff.  Cost-share
assistance may also be provided for fencing to keep livestock animals
off land enrolled in this program. 

Producers must apply for assistance under a specific program.  USDA
officials review and rank producers' applications using such criteria
as (1) whether an applicant's farm is located in a conservation
priority or an environmentally sensitive area, (2) what the
conservation or environmental benefits of providing the assistance
are, (3) what the costs of implementing the proposed practice are,
and (4) whether the assistance provided will help the producer comply
with federal, state, tribal, or local environmental laws.  If a
producer's proposal is selected for cost-sharing, the producer must
enter into a multiyear agreement with USDA to implement a
conservation plan, including specific practices, prior to receiving
these cost-share payments. 

In addition to its cost-sharing programs, USDA administers loan
programs that producers may use for, among other things, animal waste
management practices.  These programs, which are administered by FSA,
include farm ownership loans and farm operating loans.  These loans
may either be made directly with FSA or with a private lending
institution, in which case FSA guarantees up to 95 percent of the
loan principal.  In general, loan approval is based on a producer's
credit history, ability to repay the loan, and collateral.  An
official from USDA's Farm Loan Programs office indicated that
producers have used these loans to pay for the installation of waste
management structures such as lagoons. 

For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, USDA provided a total of $326.4
million in financial and technical assistance under its cost-sharing
programs for animal waste management.  Most of this assistanceï¿½about
$209 millionï¿½was provided under EQIP.  USDA estimates that it will
provide an additional $104.9 million in assistance for this purpose
in fiscal year 1999.\19 USDA did not have information on the level of
assistance it provided under its loan programs for animal waste
management during these years.  According to USDA officials, the
Department does not track the number or amount of loans made for
specific conservation practices or the type of loan recipient, such
as an animal producer. 

Appendix I provides additional information on USDA's assistance
programs.  Appendix II provides information on a variety of animal
waste management practices that are eligible for cost-sharing
assistance under EQIP. 

--------------------
\18 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 
104-127, Apr.  4, 1996. 

\19 An estimate for the Conservation Reserve Program was not
available for fiscal year 1999. 

      EPA'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

EPA manages several programs directed at preventing or mitigating
soil, water, and air pollution from nonpoint sources, including
animal waste runoff,\20 that offer financial and/or technical
assistance to producers to manage animal wastes.  These programs
include the National Nonpoint Source Program, the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund, and AgSTAR.  Unlike USDA's assistance programs, EPA's
programs generally do not make direct cost-sharing payments or loans
to individual farmers; instead, financial assistance from these
programs is channeled through state, local, or tribal governments. 

Under the National Nonpoint Source Program, EPA makes grants to
states to assess water quality problems caused by nonpoint sources
and to develop programs to address these problems.  In turn, some of
these state nonpoint programs provide cost-sharing assistance to
livestock and poultry producers to implement animal waste management
practices on their farms, including waste storage structures, fencing
to limit animals' access to surface waters, and vegetated buffers to
capture waste runoff. 

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund provides capitalization grants
to states so they can provide loans to local governments and
communities, primarily to construct new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities.  Increasingly, however, some states are using
these funds to address nonpoint pollution problems, including those
related to animal waste.  Specifically, according to an EPA official,
six states are using these funds to address nonpoint pollution
related to animal agriculture.  For example, Minnesota has used state
revolving funds to provide loans to farmers for purchasing manure
storage, handling, and spreading equipment; installing feedlot
improvements to prevent runoff; and implementing stream bank
protection efforts. 

AgSTAR provides technical assistance to producers interested in
installing waste holding tanks or covered lagoons and anaerobic
digesters to reduce odors and recover methane gas for on-farm energy
generation.  A primary focus of this program is to reduce methane
emissions, a ï¿½greenhouseï¿½ gas,\21 to the atmosphere. 

During fiscal years 1996 through 1998, EPA's programs provided a
total of $39.8 million in financial and/or technical assistance for
animal waste management.  With the exception of AgSTAR, EPA was
unable to estimate the level of this assistance for fiscal year 1999
because these programs are generally implemented by state and local
governments, which report their spending to EPA at the end of the
fiscal year.  For AgSTAR, EPA estimates it will provide about
$400,000 in technical assistance in fiscal year 1999. 

Appendix III provides further information on EPA's assistance
programs. 

