Chairperson Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau called the meeting to order 10:07 a.m.

Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture
Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange
John Cameron, USDA, Farm Service Agency
Jay Howes, House, Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Bunt)
Kristen Ebersole, Senate, Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee (Sen. Waugh)
Michael Brendle, Poultry Producer
Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer
Dave Callen, House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Daley)
Neil McAuliffe, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Sen. O’Pake)
Mike Firestine, Agri-business Representative
Bruce Holbrook, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Dan Snowden, DEP, Citizens Advisory Council
Patricia Grim, DEP, Office of Policy
Frank Plewa, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Melanie Wertz, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Bob Hockersmith, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
John Mank, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management
Don Fiesta, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management
Marel Raub, PA Farm Bureau
Bill Achor, Wenger’s Feed Mill, Inc.
Joe Lee, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management
Stuart Reese, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management
Curtis Kratz, Moyer Packing Company
John Pari, PA Department of Agriculture
Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management
Rick Shertzer, DEP, Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management
Bill Gerlach, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel
Meredith Hill, DEP, Office of Policy
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management

No public comments were received.

The minutes of the December 20, 2000 meeting were approved as distributed.

Chairperson Bill Adams noted that he would meet with Brenda Shambaugh from the Grange and Bob Junk from Farmers Union to develop a list of nominations for the current producer member vacancies on the Board. At this time the positions of Ornamental Horticulture Producer, Sustainable Agriculture Producer, Grain Producer, and Dairy Producer are vacant. Robert Pardoe the Dairy Producer has resigned but agreed to serve until replaced. The Board had sent a letter to the Governor’s Office on September 22, 1999 recommending Gerald Seyler be appointed as the Grain Producer. Additional resignations of producer members may occur in the future and it is important to get these vacancies filled to ensure a quorum at future Board meetings.

Chairperson Bill Adams noted there were several bills introduced in the Legislature regarding water resources management. Adams suggested the Board review these proposed bills not to favor or oppose a particular piece of legislation but rather to raise issues and concerns of the agricultural community regarding the legislation, and to point out the potential effect the legislation may have on agriculture. Carl Shaffer made a motion that the Board appoint a Committee to review the water resource management bills introduced in the Legislature. The motion was seconded by Frank Long and approved unanimously by the Board. The Water Resources Management Committee consists of Bill Adams, Frank Long, Dr. Herb Cole, Carl Shaffer, Brenda Shambaugh, Mike Brendle, and Jay Howes. The Committee will report back to the full Board at its April meeting.

Frank Plewa, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, reviewed the federal permitting regulations and requirements for farm pond construction and maintenance. The Board at its December meeting first raised the farm pond issue when Board members voiced their concern over the red tape, financial burden and bureaucracy faced by the agricultural community when constructing or maintaining a farm pond. Plewa noted that Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for work in waters of the United States, including wetlands. Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 320 through 330, outlines what activities require a permit. There are agricultural exemptions listed in the Section 404 regulations, however Plewa noted that under Section 404(F)(2) the recapture clause, any activity that will convert a waterway of the United States to a non-waterway use or change the use is not exempt from the regulations and would require a permit. The Corps does not regulate prior converted cropland and if a farmer were to build a pond in that area no permit would be required unless a stream was flowing through the area. Maintenance activities of ponds are usually exempt from any permits.

Plewa noted that nationwide the number of fresh water ponds increased 13% in the last decade. Some problems with ponds are warm water discharge, evaporation losses, sediment build up and loss of capacity, and geese problems. The Corps has been directing farmers to construct marsh restoration projects rather than ponds if wetland areas are impacted. Chairperson Bill Adams questioned how the recent Supreme Court decision that the Corps does not have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands, which are not surface connected to any other water, would impact Pennsylvania. Plewa stated that this would not be much of an issue in Pennsylvania since most wetlands are not isolated. He stated that any wetlands connected to or adjacent to a surface tributary would still be regulated.

Plewa noted that in Pennsylvania both state and federal agencies handle the permitting process. He stated the use of the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) has streamlined the permitting process. Farmers generally work with their local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office for farm pond construction and the permit process moves along smoothly. He did note that lately NRCS has been getting away from its involvement in farm ponds.

Chairperson Adams thanked Plewa for his presentation and noted the Board has suggested that the Department develop a fact sheet on farm pond construction and maintenance. It was suggested the fact sheet also outline the state and federal permit requirements for farm ponds. The Board agreed to continue to pursue this issue.

At the Board’s October 2000 meeting, the Board questioned the designation of pesticide application from agricultural activities as one of the ten highest priority sources of groundwater contamination as identified on page 52 of the 305(b) 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report. The Board noted that a USGS report found only three sites with a concentration of pesticides exceeding safe drinking water standards in an analysis of 1,159 private water supplies. Stuart Reese, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management, stated that Section 106 of the Clean Water Act requires states to report on the condition of their waterways every two years. The states are also required by EPA to list the top ten highest priority sources of pollution. Reese noted the DEP Regional Office’s received a survey to rank their 10 highest contaminants for their area since they handle complaints and get the groundwater monitoring data and sampling information. Pesticide application was identified in 1998 as one of the top 10 pollutants and since no new comments were received for the 2000 water quality assessment the information in the chart (on page 52) was carried over. Reese acknowledged that during the next water quality assessment update report the information would be updated.

