MINUTES

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union, at 10:06 a.m.

Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union
Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Bill Wehry, USDA, Farm Service Agency
Owen Thomas, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Sen. Slocum)
Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Bunt)
Lynn Slabicki, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Cappabianca)
Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer
Tim Murphy, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Michael Brendle, Poultry Producer
Bruce Holbrook, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Kristin Ebersole, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Sen. Slocum)
David Hess, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Melanie Wertz, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Jim Walsh, PA DEP, Office of Water Management
Doug Goodlander, State Conservation Commission
Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Waster Quality Protection
Todd Wallace, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Duke Pepper, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel
Frederick Marrocco, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Tom Juengst, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Curtis Kratz, Moyer Packing Company
William Johnson, Columbia County Citizen
Lou Guerra, Jr., DEP, Office of Policy
Glenn Rider, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Louise Lawrence, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Carol Young, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection

No public comments were received.

The minutes of the August 25, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed.

It was proposed that the Board continue to meet on the third Wednesday of the even numbered months, with the exception of the month of August when the meeting would be the fourth Wednesday of the month (to avoid conflicting with Agricultural Progress Days). All meetings will start at 10:00 a.m. and be held in room 105 of the Rachel Carson State Office Building, Harrisburg, PA. Tom Oyler, Jr. made a motion that the meeting dates for 2000 be approved as proposed. Bob Pardoe seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The Board meeting dates for 2000 will be February 16; April 19; June 21; August 23; October 18, and December 20.

Louise Lawrence, Maryland Department of Agriculture updated the Board on the development of Maryland's Nutrient Management Regulations. These regulations are being developed to implement the Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 (the Board was briefed on this Act at its June 17, 1998 meeting). The regulations will regulate fertilizer application to agricultural lands and non-agricultural lands (three acres or greater or state land) and will involve nutrient applicators, agricultural operators, and nutrient management consultants. An agricultural operation is defined as having a gross annual income of $2,500 or more, or having eight or more animal units (an animal unit is 1,000 pounds of live animal weight). Agricultural operations that use chemical fertilizer must develop nitrogen and phosphorus based plans by January 31, 2001, and implement the plan by January 31, 2002. Those operations using manure or biosolids must develop nitrogen based plans by December 31, 2001, and implement that plan by December 31, 2002. They will also have to develop a nutrient management plan that addresses both nitrogen and phosphorus as the limiting nutrients by July 1, 2004, and shall implement the plan by July 1, 2005.

When writing the nutrient management plans a consultant will use Cooperative Extension Service Agronomy Guide rates for crops based on expected yield goals. If the soil sample analysis shows a phosphorus fertility index value (FIV) of less than 150, nutrient recommendations may use nitrogen plant needs as the limiting factor. If the phosphorus FIV is 150 or greater, a phosphorus site index or other phosphorus risk assessment method shall be used to determine the potential risk of phosphorus due to site conditions. If the risk for potential movement of phosphorus from the site is low according to the phosphorus site index, the consultant may use nitrogen plant needs as the limiting factor. If the risk is medium, phosphorus rates shall be limited to the expected amount removed from the field by the crop or plant harvest, or the amount indicated by soil testing. If the risk is high, phosphorus rates will be limited to the amount indicated by soil testing. If the risk for the potential movement of phosphorus is very high according to the phosphorus site index, no additional phosphorus may be applied.

Lawrence stated that an informal comment period was held in June 1999, with approximately 800 people attending six public meetings. Many comments were received, but most dealt with items in the Act that cannot be changed. The draft regulations are scheduled to be published for public comment this fall and the approval of a technical manual is pending. Additional public hearings will be scheduled once the draft regulations are published. Lawrence noted that she is chairing a 35 member advisory committee that is developing the regulations. Chairperson Larry Breech thanked Louise Lawrence for her presentation and stated that both Maryland and Pennsylvania need to partner up to work together to address nutrient concerns.

Dave Hess, DEP Deputy Secretary for Policy and Communications, thanked the Board for the opportunity to address their concerns regarding the Department's effectiveness at implementing regulations with the public and the timeliness of permitting. Board members had raised these concerns at their August meeting. Hess noted that at the time of the Governor's election in 1994 the concerns of timeliness of permits, people's understanding of regulations, and effective program implementation by DER where issues. Hess stated that the Department has addressed those issues in a number of ways. In order to increase public participation, the Agricultural Advisory Board was created to ensure that the Department considered the impact of its regulations and policies on the agricultural community. Other examples of increased public participation include posting information and regulations on the DEP web site, the DEP Update newsletter (every Friday), increased public involvement in the regulatory process, and improved procedures for meeting notices and public participation. The Regulatory Basics Initiative (RBI) process was implemented to review every regulation the Department has to ensure they are practical and effective. The Money Back Guarantee Program was implemented to ensure that Department permits are issued in a timely manner. Deadlines were set for the issuance of every Department permit (Hess noted that the deadline for a CAFO permit is 90 days). The Department has issued over 71,000 permits since the Money Back Guarantee Program was implemented in August 1995, and only 12 permits were not issued within the specified deadlines. Hess also noted that the Money Back Guarantee Program recognizes the responsibility of the permit applicant to provide the Department with a complete application that meets agency requirements.