--------------------
\20 Nonpoint pollution is that pollution that is not traceable to a
specific point of origin, such as a pipe or other outlet.  Animal
agriculture sources of nonpoint pollution include animal waste runoff
from animal feeding operations; cropland where manure has been
applied as fertilizer; and livestock feeding and watering areas on
rangeland or pasture. 

\21 ï¿½Greenhouseï¿½ gases are heat-trapping gases that are believed to
contribute to global warming. 

      OTHER FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
      PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Other federal programs providing assistance to livestock and poultry
producers for animal waste management include FWS' Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program and a program jointly sponsored by USDA and EPA
known as the Farm Assessment System.  The partners program provides
cost-sharing and technical assistance to private landowners,
including animal producers, who are willing to implement conservation
practices that improve wildlife habitat and protect water quality. 
For example, this program has been used to share the cost of
installing vegetated buffers and fencing to limit livestock access to
surface waters or to accommodate rotational grazing.\22 This program
provided a total of $18.3 million in assistance for animal waste
management during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.  The Service
estimates it will provide another $8.7 million in assistance in
fiscal year 1999. 

The Farm Assessment System, usually known as ï¿½Farm*A*Syst,ï¿½ is a
national network of state programs that provides technical assistance
to producers to implement nutrient management plans that will reduce
water pollution and public health risks.  Sponsored by USDA and EPA,
the program also depends on funding from state and local agencies and
others, such as producer organizations.  Among other things, program
funds are used to produce how-to materials, including booklets and
worksheets on manure handling, storage, and application to the land. 
This program provided a total of about $200,000 in federally funded
assistance for animal waste management from fiscal years 1996 through
1998.  According to program officials, the program will provide an
additional $60,000 in federally funded assistance in fiscal year
1999. 

Appendix IV provides more information on these programs. 

--------------------
\22 Rotational grazing is a system in which livestock animals are
moved intermittently among several fenced areas or paddocks to
prevent overgrazing of the vegetation.  Overgrazing can lead to soil
erosion, impacting water quality. 

   FEDERAL ROLE IN CONDUCTING AND
   SUPPORTING ANIMAL WASTE
   MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) are the principal
federal agencies involved in conducting or supporting research to
develop new or innovative animal waste management practices.\23 For
example, in recent years, these agencies have conducted or sponsored
research to reduce and stabilize nutrients in animal wastes, to
reduce emissions of odor-causing compounds and ï¿½greenhouseï¿½ gases,
and to improve waste composting techniques.  Generally, these
agencies' research agendas are determined by their customers' needs. 
These agencies' customers include other federal agencies such as NRCS
and EPA, state and local agencies, animal producers and their
associations and councils, and environmental groups. 

ARS and CSREES use a variety of methodsï¿½including formal and informal
interagency meetings and workshops--to coordinate their research
initiatives on animal waste management practices in order to avoid
duplicative projects.  For example, ARS sponsored a workshop in April
1998 in which representatives from CSREES, as well as from EPA, NRCS,
universities, private organizations, and environmental groups, helped
ARS identify its research priorities for animal waste management. 
Generally speaking, the results of this research are disseminated
through agencies' websites and publications; trade journals; public
forums, including open houses at federal laboratories; and databases
maintained at USDA's National Agricultural Library or at various
universities. 

In addition to this federally sponsored research, states, producer
organizations, and private companies fund research on new and
innovative animal waste management practices, often through
university departments of agricultural science or environmental
studies.  For example, the University of Georgia recently completed
research financed by the U.S.  Poultry and Egg Association on an
alternative manure management system for handling the waste of laying
hens. 

--------------------
\23 Neither the U.S.  Geological Survey, in the Department of the
Interior, nor the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in
the Department of Commerce, has undertaken research related to the
development of new or innovative waste management practices in recent
years.  However, both agencies conduct research addressing the
effects of animal waste on the environment.  For example, the Survey
is engaged in on-site studies and methods development on animal
production-related pathogens, pharmaceuticals, and nutrients and
works cooperatively with state and local agencies to monitor the
effectiveness of on-farm waste management practices. 

      ARS RESEARCH
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

ARS conducts research on animal waste management practices, primarily
under the auspices of its National Program for Manure and By-Product
Utilization.  In recent years, this research has generally focused on
nonstructural practices, including adding chemicals, such as aluminum
sulfate, to animal waste to stabilize nutrients and control odors;
adding enzymes to feed to increase an animal's digestion of nutrients
and reduce these nutrients in excrement; breeding crops containing
nutrients in forms that are more readily absorbed by the animal;
developing methods to reduce emissions of odor-causing compounds,
ammonia, and ï¿½greenhouseï¿½ gases; and developing land-based manure
management practices to reduce the movement of nutrients, pathogens,
and gases into water and the air. 