Joe Lee, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management, noted that groundwater monitoring is difficult and costly and there is at this time a minimal groundwater-monitoring program with only 21 active basins monitored out of 478 basins. The department simply does not have the resources to monitor them all. He acknowledged there is scientific data to support the top ten ranking for pesticide applications. There have been detections of pesticides in groundwater at the parts per billion ranges in 50% of the surveys conducted. It was noted the next update of the 305(b) report would be on June 2002. Department staff agreed to come back to the Board in the future and report on this issue.

Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Management, noted the Chapter 92 regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) permits were revised. The regulation revisions were published in the PA Bulletin on November 18, 2000, and established new permit deadlines for CAFOs. All new CAFOs after November 18, 2000 will be required to obtain a CAFO permit before the operation starts. Existing operations with over 1,000 AEUs must obtain a CAFO permit by May 18, 2001. All other CAFOs (301 to 1,000 AEUs) must obtain a permit by February 28, 2002. Farooq stressed the need to get the word out to the agricultural community about the CAFO permit deadline dates. The Department has received 14 CAFO applications to date, with nine of those applications currently under active review.

Jay Howes questioned whether poultry operations would be handled differently. Farooq stated that dry manure poultry operations are still not required to get CAFO permits. If the operation were doing egg processing on site another Clean Water Act permit would be required. Robert Pardoe questioned whether the federal governments lowering of the size of CAFOs would render these revisions void. Farooq noted that DEP has negioated with EPA to have the CAFO regulations consistent with the Act 6 Nutrient Management Program requirements. The Department is currently in the process of reviewing the proposed EPA CAFO regulations.

Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture provided this update report for Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission. To date 1,347 nutrient management plans have been received, 1,012 nutrient management plans approved, with 662 of those being plans for Concentrated Animal Operations (CAOs). There is Nutrient Management Program funding available to assist farmers with the costs of installing BMPs to implement their approved nutrient management plans. Four nutrient management plan approvals are currently under appeal (in Berks, Bedford, Northumberland, and Snyder County) and those appeals will be heard before the Environmental Hearing Board. The State Conservation Commission has initiated six enforcement actions to date for failure to comply with the nutrient management regulations. Forer also noted that the number of farmers who have obtained individual certification that allows them to write their own nutrient management plans has increased.

Rick Shertzer, DEP, Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management, briefed the Board on the Department’s Existing Use Protection Program. Existing use is defined in Title 25, PA Code, Chapter 93.1 as "Those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether are not they are included in the water quality standards." An existing use is different than a designated use, which is defined as those uses defined in 93.9a-93.9z for each water body or segment whether or not the use is obtained. All waters listed in 93.3 are protected as existing use, including High Quality Waters (HQ) and Exceptional Value Waters (EV.)

The identification for a water bodies for existing use classification occurs as the result of information provided by a Department action, The PA Fish and Boat Commission, interested citizens, person seeking permits or approvals, or a person submitting a complete stream re-designation petition to the EQB. The information identifying the water body for existing use evaluation is subject to public notice and input. The Department would publish a notice in the PA Bulletin and a newspaper of general circulation. The Department would then conduct an evaluation of the information to ensure it satisfies all relevant Department protocols and applicable quality assurance and quality control procedures. An existing use classification is based on the best available information evaluated by the Department when they take a final action, or on a request for a permit or approval. The Department maintains a listing of existing use classifications for surface water segments on its DEP website

Board members requested an update on the status of the Department’s stream assessments at the next Board meeting.

Meredith Hill, DEP, Office of Policy, noted that the final policy outlining the steps the Department will take to consider local land use plans and ordinances when reviewing permit applications for facilities and infrastructure became effective January 29, 2001. This was done to ensure the Department complies with the "Growing Smarter" initiatives signed into law by Governor Ridge on June 22, 2000. The policy will affect 69 different types of permits dealing with facilities and infrastructure. The policy will not affect general permits; permits by rule, or the Act 537 plan approvals. The Department will use a revised General Information Form (GIF) to be completed by the applicant. Two trigger questions will be used to determine whether the new land use section of the GIF form is required. Those questions are (1) Is it on the list of affected authorizations and (2) will the project involve new land development, change existing land use, or change the footprint of existing facility. There will be expanded notification to local and county government who have 30 days to submit comments. If conflicts are identified the DEP Regional Office will forward the information to the DEP Policy Office who will review the issue and make a recommendation to the Region. DEP shall consider and under certain circumstances may rely land use plans and zoning ordinances in making its permitting decisions.

The Department will provide training to the DEP Regional Office’s on this new policy. The Department is also in the process of finalizing its policy for DEP funding to implement the "Growing Smarter" initiatives for grants for infrastructure and facilities.

Mike Brendle noted that the West Nile Virus is an alarming problem that appears to be growing in Pennsylvania. He requested that the Department provide a presentation on this topic at a future Board meeting.

Bill Achor, Wenger’s Feed, Inc., encouraged Board members to review the proposed EPA CAFO regulations, which are open for public comment until May 2001.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:01 p.m.