There being a majority of the Board members present, the meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Acting Chairperson Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange.

Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Cass Peterson, Sustainable Agriculture Representative
Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture
Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Steve Crawford, House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Cappabianca)
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Bunt)
Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer
Bill Bowers, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer
Larry Cogan, Horticultural Industry Representative
Donald Lichtenwalner, Grain Producer
Bruce Holbrook, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Dr. Doug Beegle, Penn State University
Andrew Sharpley, USDA, Agricultural Research Station, University Park
Dr. Larise Heathwaite, USDA, Agricultural Research Station, University Park
Mike Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Diane Wilson, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Lamonte Garber, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Leigh Cohen, DEP, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel
Steve Taglang, DEP, Office of Policy
Jay Braund, DEP, Southcentral Regional Office
Jeffrey Clukey, DEP, Citizens Advisory Council
Fred Hartman, DEP, Office of Policy
Don Fiesta, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Doug Goodlander, State Conservation Commission
Carol Young, DEP, Office of Water Management
Milt Lauch, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Walt Peechatka, PennAg Industries
Pat Buckley, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Larry Nygren, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Bill Plank, Bedford County Conservation District
Larry Martick, Adams County Conservation District
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection

the minutes of the February 18, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed.

Pam Witmer, DEP, Legislative Liaison, noted that Representative Camille George has been attaching amendments to bills to prohibit the spreading of sludge material on agricultural land. Witmer stated that the Department opposes these amendments and to date all amendments have been defeated. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, noted that Senate Bill 682, amendments to the Right to Farm Act, which are supported by the Department and farm organizations, is being held up because of the proposed sewage sludge amendments. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, made a motion that the Board send a letter to the legislature opposing the proposed sewage sludge amendments. This motion was seconded by Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer, and the motion passed unanimously.

Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, noted that the first meeting of the Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP) Panel was held on February 25, 1998 with Frank Long, Brenda Shambaugh, and him representing agricultural interests. The meeting was facilitated by two staff from the Riverwatch Network in Vermont. The goal of the CVMP Panel is to develop a handbook to be used by monitoring groups, organize workshops and a summit meeting, and create a statewide directory of monitoring groups. Carl Shaffer stated that he believes some of the citizen groups are very interested in doing monitoring for educational purposes which he supports; but he continues to question the motives of some other citizen groups. Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts, noted that his greatest concern is over property rights issues. He feels that perhaps conservation districts would be a good resource to coordinate this program since districts have been very successful in working with landowners. Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange, noted that the first meeting was primarily organizational. Three committees were appointed with one agricultural representative on each committee. They are Handbook, Carl Shaffer; workshops and summit, Brenda Shambaugh; and statewide directory, Frank Long. Shambaugh noted that the next meeting of the CVMP Panel will be on May 21, 1998 in Harrisburg.

Diane Wilson, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, noted that the first meeting of the CVMP Panel did not allow time to address agriculture’s concerns regarding the program. She stated that time will be set aside at the May 21 meeting in order to discuss agriculture’s concerns and outline methods to address those concerns. She also noted that the handbook committee has decided that the handbook will address private property and liability issues. Many monitoring groups have developed landowner permission forms for entering private property for conducting monitoring.

Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, stated that it is clear that the Department is going forward with the Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program and it is vital to have agricultural representation on the CVMP Panel. He noted that it is important to work with the Department regarding this program and to keep the dialogue open. He does have a concern that data collected by citizen groups will be taken to township officials and viewed as Department data. Steve Crawford, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, stated that the Legislature believes that agriculture’s concerns regarding the CVMP were very important. The House filed two amendments to the proposed state budget regarding the CVMP. These amendments stated that the Department could not use state budget funds for citizens’ monitoring and the Department could not use state budget funds without Legislative approval. Many concerns were expressed regarding these amendments both positive and negative. The amendments were withdrawn since they accomplished their intended purpose which was to raise the level of awareness regarding the CVMP, and to start discussions regarding the program. Crawford stated that the Department’s opposition to the amendments shows how much the Department wants to implement this program. There was also some question as to whether there is budget money specifically earmarked to the CVMP. Carl Shaffer thanked Jay Howes and Steve Crawford for the House leaderships awareness of this issue and their efforts towards it. Steve Crawford noted that since the Agricultural Advisory Board was created, agricultural concerns have gotten greater credibility and interest of the Legislature.