For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, ARS spent a total of $13.5
million for research related to animal waste management; it estimates
it will spend an additional $9.1 million for this purpose in fiscal
year 1999.  The annual funding for this research has grown from about
$3 million in fiscal year 1996 to an estimated $9.1 million in fiscal
year 1999.  According to the co-leader of the Manure and By-Product
Utilization national program, this increase reflects the increasing
public concern about environmental effects of animal production
operations and the need for ARS' customer base, including NRCS, to
have scientific information, technologies, and management practices
to appropriately deal with manure management issues. 

      CSREES RESEARCH
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

CSREES provides formula funds and grants to state agricultural
experiment stations, universities, and other state institutions that
conduct basic and applied research on many agricultural issues,
including animal waste management.  In its Current Research
Information System database, CSREES identified nearly 400 research
projects ongoing in fiscal year 1997 that related, at least in part,
to animal waste management.  According to CSREES' National Leader for
Engineering, these projects included research on the biological
treatment of waste, combining aerobic and anaerobic methods; the
combustion of poultry litter for on-farm energy generation; and the
control of animal waste odors, including methods for covering manure
storage structures and altering manure with chemical additives. 

CSREES spent $6.9 million for research on animal waste management in
fiscal year 1997.  Similar data for fiscal years 1996 and 1998, as
well as an estimate for fiscal year 1999, were not available.  \24

--------------------
\24 According to CSREES, information on the research it funded in
fiscal year 1996 has been archived; thus, CSREES was unable to
readily analyze these data for research specifically related to
animal waste management.  Information on research funded in fiscal
year 1998 will not be available until the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 1999. 

      OTHERS CONDUCTING RESEARCH
      ON ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

States and private organizations are also funding research on new and
innovative waste management practices, generally through
universities.  For example, the North Carolina General Assembly made
a special appropriation in 1996 of $2.3 million to North Carolina
State University for research on animal waste management topics such
as developing odor-control and waste management technologies.  The
University also carries out research funded by meat- and
egg-processing companies to identify improved methods that livestock
and poultry producers can use to treat and dispose of their animals'
waste and to identify alternatives to applying waste to land.\25 In
addition, private industry is funding a variety of research projects. 
For example, some feed manufacturers are funding research on hybrid
grains to reduce excess nutrients in animal excrement. 

--------------------
\25 Meat- and egg-processing companies often enter into contractual
agreements with livestock and poultry producers to facilitate
economies of size to lower production costs and control for quality
and uniformity in response to consumer preferences for quality and
convenience-type products. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided copies of a draft of this report to USDA, EPA, and the
Department of the Interior's FWS for their review and comment.  We
met with officials from USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service, including the Associate Deputy Chief for Programs; the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; and the
Farm Service Agency.  We also met with officials from FWS, including
the Chief, Branch of Habitat Restoration.  We also received comments
from officials within EPA's Office of Wastewater Management and
Office of Air and Radiation.  USDA, EPA, and FWS generally agreed
with the information presented in the report. 

However, with respect to our discussion of using alternative waste
management practices that are based on the technology used in
municipal wastewater treatment facilities, USDA and EPA officials
noted that these technologies are designed to treat waste that is
more diluted than the concentrated wastes typically found in farm
operations.  They therefore expressed concern about the practicality
of using this technology for farm operations.  We recognize that this
technology would have to be modified to handle animal waste, which is
more concentrated than municipal sewage.  We modified our report to
note this limitation. 

USDA, EPA, and FWS also provided a number of technical changes and
clarifications to the report, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

In developing the information for this report, we interviewed and/or
obtained documents from a broad range of officials from federal
agencies, such as USDA, EPA, and FWS, as well as from various
producer groups, environmental organizations, universities, foreign
embassies, and individual producers.  We also interviewed officials
and/or obtained relevant documentation at various animal waste
management conferences and symposia, producer councils and
associations, and extension universities, including the University of
Maryland-Eastern Shore and North Carolina State University.  In
addition, we visited a variety of livestock and poultry farms in
Maryland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania to observe the waste
management practices they employ.  See appendix V for more details on
our scope and methodology. 

