There being a majority of the Board members present, the meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bill Adams, PA farm Bureau, at 10:00 a.m.. Chairperson Adams introduced Larry Breech, who replaces Robert Junk, Jr., as the PA Farmers Union representative to the Board. Robert Junk will serve as the alternate member in the absence of Mr. Breech.

Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture
Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Bill Wehry, USDA, Farm Service Agency
Janet Oertly, USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union
Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Bunt)
Kristin Ebersole, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Senator Wenger)
Lynn Slabicki, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Cappabianca)
Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer
Donald Lichtenwalner, Grain Producer
Bruce Holbrook, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Joe Lee, DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management
Stuart Reese, DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management
Mary Bender, PDA, Office of Policy
Lori Sandman, Dairy Network Partnership
Don Fiesta, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP, Deputy Secretary for Water Management
Oz Bordner, Dauphin County Resident
Jeff Clukey, Citizens Advisory Council
Linda Gardner, DEP, Policy Office
Steve Taglang, DEP, Policy Office
Jim Walsh, DEP, Office of Water Management
Ken Pattison, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission
Bill Plank, Bedford County Conservation District
Robert Junk, Jr., PA Farmers Union
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection

Minutes

The minutes of the June 17, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed.

Stuart Reese, DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management, provided an overview of the (Draft Final) Pennsylvania Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Program (CSGWPP) and Self-Assessment. This document was mailed to all Board members for review prior to the meeting. The CSGWPP is a state and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiative that provides a mechanism whereby state’s and EPA can work together to develop a comprehensive and consistent statewide approach to groundwater quality protection. The CSGWPP consists of a set of six strategic activities, and each strategic activity has two sets of adequacy criteria (core and fully-Integrating CSGWPP). The six strategic activities are:

1. Establishing a groundwater protection goal to guide relevant programs in the state.

2. Establishing priorities based on characterization of the resource, identification of sources of contamination, and programmatic needs, to direct all relevant programs and activities in the states toward the most efficient and effective means of achieving the state’s protection goal.

3. Defining authorities, roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mechanisms across relevant federal, state, tribal, and local programs for addressing identified groundwater protection priorities.

4. Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the state’s groundwater protection goal consistent with the state’s priorities and schedules.

5. Coordinating information collection and management to measure progress, re-evaluate priorities, and support all groundwater related programs.

6. Improving public education and participation in all aspects of groundwater protection to achieve support of the state’s protection goal, priorities, and programs.

The CSGWPP document describes and assesses Pennsylvania’s groundwater quality protection program relative to the adequacy criteria for the six strategic CSGWPP activities. The DEP Chief Counsel’s Office reviewed the document in May and the draft-final CSGWPP was prepared for submission to the EPA. It is anticipated that the state will receive Core endorsement from EPA. Stuart Reese noted that the CSGWPP strengthens the groundwater protection approach, clarifies roles in groundwater protection, provides greater flexibility from EPA, and full attainment of Pennsylvania’s groundwater protection goal.

Chairperson Bill Adams questioned what impact the CSGWPP will have on the agricultural community. Reese noted that the CSGWPP will not have a direct impact on the farmer and that the PA Department of Agriculture is a partner in this process. Reese stated that the CSGWPP is not an enforcement document, but rather a voluntary program, which some state’s have decided not to participate in. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned if there are funds or grants available for this program. Reese stated that funds are available but it is not yet clear what the money will be used for, or if the funding would be available to farmers. Dr. Hugh Archer, Deputy Secretary for Water Management, noted that the major impact of this document in Pennsylvania will be through the Nutrient Management Act. A major emphasis will be on easements for public drinking water sources. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, stressed the need for interaction with the State Conservation Commission since they are in charge of the Nutrient Management regulations. He also questioned what effect the CSGWPP would have on the pesticide program. Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture, noted that PDA has assessed several watersheds for pesticide impact and has not been alarmed at the data collected. Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts, questioned how private citizens are involved with the CSGWPP since a large portion of groundwater is located on private property. Reese noted that the document is out for public comment. Chairperson Bill Adams thanked Stuart Reese for his presentation and stated that should any future questions or concerns arise that he will be asked to come back to the Board.

Chairperson Bill Adams noted that the CAFO Committee was formed at the June 17, 1998 meeting to review and comment on the proposed CAFO strategy. The CAFO Committee consists of Bill Adams, Chairperson, Bob Junk, Brenda Shambaugh, Jay Howes, Chad Weaver, Steve Crawford, and Sam Elkin. the Committee met twice to review the strategy and develop comments. A draft comment letter was sent to all Board members prior to the meeting for review and comments. Chairperson Adams noted that the comment deadline period for the CAFO strategy was extended 60 days to October 13, 1998.

Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP, Deputy Secretary for Water Management, noted that a large number of outstanding concerns of the public need to be addressed, so the public comment period for the CAFO strategy was extended to October 13. A public meeting/hearing will also be scheduled in the western part of the state. Public interest has increased over odor and siting concerns regarding these operations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted comments on Pennsylvania’s CAFO strategy. The Department is currently summarizing the comments it has received. Dr. Archer noted that about 60% of the comments received address areas such as odors which the Department does not have regulatory authority to address in the strategy. He stated that the issue of odors and siting is best left to local authorities.

EPA’s biggest concern over the strategy is the use of animal equivalent units (AEUs) over animal units (AUs). This makes EPA’s standard more restrictive than Pennsylvania’s proposed strategy. The state is therefore proposing a general permit for areas where the state’s proposed strategy does not meet the federal standard. A general permit will be developed by the Department for those operations with 301 to 1,000 AEUs that are not Concentrated Animal Operations (CAOs) as defined by the Nutrient Management Act. The Department is not proposing additional permit requirements for general permits. A "Permit by Rule" would be used for operations with 301 to 1,000 AEUs that have the potential to discharge, which are operations that are CAOs under the Nutrient Management regulations. Operations of 1,000 AEUs and above would be required to obtain an individual NPDES permit, and a Part II permit for the manure system. Dr. Archer stressed that the state needs to develop a program that meets the minimum federal standards. The program was designed to capture federal AU figures while using state AEU figures. So it is possible that an operation could be considered a CAFO but not a CAO. In that case the operator would be eligible to obtain the CAFO general permit for their operation.

Dr. Archer stated that no permits for existing applications will be issued until the strategy is completed. He estimated that the CAFO strategy should be completed by the end of the year. Board members questioned when printed copies of the new CAFO strategy will be available. Dr. Archer noted that it is not yet available but Board members will receive a copy once it is available. Frank Long questioned if poultry operations were affected by the CAFO strategy. Dr. Archer stated that only those poultry operations that use a wet poultry system would be affected, and he knows of no such systems in the state. A wet poultry system is one that uses a lagoon or continuous flow water system. If dry chicken litter is exposed to water it is considered a wet system. If the poultry litter is composted it is not a CAFO. Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer, questioned what the federal CAFO standard was for pigs. The standard for pigs is 2,500 pigs at 55 pounds for a minimum of 45 days on the farm.

Chairperson Adams noted that he has attended several CAFO stakeholder meetings and has often heard the comment that there is a lack of enforcement by the Department on agricultural operations. Dr. Archer stated that if a the Department receives a complaint about a farm, it uses the PA Farm Bureau program process, where a Farm Bureau representative visits the farmer to try to get compliance on the farm. Citizens see this alternative use of enforcement for farmers and fear that the same approach will be used on large agricultural operations. Dr. Archer did acknowledge that the Department must take appropriate actions against the small percentage of farmers who are causing persistent problems.

Lori Sandman, Dairy Network Partnership, provided the Board an overview of the Dairy Network Partnership, its Environmental Quality Initiative, and its first product Chesapeake Milk. The Dairy Network Partnership (DNP) is a group of agencies and organizations which was formed in 1995, whose mission is to work with dairy farmers to find cost effective alternatives and meaningful incentives for on-farm environmental protection. The DNP recognizes that in order to enhance the sustainability of dairy farming, good environmental stewardship must be accomplished while minimizing the economic impact on the farm. The Environmental Quality Initiative (EQI) is an innovative new project of the DNP, in cooperation with Sunnydale Farms and the Natural Dairy Products Corporation. The EQI is a new market based strategy that links environmentally minded consumers directly with dairy farmers who share their concerns for natural resources. Consumers will be introduced to this concept during a one year test market for dairy products. Once this concept has been established in the marketplace the DNP expects to broaden the program to include other processors and geographic regions.

During the one year test market, the EQI mark will be found on cartons of a new milk line known as Chesapeake Milk. This milk product is not organic or produced any differently than any other milk. It was felt that the EQI mark on an existing milk product would not stand out enough, so Chesapeake Milk was developed. Additionally, the mark will be found on select Natural by Nature organic dairy products. These products will be sold at regional grocery markets in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Each time a consumer purchases Chesapeake Milk, five cents per half gallon will be returned to dairy farmers in the region who are achieving a high standard of natural resource protection. The money will be used to pay a dividend on their milk checks (50 cents per 100 lbs. weight) or to assist farmers in enhancing environmental protection practices on their farm. A farmstead evaluation is performed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the farm’s management. The score from the farmstead evaluation qualifies and prioritizes the farm for cost share money in the project. The focus of the farmstead evaluation is on the barnyard, and not the fields since they should be covered under the farm’s conservation plan. The farmstead evaluation may in the future be expanded to look at the total farm operation.