Dr. Doug Beegle, Penn State University, provided Board members an overview of the phosphorus issue. Dr. Beegle noted that the traditional nutrient cycle has become fragmented with crops now being shipped a distance from farms and nutrients occurring in areas of concentrated animal populations. Blame is often focused on the farmer but the problem is really the system since we no longer have a balance of nutrients. The issue is larger than how much manure is spread onto fields. The pfiesteria problem has heightened the issue of phosphorus and has made it front page news. Phosphorus is not toxic to plants or animals but does create eutrophication in water bodies. If we balance manure application for nitrogen than we are increasing phosphorus which is an environmental concern. If we balance manure application for phosphorus than we are deficient in nitrogen for crop needs which is an economic concern. Historically we have focused our efforts on nitrogen since it is difficult to control and more complex to deal with. It was felt that excess phosphorus could be controlled and kept in place with conservation measures. However, it has been found that while we lower the total phosphorus we may increase the amount of dissolved phosphorus, so its not as clean as we may think it is.

Dr. Beegle noted that the current approach to nutrient management is to balance nitrogen for annual crop needs while using BMPs to minimize the impact of phosphorus (since we know we are putting on excess amounts.) We cannot continue pumping phosphorus into the system and need to find a solution to this issue. Some state’s such as Maryland, have taken the approach of managing phosphorus for environmental protection. Under this approach soil tests will be used to set the limit for phosphorus to annual crop requirements. Dr. Beegle believes this approach will have serious consequences for agriculture since it will severely limit the soils that may be used for manure applications. Br. Beegle suggested that alternative methods to control phosphorus would include improved cropping systems, with more intensive systems and accounting for net nutrients on the farm; improved feeding systems, through the use of phytase and improved ration formulation; manure treatment alternatives with alum, fly ash, and separation; and improved methods and timing of manure application. Dr. Beegle also suggested that critical source management be used since 90% of the phosphorus comes from 10% of the land. Under this approach, you would identify areas of the farm that generate surface runoff, and if these areas are high in phosphorus they are designated as critical areas which should be managed for phosphorus.

Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University, noted that the use of management methods such as critical source management will allow for additional time but questioned how much additional time we would get before we would have to ship manure out of areas as they are doing in Holland. Dr. Beegle responded that the use of these methods may allow us time to change and balance the nutrient cycle. Dr. Beegle noted that in the long term we need to strive for a nutrient balance for sustainable agriculture and there are no simple choices between phosphorus and nitrogen. The solution to the immediate problem will involve a combination of approaches to include source reduction, minimizing transport of phosphorus, and identification and management of critical source areas. Dr. Beegle stated that this issue cannot be ignored and that we must be informed and work together to reach workable solutions which will ensure the economic vitality of agriculture in the state. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned whether a cost share program could be offered to farmers to transport manure out of critical source areas. Dr. Beegle acknowledged that this would be helpful to the agricultural community. Carl Shaffer suggested that solutions to the phosphorus issue must take into account the economic impact on farmers.

Mike Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, outlined the proposed content of non-point source remediation plans to address total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for streams listed in the state’s 303(d) list for impaired waters. Sherman reminded the Board members that the 303(d) list is required under Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act which requires states to develop a list of impaired waters that do not meet water quality standards after pollution treatment. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) are the amount of pollutants that a stream can handle without causing impairment or exceeding water quality standards. TMDLs assign load reductions to each of the different sources of point and non-point pollution sources. The proposed content of a remediation plan would include a watershed description, survey of existing conditions and problems, description of remedial work, identify partners and responsibilities, outreach and education programs, description of pollution prevention activities, implementation schedule, financial plan, and monitoring and reassessment.

Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned if the financial plan within the remediation plan would provide cost share funds to farmers to correct problems. Sherman acknowledged that money would be available in cost share funds to go to agriculture to correct problems. Carl Shaffer also suggested that agencies work to drive up the unit prices for practices such as riparian buffers to make them more attractive to the agricultural community. Carl Shaffer then questioned if data from Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP) groups would be used for TMDLs. Sherman stated that in some cases the data will be used such as from the Donegal Creek Restoration Project in Lancaster County. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, questioned whether CVMP data was used in the development of the 303(d) list. Carol Young, DEP, Office of Water Management, stated that if citizen data was used it was double checked by DEP staff and then used only if it supported a known impairment that the Department already has knowledge of. Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer, questioned what scale TMDLs will be done on. Sherman responded that that issue will need to be addressed but most states are doing TMDLs on a large watershed level with remediation plans for problem spots within the watershed. Board members agreed that funding needs to be offered to the agricultural community to assist them in complying with non-point source remediation plans.

Chairperson Brenda Shambaugh noted that since Bill Adams was not able to attend this meeting this discussion item will be tabled to a future meeting.