We conducted our review from September 1998 through July 1999, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
did not independently verify the accuracy of expenditure data related
to federal financial and technical assistance for animal waste
management. 

---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Richard Lugar,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry;
other appropriate congressional committees; and interested Members of
Congress; the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, the
Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable
Carol Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
and other interested parties.  We will also make copies available
upon request. 

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202)
512-5138.  Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgements are listed
in appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

Lawrence J.  Dyckman
Director, Food and
 Agriculture Issues

USDA PROGRAMS PROVIDING FINANCIAL
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                  (Dollars in millions)

                                                                   Amount
                                                                   provided    Amount
                                                                   for animal  estimated
                                                                   waste       for animal
                                                                   management  waste
                                                                   , FY        management
Program     Program description                                    1996ï¿½98     , FY 1999
----------  -----------------------------------------------------  ----------  ----------
Environmen  Provides financial and technical assistance to animal  $208.9\b    $87.0
tal         and crop producers who agree to enter 5-to 10-year
Quality     contracts to implement conservation practices.
Incentives  Generally shares up to 75 percent of the costs to
Program     install practices, with a maximum of $10,000 for any
(EQIP)      fiscal year, or $50,000 for any multiyear contract;
            program also provides incentive payments for nutrient
            management or other land management initiatives.
            Focuses on priority areas such as watersheds with
            environmental concerns. At least 50 percent of EQIP
            funding is reserved to assist livestock and poultry
            producers; these producers must have fewer than 1,000
            animal unit equivalents.\a

Small       Provides financial and technical assistance through    49.6        17.9
Watershed   state and local agencies to producers who usually
Program     enter 5-to 10-year contracts to implement management
            practices. Generally shares from 50 to 75 percent of
            the actual costs associated with installing
            management practices, with a maximum of $100,000 per
            participant for the life of the program. Focuses on
            watersheds smaller than 250,000 acres to reduce
            flooding and soil erosion and improve water quality.

Conservati  Provides land rental payments, for 10 to 15 years, to  5.9\c       Not
on Reserve  producers who agree to convert highly erodible or                  available
Program     other environmentally sensitive land to approved
            vegetated cover (such as grass or trees). Program
            also offers cost-share assistance to establish
            vegetated cover and fencing on enrolled land.

Agricultur  A terminated program that provided financial and       62.0\d      Not
al          technical assistance to producers who entered                      available
Conservati  multiyear contracts to install conservation
on Program  practices. Generally shared up to 50 percent of costs
            to implement practices, with a maximum of $3,500
            annually and $35,000 for a 10-year contract. USDA is
            still making payment under some of these contracts.

Farm        Provides direct loans of up to $200,000, or            \e          \e
ownership   guaranteed loans of up to $300,000, for up to 40
loans       years to, among other things, purchase land,
            construct buildings or make other structural
            improvements, and develop farmland to promote soil
            and water conservation.

Farm        Provides direct loans of up to $200,000, or            \e          \e
operating   guaranteed loans of up to $400,000, for up to 7 years
loans       to, among other things, purchase livestock, poultry,
            equipment, feed, and other farm supplies; develop and
            implement soil and water conservation practices; and
            refinance debt.

=========================================================================================
Total                                                              $326.4      $104.9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  In addition to these programs, USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service provides some technical assistance for animal
waste management to livestock and poultry producers out of its
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) program, which underpins the
agency's other conservation programs that provide financial and
technical assistance.  Essentially, CTA provides funds for salaries
and expenses of NRCS field staff who provide technical assistance to
producers under programs such as EQIP and CRP.  However, USDA was
unable to provide us with information on how much of these funds have
been directed toward technical assistance for animal waste
management.  Similarly, USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service provided about $2 million for educational and
technical assistance to farmers from fiscal years 1996 through 1998. 
However, USDA was unable to specify how much of this educational and
technical assistance was directed toward animal waste management. 

\a Animal unit equivalents are calculated for each livestock and
poultry sector according to estimated rates of manure production for
each species.  Thus, the number of animals representing 1,000 animal
unit equivalents varies by sector.  For example, the equivalent for
hogs is 2,500 animals (hogs over 55 pounds) and the equivalent for
broilers and laying hens is 100,000 birds (confinement facilities
with continuous watering systems). 

\b Includes assistance provided in fiscal years 1997 through 1998
only.  EQIP activities in fiscal year 1996 were funded from the
appropriation for the Agricultural Conservation Program. 

