There being a majority of the Board members present, the meeting was called to order by Chairperson Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau, at 10:05 a.m..

Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture
Bill Wehry, USDA, Farm Service Agency
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange
Lynn Slabicki, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Cappabianca)
Kristen Ebersole, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Sen. Wenger)
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Bunt)
Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer
Cedric Karper, for PA Department of Environmental Protection

Oswald Bordner, Dauphin County Resident
Jim Funck, Dauphin County Resident
Curtis Kratz, Moyer Packing Company
Tom Fiddler, DEP, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management
Craig Olewiler, DEP, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management
Bernie Hoffnar, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Jeff Clukey, DEP, Citizens Advisory Committee
Steve Taglang, DEP, Office of Policy
Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission
Ken Murin, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Don Fiesta, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection

The minutes of the October 21, 1998 meeting were approved as distributed.

Board members listened to the concerns of Marsha Brown, who with her husband owns and operates a dairy and crop operation in southern Adams County. One of their farms is located next to the Keystone Sanitation Landfill, a federal Superfund site. Low level organic and inorganic contamination has been detected in their water supply since 1984. She stated that they have experienced health problems with themselves and with their livestock, despite assurances from federal and state agencies that their water supply was safe to drink. This forced them to rent another farm in 1990 to relocate their heifer operation. Mrs. Brown stated that the remediation goals for the Superfund site were established in 1990 requiring contaminated groundwater to be cleaned up to background levels. Since that time, Act 2, the Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Environmental Standards Act, was passed, which eases the clean-up standards to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Mrs. Brown questioned why MCL monitoring is done for individual compounds rather than looking at the synergetic effects of all compounds, since people are being exposed to multiple chemicals. She also questioned whether MCLs, which are used to judge risk for humans are appropriate for other species, particularly ruminant animals. She noted that toxicological data on livestock species with regard to site related contaminants is limited; and Science simply does not yet know enough about the effects of multiple low level contamination to accurately assess health risks to livestock. She also stated that the change in state regulations for clean-up requirements to MCLs simply relieves responsible parties from liability for continued multiple low level exposure, and places the burden on the impacted property owner. Mrs. Brown stressed that agriculture plays a lead role in Pennsylvania’s economy, and is very dependent upon clean water, especially for livestock production.

Tom Fiddler, DEP, Bureau of land Recycling and Waste Management, noted that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did investigate this issue and found there were no contaminants (based on individual compounds) in excess of the MCLs for those compounds moving off of the Superfund site. Fiddler agreed that not a lot of information exists on the water impacts of livestock and poultry located adjacent to Superfund sites, but noted that there has not been a demand for this information from the agricultural community. He questioned how pervasive this type of problem was and whether it is wise use of government funds to further look at this issue. Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer, stated that simply because a problem is not pervasive does not mean that it does not effect dairy farmers. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, noted that credible and sound scientific data needs to be used by the Department when making assessments or regulations. Board members suggested that DEP do a study with Penn State University to determine what is occurring at this site rather than using assumptions developed by EPA. The Board also suggested that DEP convene a workgroup of dairy physiologists, pathologists, and toxicologists, to study water quality effects on ruminant animals. Fiddler suggested that the Department take this issue to its Clean-up Standards Scientific Advisory Board, to have them review it and advise the Department. Chairperson Bill Adams requested that Tom Fiddler report back to the Board at its February meeting. Tom Fiddler commended Marsha Brown for her informed work in bringing this issue to the Department’s attention.

Bill Adams, Chair of the Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) Committee, noted that the Committee meet on December 7 to review the USDA-EPA Draft Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. Draft comments were prepared and a copy of the draft comment letter was distributed to Board members for review and comment. Cedric Karper, DEP, suggested that on item number 3 regarding funding, the Board should define what they mean by funding, and if its grants than state so. He also noted that in item 10, it should state that manure application at agronomic rates makes it a resource, not a waste. Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer, questioned who would be affected by the AFO strategy. Adams responded that if an operation is located in an impaired watershed (as noted on the 303(d) list) you may have to meet the mandatory requirements of the strategy and get a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural affairs Committee, noted that a problem with the AFO strategy is that it imposes requirements on farms that are doing the right thing. Jay Howes also suggested that the language be strengthened on page one of the letter regarding legal questions and issues and whether the AFO strategy goes against Congress’ intent when it authorized the federal Clean Water Act. Howes also suggested that it be noted in item 1 that the strategy addresses Food Security Act requirements which go beyond AFO issues.