Carol Young, DEP, Office of Water Management, noted that the CAFO workgroup met on March 2 to work on the Part II Water Quality Permit and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) CAFO Permit. The next meeting of the stakeholder workgroup is scheduled for April 24 and will be open to the public. Carol Young noted that all manure storage structures will need to be built according to NRCS standards. She also noted that any permits to be issued in special protection watersheds will require a public hearing/meeting. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned why the state requires a public hearing/meeting. Young responded that it is a Department policy that public hearings/meetings be held in special protection watersheds. Carl Shaffer then asked if a permit could be denied based on a public hearing/meeting. Young stated that a permit cannot be denied if all the permit conditions are met. Bill Bowers, USDA, NRCS, questioned the status of the Part II Water Quality Permits under the interim CAFO policy. Young noted that the workgroup has placed its emphasis on the development of the Part II Water Quality Permit. Young stated that Board members will be mailed a copy of the CAFO strategy once it is revised based on comments received at the April 24 meeting.

Update on the Nutrient Management Regulations and the State Conservation Commission

Doug Goodlander, State Conservation Commission, noted that 52 conservation districts are currently delegated at level II in the Nutrient Management Program. Three conservation districts have accepted delegation at level I which is education and outreach efforts. The Department is tracking accomplishments in the program and found that in the first quarter totals the number of nutrient management plans submitted was very low (approximately 40 statewide.) It is estimated that there are approximately 2,500 CAOs in the state. Goodlander encouraged the Board to spread the message that the agricultural community needs to be responsive to the Nutrient Management Law or additional measures will be required. The training and certification program is continuing and every county in the state has at least one certified specialist who can write nutrient management plans. Pre-certification training is continuing to train farmers to write their own nutrient management plans. An administrative manual has been developed to ensure consistency in the administration of the program statewide.

Under the Plan Development Incentives Program (PDIP) $550,000 is available for the reimbursement of farmers expenses incurred in developing a nutrient management plan. Conservation districts are delegated to participate in this program and the PA Association of Conservation Districts will disperse the funds. The Agricultural-Linked Investment Program is in its final stages of revision. This program will allow farmers to get a low interest loan to implement their approved nutrient management plans. Amended legislation is to be introduced which will allow the State Conservation Commission to buy down the interest rate to make this program attractive to farmers. The governor’s 1998-99 budget proposal calls for $3.28 million for the Commission’s Nutrient Management Act efforts. This is an increase over last years appropriation of $750,000. This amount along with carry over monies will provide approximately $2 million for grants and loans to farmers, $550,000 in PDIP funding to the farm community, and $1 million for conservation district delegations, funding for NRCS assistance, educational program efforts, field staff to assist the Commission, and other critical program efforts. The PA Department of Agriculture is designated to get a $100,000 increase in funding to assist with nutrient management program implementation efforts.

Goodlander then noted that the Commission is working with the Departments of Agriculture and Environmental Protection to implement the requirements of Senate Resolution 91, creating an Agricultural Development Advisory Board. This board will oversee the development of a BMP Manual for livestock intensive operations (due to the Senate by December 1998.) The Resolution also calls for documentation of animal trends in PA, development of a community dispute resolution program, and the development of a management course for operators of large animal operations.

Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned why the NRCS was funded through the Nutrient Management Program. Goodlander stated that engineering assistance is required of the NRCS and that agency has faced drastic budget cuts while its workload is increasing. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, questioned how the State Conservation Commission will react if nutrient management plans are not submitted in a timely manner. Goodlander stated that the Commission may have to address this issue in the future but is hopeful that the farm community will be responsive to the law.

Chairperson Brenda Shambaugh stated that no comments were received from Board members regarding DEP’s compliance initiative.

Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, requested that Board members review the proposed mission statements for the Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP) and the CVMP Environmental Monitoring Panel. He would like comments from the members at the next Board meeting.

It was noted that a manure spill recently occurred in Cumberland County. A farmer, twice, dumped a load of pig manure when his equipment became stuck. The manure flowed into a tributary of the Yellow Breeches Creek, which is a stocked trout stream, a few days prior to the start of trout season. Carl Shaffer stated that more regulations would not prevent this type of mismanagement.

Donald Lichtenwalner, Grain Producer, stated that Vice President Al Gore reminded the Environmental Protection Agency that they need to take agricultural needs into account and to work closely with the USDA on issues regarding pesticides and livestock waste handling.

Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange, noted that the Grange conference will be held on April 27. Dave Hess, DEP, Executive Deputy Secretary for Policy and Communications, will be addressing the CAFO issue.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:31 p.m..

Respectfully Submitted,

Dean M. Auchenbach
DEP Liaison