\c Amount for the Conservation Reserve Program is for fiscal years
1997 and 1998. 

\d Includes an indeterminate but small amount of funds in fiscal year
1996 to fund EQIP activities. 

\e FSA does not track the number and amount of loans that are used
for specific soil and water conservation practices or whether the
loan recipient is an animal producer. 

Source:  USDA. 

SELECTED PRACTICES PRODUCERS HAVE
INSTALLED WITH EQIP ASSISTANCE
========================================================== Appendix II

Livestock and poultry producers who participate in the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) may receive up to 75 percent of the
cost to install conservation practices, including animal waste
management practices.  The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) maintains a list of practices that are eligible for financial
assistance under EQIP, as well as other U.S.  Department of
Agriculture cost-sharing programs.  This list is periodically updated
as innovative practices become available and are demonstrated to be
efficacious.  Table II.1 provides examples of the kinds of practices
animal producers have installed with cost-share assistance provided
by EQIP, as well as the average per unit cost of installing these
practices.  The average cost does not include costs associated with
the operation and maintenance of these practices. 

The average installation costs shown in table II.1 are based on a
limited number of cases covering a relatively short time period. 
They are also based on relatively small animal production operations
because (1) the authorizing legislation for EQIP precludes the
provision of cost-share assistance to large operationsï¿½defined as
those with 1,000 or more animal unit equivalentsï¿½and (2) in the early
months of EQIP's implementation, NRCS concentrated on smaller
operations.  According to the NRCS Deputy Chief for Programs, the
unit cost for constructing a storage facility or treatment lagoon
would be substantially greater for a large facility.  In addition,
the Deputy Chief noted that farmers usually employ multiple practices
that together constitute a waste management system; the cost of this
ï¿½systemï¿½ is the sum of the installation costs of constituent
practices. 

                         Table II.1
          
           Selected Practices Installed With EQIP
          Assistance and the Average Installation
                            Cost

                                                   Average
                                              installation
                                                  cost per
Practice        Definition/purpose                    unit
--------------  ----------------------------  ------------
Composting      Facility for the biological        $8,409/
 facility        stabilization of waste           facility
                 organic material.
Cover and       Close-growing legumes or       $24.90/acre
 green manure    small grain to control
 crop            erosion during periods when
                 the major crops do not
                 furnish adequate cover.
                 Possesses filtering
                 qualities.
Diversion       Channel constructed to          $3.10/foot
                 divert excess water from
                 one area for use or safe
                 disposal in other areas.
Fence           Constructed barrier to          $1.54/foot
                 livestock, wildlife, or
                 people.
Filter strip    Area of vegetation for         $4,650/acre
                 removing sediment, organic
                 matter, and other
                 pollutants from runoff and
                 wastewater. May require a
                 constructed ditch
                 ("settling basin") between
                 a barnyard and the
                 vegetative strip to ensure
                 that solids do not reach
                 surface waters.
Grassed         Natural or constructed         $2,644/acre
 waterway        channel that is shaped and
                 established in vegetation
                 to convey runoff from water
                 concentrations without
                 causing erosion or flooding
                 and to improve water
                 quality.
Manure          Conveyance system, such as        $10,932/
 transfer\a      pipelines and concrete-            system
                 lined ditches, that
                 transfer animal waste
                 (manure, bedding material,
                 spilled feed, process and
                 wash water, and other
                 residues associated with
                 animal production) to (1) a
                 storage or treatment
                 facility, (2) a loading
                 area, and (3) agricultural
                 land for final utilization.
Nutrient        Managing the amount, form,     $17.10/acre
 management      placement, and timing or
                 applications of nutrients,
                 such as from animal waste,
                 for optimum crop yields
                 while minimizing the entry
                 of nutrients to surface
                 water and groundwater.
Roof runoff     Gutters, downspouts, and           $3,098/
 Management      drains for controlling roof      facility
                 runoff water to prevent
                 this runoff from flowing
                 across feedlots, barnyards,
                 or other areas to reduce
                 pollution and erosion;
                 improve water quality; and
                 prevent flooding.
Streambank and  Vegetation or structures       $27.11/foot
 shoreline       used to stabilize and
 protection      protect banks of streams,
                 lakes, and estuaries to
                 reduce sediment loads--
                 including nutrients from
                 animal wast--causing
                 downstream damage and
                 pollution.
Trough or tank  Provides drinking water for    $905/trough
                 livestock, which can              or tank
                 eliminate the need for
                 livestock to be in streams;
                 this, in turn, reduces the
                 amount of livestock waste
                 entering streams.
Waste           Planned system in which all       $20,477/
 management      necessary components are           system
 system          installed for managing
                 liquid and solid waste,
                 including runoff from
                 concentrated waste areas,
                 in a manner that does not
                 degrade air, soil, or water
                 resources. A system may
                 consist of a single
                 component, such as a
                 diversion, or of several
                 components.
Waste storage   Impoundment made by               $19,141/
 facility        constructing an embankment       facility
                 and/or excavating a pit or
                 dugout or by fabricating a
                 structure to temporarily
                 store wastes, such as
                 manure, wastewater, and
                 contaminated runoff.
Waste           Impoundment made by               $20,777/
 treatment       excavation or earthfill for        lagoon
 lagoon\a        biological treatment of
                 animal or other
                 agricultural waste.
Waste           Agricultural waste applied     $17.10/acre
 utilization     to land in an
                 environmentally acceptable
                 manner while maintaining or
                 improving soil and plant
                 resources.
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Because fewer than 30 of these systems or facilities have been
completed under EQIP, the average cost may not reflect a
statistically valid estimate, according to a USDA official. 