Lori Sandman stressed that this is a test market and in order to make the program work we need to sell milk. it is estimated that if only 1% of Pennsylvania’s milk supply were in the program the DNP could return $1.4 million to farmers that participate. People can assist in this effort by encouraging their local grocery stores to stock Chesapeake Milk on their shelves. This project builds a bridge between those who produce our food and those who consume it. It will also connects farm and consumer interests in protecting and enhancing our shared natural resources. Farmers that participate in the program will benefit from enhanced profitability, non-regulatory technical assistance, and BMP cost share funds and milk dividend payments. Consumers benefit by connecting with the local food supply and protecting the environment through product purchases. Processors benefit by access to new markets, recognized affiliations, and public relations opportunities.

Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned whether the data obtained during the farmstead evaluations would be available for public distribution. Lori Sandman stated that the farmstead evaluation data was not to be used for public distribution. Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union, stated that he feels consumers will not be reluctant to pay a little more for the product if they know that they are getting value for the product. Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer, suggested that the DNP get into schools with this product since it is an excellent educational tool. Lori Sandman stated that schools are usually searching for the lowest price for milk and often milk processors take a loss to supply schools with milk.

Board members reviewed the draft CAFO Comment letter of July 28, 1998, and provided comments for revisions. It was suggested that in the re-write of the letter that the recommendations of the Board be stated in bold text first, followed by the supporting documentation and justification for the recommendation. Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts, made a motion to revise the draft CAFO Strategy letter based on the comments at the meeting. The motion was seconded by Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer, and the motion was passed unanimously. Chairperson Bill Adams will revise the draft letter based on the comments received. A copy of the revised CAFO strategy letter will be mailed to all Board members for review. The Board will submit its final comment letter to the Department by the October 13 comment deadline date.

Steve Taglang, DEP, Office of Policy, noted that a workgroup has been formed to draft an enhancement to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in a 20 county area for nutrient and sediment reductions in the lower Susquehanna and Potomac River basins. A preliminary draft has been finalized and will be presented to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) this fall. The Department will provide a presentation to the Board on the preliminary draft prior to its presentation to USDA. Mary Bender, PA Department of Agriculture, Policy Office, noted that the CRP is a voluntary program not a mandatory one. The rental rates have been very low so the program has not been popular. The state will have to provide 20% matching funds for this program. She stressed that we are working to make the program economically feasible while benefiting water quality and wildlife habitat.

Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, noted that the House, Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee held an informational meeting on the Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program at Ag Progress Days. He stated that he was very pleased with the meeting.

Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer, questioned the status of the Agricultural Development Advisory Board created under Senate Resolution 91. Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission, noted that the Board meet for the first time on August 3, and will meet again in October. Penn State University is developing the short management course for operators, and the trends in agriculture study is being done as mandated in the Resolution. The dispute resolution process is being developed by the Dickinson College School of Law.

Robert Junk, Jr., thanked all Board members for their working relationship while serving on the Board. Junk stated that he will continue to serve as the PA Farmers Union’s alternate member to the Board.

Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission, distributed highlights of the July 29, 1998 State Conservation Commission meeting. He noted that the Commission approved a compliance strategy to address existing concentrated aniaml operations (CAOs) that do not submit a nutrient management plan by October 1, 1998. Under this strategy a CAO could submit an intent to file a nutrient management plan, and the operation would be covered even if the plan is submitted after October 1. The Agricultural-Linked Investment Program (Agri-Link) is available to provide low interest loans to farmers to implement best management practices (BMPs) that are part of an approved nutrient management plan under the Nutrient Management Act Program. The program will work through local commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, and local offices of the Farm Credit Service, who will offer loans at 4% points below the market rate.

Jay Howes, House, Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, questioned the response of the Commission’s survey to re-evaluate the number of concentrated animal operations (CAOs) in the state. Karl Brown noted that the deadline date for response was August 25, and staff were tabulating the results of the survey.

Robert Junk, Jr., suggested that the Chairperson write a letter to the Governors Office requesting that the Agri-business representative vacancy be filled on the Board. This position has been vacant since Dave Brubaker resigned in December 1997. It was also noted that the terms of the producer members of the Board expired on October 6, 1996, but all have agreed to continue to serve until replaced or reappointed.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:48 p.m..

Respectfully Submitted,

Dean M. Auchenbach
DEP Liaison