Robert Pardoe, Jr., made a motion that the Board approve the AFO strategy letter with the suggested revisions and send it to NRCS. This motion was seconded by Tom Oyler, Jr., and the motion was passed unanimously by the Board.

Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP, Deputy Secretary for Water Management, was not able to attend the meeting to provide an update regarding Pennsylvania’s Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) strategy. A handout was provided to Board members to update them on the development of the CAFO strategy. Comments were received during the public comment period from approximately 100 person or organizations. The Department is currently in the process of developing a comment and response document for the comments received. At the same time the strategy and permit documents are being updated to reflect the comments and Department responses. It is anticipated that the documents will be mailed to CAFO workgroup members for a meeting in January. The Department will then finalize the strategy and issue permits (permits will not be issued until the strategy is complete).

Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission, updated Board members on the status of the Nutrient Management Program. A handout was distributed which showed the program totals for the first year. Of the estimated 1,582 concentrated animal operations (CAOs) in the state, 624 (40%) are involved in the program. There were a total number of 113 volunteer plans submitted the first year, bringing the total number of plans to 737 plans submitted or those who have indicated their intention to submit a plan. Brown noted that some of the delegated conservation districts have done a great job of getting CAOs to develop nutrient management plans in their counties. The Commission is currently working to finalize administrative documents to make Agri-Linked Program funds available to farmers. These low interest loans are to be used to assist farmers in financially implementing nutrient management plans. The Plan Development Incentive Program (PDIP) is available and provides 75% cost share to farmers who use the private sector for the development of nutrient management plans. The Commission is also looking into the development of a grant program for farmers who are financially stressed. Brown noted the Nutrient Management Program is off to a good start but we need to continue to work to ensure that all CAOs come forward. There are no consequences at this time for filing a nutrient management plan late. He requested that Board members who attend other agricultural meetings take a few minutes to provide a short presentation on the Nutrient Management Program.

Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission, noted that DEP and Department of Agriculture staff worked on the development of a BMP manual for the siting and operation of livestock intensive operations (LIOs). A draft copy has been provided to the State Conservation Commission, and a meeting will be scheduled with the Agricultural Development Advisory Board to review the draft manual. Other actions taken to meet the Resolution 91 requirements include the Widener University School of Law developing a dispute resolution process for problems between LIOs and communities; and Penn State University developing a short management course for operators of LIOs. A report documenting animal trends in Pennsylvania is being finalized by the PA Agricultural Statistics Service. Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University questioned what conflicts currently exist in the siting of LIOs. Brown remarked that conflicts exist in several counties in the state over the proposed siting of LIOs. The primary concern of the public is odor. Brown stated that we need to ensure that sites for LIOs are properly sited, something that agriculture has not always done. Karl Brown noted that Senate Resolution 91 does not authorize new standards or regulations, but rather requires agencies to pull together all existing standards and regulations for LIOs.

Chairperson Bill Adams tabled this topic until the February meeting. Several Board members suggested that a speaker from the Department address both the 305(b) and 303(d) lists, and their impact on agriculture at the February meeting. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, requested that the presentation focus on issues such as the number of watersheds impacted by agriculture, Where those watersheds are located, and the approximate number of farms in those watersheds.

Ken Murin, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, noted that the Department received comments from 36 commentators during the public comment period for the proposed revisions to the Chapter 102, Erosion Control regulations. The Department is preparing a comment response document to address the comments received, and is scheduled to go to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) in May. Murin noted that the Board will receive a copy of the revised Chapter 102 regulations prior to final rulemaking.

Ken Murin stated that the revisions to the Chapter 105, Dam Safety and Waterway Management regulations are being developed by the Department’s Wetlands Advisory Committee. Chairperson Bill Adams noted that he is one of approximately 30 members of the Wetlands Advisory Committee, which has been addressing the regulation revisions through some very technical discussions.

It was noted that Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union, will serve as Chairperson to the Board in 1999. Bill Adams thanked the Board members for their work and cooperation during his term as Chairperson.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m..

Respectfully Submitted,

Dean M. Auchenbach
DEP Liaison