Source:  USDA. 

EPA PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE
FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
FOR ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
========================================================= Appendix III

                                  (Dollars in millions)

                                                                       Amount
                                                                     provided      Amount
                                                                   for animal   estimated
                                                                        waste  for animal
                                                                   management       waste
                                                                   , FY 1996-  management
Program     Program description                                            98   , FY 1999
----------  -----------------------------------------------------  ----------  ----------
National    Provides grants to states to (1) assess the extent to       $17.6         Not
 Nonpoint    which nonpoint sources cause water quality problems               available\
 Source      and (2) develop management programs to address these                       a
 Program     problems. Several states have used these EPA grants
             to assist livestock and poultry producers install
             animal waste management practices to prevent or
             mitigate waste runoff.
Clean       Provides capitalization grants to states, which must       20.3\b         Not
 Water       provide a matching amount equal to 20 percent of the              available\
 State       total grant and agree to use the money first to                            a
 Revolving   ensure that wastewater treatment facilities are in
 Fund        compliance with the deadlines, goals, and
             requirements of the Clean Water Act. However, all
             states have met their priority wastewater
             infrastructure needs, and some have begun using this
             revolving fund to support programs to deal with
             nonpoint source pollution, including animal waste
             runoff. Some states use this funding to make low-
             interest loans to producers for implementing animal
             waste management practices.
AgSTAR      Provides technical assistance to producers interested         1.9         0.4
             in installing waste management systems, such as
             covered lagoons and anaerobic digesters, that reduce
             odors and recover methane gas for use as an on-farm
             power source. The program has established several
             projects on farms in at least five states.
=========================================================================================
Total                                                                   $39.8        $0.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These program funds are distributed by state and local governments
according to local priority needs.  As a result, EPA is unable to
estimate the portion of these funds that will be used to assist
producers in managing their animal wastes. 

\b States have only reported to EPA the aggregate amount of loans
made for animal agricultural runoff since they began using these
funds for nonpoint source pollution-related activities.  Hence, some
states may have been providing loans for this purpose since 1988. 
However, EPA officials said that most states began using these funds
for nonpoint source projects in the mid-1990s. 

Source:  EPA. 

OTHER FEDERAL FINANCIAL AND
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FOR
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
========================================================== Appendix IV

                                  (Dollars in millions)

                                                                                   Amount
                                                                     Amount     estimated
                                                               provided for    for animal
                                                               animal waste         waste
              Responsible                                       management,   management,
Program       agency        Program description                  FY 1996-98       FY 1999
------------  ------------  ---------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Partners for  Fish and      Provides cost-share and technical         $18.3          $8.7
Fish and      Wildlife      assistance to private landowners,
Wildlife      Service,      including livestock and poultry
              Department    producers, who are interested in
              of the        implementing practices that
              Interior      improve habitat for federal trust
                            species,\a decrease overland
                            runoff, reduce stream
                            degradation, and improve forage
                            production and management. Cost-
                            share assistance under the
                            partners program generally
                            requires a 50-percent match from
                            the landowner. However, the
                            program has the flexibility to
                            share costs of more or less than
                            50 percent, on a case-by-case
                            basis.

Farm          USDA and EPA  Supports a network of 45 state            0.2\b        0.06\b
Assessment                  programs. The program provides
System                      producers with state-specific
(Farm*A*Syst                worksheets to help them identify
)                           and assess the causes of nonpoint
                            source pollution, pinpoint
                            pollution risks on their
                            property, and identify site-
                            specific actions to reduce the
                            causes of nonpoint source
                            pollution, such as nitrogen and
                            phosphorous nutrients,
                            pesticides, and pathogens. With
                            this assessment, the program can
                            assist producers in developing
                            feasible plans to prevent
                            pollution and in locating sources
                            of financial assistance through
                            other programs, such as EQIP, to
                            implement practices such as those
                            for managing animal wastes.

=========================================================================================
Total                                                                 $18.5          $8.8
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Federal trust species include migratory birds, threatened and
endangered species, anadromous fish (fish that migrate between fresh
and salt waters, such as salmon), and marine mammals. 

\b According to Farm*A*Syst officials, no EPA funds have been
directed toward animal waste management activities. 

Source:  U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service and Farm Assessment System. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix V

In developing the information for this report, we interviewed and
obtained documents from a broad range of officials from federal
agencies, such as the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the the Department of the
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as well as from various
producer groups, environmental organizations, universities, foreign
embassies, and individual producers.  Specifically, to obtain
information on waste management practices used in the United States,
we interviewed USDA and EPA officials, and we reviewed USDA's
National Handbook of Conservation Practices and EPA's Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters.  We also interviewed officials and/or obtained
relevant documentation at various animal waste management conferences
and symposia, producer councils and associations, and extension
universities, including the University of Marlyand-Eastern Shore and
North Carolina State University.  In addition, we visited a variety
of livestock and poultry farms in Maryland, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania to observe the waste management practices they employ. 
These farms included hog, broiler, and laying hen production
operations. 

To determine the animal waste management practices being used in
other major livestock and poultry production countries, we conducted
a literature search at USDA's National Agricultural Library and
reviewed several years of trip reports prepared by Natural Resources
Conservation Service employees visiting other countries to observe
their conservation practices.  We also obtained documentation from
the Washington, D.  C., embassies of Germany, Japan, the Netherlands,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom.  We selected these countries because
they (1) are considered major producers by virtue of their metric
tons of production during calendar years 1991 through 1997 in one or
more livestock or poultry sectors and/or (2) were recommended to us
by USDA officials and university extension agents as leaders in
proactive animal waste management.  To determine potential new
practices based on technologies transferred from other industries, we
interviewed USDA, EPA, and Department of Energy officials and
reviewed the documentation they provided. 

To obtain information on federal financial and technical assistance
available to livestock and poultry producers for waste management,
including the processes for obtaining this assistance, we interviewed
and obtained documentation from USDA, EPA, and FWS.  We also obtained
information from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.  In
addition, we met with the American Farm Bureau Federation, which
represents, among others, livestock and poultry producers. 

To determine the role of federal agencies in conducting and
supporting research to develop new or innovative animal waste
management practices, we interviewed and obtained documentation from
officials at USDA, EPA, the Department of Energy, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S.  Geological
Survey.  We also interviewed and obtained documentation from
officials at North Carolina State University, including its
Cooperative Extension Service and its Animal and Poultry Waste
Management Center. 

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

GAO CONTACTS

James R.  Jones, Jr., (202) 512-5138
E.  Jerry Seigler, (202) 512-5138

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In addition to those named above, Shannon B.  Bondi, Katherine Carey,
and Melissa M.  Francis made key contributions to this report. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0

Water Quality:  Federal Role in Addressingï¿½and Contributing
toï¿½Nonpoint Source Pollution (GAO/RCED-99-45, Feb.  26, 1999). 

Water Quality:  A Catalog of Related Federal Programs
(GAO/RCED-96-173, June 19, 1996). 

Agriculture and the Environment:  Information on and Characteristics
of Selected Watershed Projects (GAO/RCED-95-218, June 29, 1995). 

Animal Agriculture:  Information on Waste Management and Water
Quality Issues (GAO/RCED-95-200BR, June 28, 1995). 

Agricultural Conservation:  Status of Programs That Provide Financial
Incentives (GAO/RCED-95-169, Apr.  28, 1995). 

Conservation Reserve Program:  Alternatives Are Available for
Managing Environmentally Sensitive Cropland (GAO/RCED-95-42, Feb. 
21, 1995)

*** End of document. ***