Mike Brendle suggested it would be helpful if the Department would specify what permits apply to agriculture, and then educate the agricultural community about what is required. Hess stated that that was a good idea and the Department will look into that suggestion. Bill Adams asked if Mr. Hess would like to hear about situations where a farmer is negatively affected by a Department regulation. Dave Hess stated that every story has two sides and he would like to hear about those situations. He noted the Department has an ombudsman who can follow-up on situations like that. Chairperson Breech thanked Dave Hess for his presentation and comments.

Dukes Pepper, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel, noted that at the Board's August meeting Carl Shaffer had expressed concerns regarding the Department's timeliness of CAFO permitting for a proposed dairy farm in Columbia County. Dukes Pepper agreed at the August meeting to look into this matter and report back to the Board. Pepper reported that after checking with the DEP Regional Office and the conservation district, no CAFO permit application has yet been filed by the operators. He noted that to date the erosion and sediment pollution control plan was filed for one part of the operation. This plan was reviewed and approved by the conservation district in six days. A complaint regarding earthmoving work at the site resulted in a meeting between the operators, DEP, and the conservation district to outline what permits are required for this CAFO. Carl Shaffer requested the Department look into its existing CAFO applications to see how the process is working. Shaffer noted that the Board has the opportunity to comment on the CAFO permitting system but needs to know how the process is working to fully comment on it. Dukes Pepper agreed to provide this information at a future Board meeting if so directed by the Board.

Bill Johnson, a neighbor of the proposed dairy CAFO in Columbia County requested time to address neighbor' concerns regarding the proposed CAFO operation. Several board members questioned why this item was on the agenda and whether this presentation was outside of the statutory authority of the Board. Chairperson Breech stated that since Carl Shaffer mentioned a specific proposed CAFO at the August meeting it is the Board's function to address this issue based on all the facts to ensure that all concerns are addressed. Chairperson Breech requested that the members provide courtesy to Mr. Johnson and allow him to address the Board.

Mr. Johnson stated that he represents a group of concerned neighbors of the proposed dairy CAFO. He stated that the neighbors are concerned that a family farm is now being turned into an industrial agricultural complex, which should require stricter controls than a traditional family farm. Neighbors are concerned about possible contamination of surface and groundwater, the effect of the operation on wells and drinking water due to its large use of water, and the lack of community input regarding this proposed operation. Mr. Johnson thanked the Board for the opportunity to address the neighbors concerns.

Jay Howes stated that he objected to this presentation and requested that they not be part of any future meeting agenda. Chairperson Larry Breech noted that meeting agendas are mailed to all Board members prior to the meetings and that if any member has an objection regarding an agenda item they should contact the Chairperson. Bill Adams made a motion that since the CAFO issue has surfaced at this meeting the Board should bring in a person to speak about the advantages and positive aspects of CAFOs at the Board's next meeting. This motion was seconded by Carl Shaffer and was passed unanimously by the Board. Chairperson Breech requested that Bill Adams make the arrangements for this speaker at the next Board meeting.

Carol Young, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, reviewed revisions to the draft final regulations related to the Regulatory Basics Initiative for proposed amendments to Chapters 16, 92, 93, and 97, and the proposed creation of Chapter 96. During the Board's review, it was noted in the Chapter 92 regulations, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting, Monitoring, and Compliance, that section 92.81, subsection (a)(8), was revised to reinstate the existing language which prohibits the issuance of general NPDES permits for activities in high quality and exceptional value waters. The previous draft of the regulations would have authorized issuance of general NPDES permits for discharges to high quality waters, but not to exceptional value waters. Bill Adams made a motion that the Board advocate the use of general NPDES permits in high quality waters, and recommends that the Department make the appropriate revisions to the Chapter 92 regulations to allow the issuance of general permits in high quality waters. This motion was seconded by Carl Shaffer, and passed unanimously by the Board. A comment letter will be submitted to the Department by the comment deadline date.

Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, reviewed the final revisions to the Manure Management for Environmental Protection Manual. The goal of revising this manual was to update the manual to the current requirements. Farooq noted that the comment period closed on September 8, 1999, and comments were received from 16 commentators. The Board had reviewed this manual at its August meeting.

John Mank, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, noted that the Board suggested at its August meeting that the Department develop a fact sheet to direct farmers to references for agricultural best management practices rather than develop another manual. A copy of a draft fact sheet was mailed to the Board members for review prior to the meeting. Bob Pardoe, Jr. noted that the sample plan (on the back of the fact sheet) refers to a conservation plan, and questioned the difference between a conservation plan and an erosion and sediment control plan. Mank stated that the fact sheet would be revised to point out that the sample plan is really an erosion control plan for the farm and not a conservation plan. Doug Goodlander suggested that a statement be added to the fact sheet that the erosion and sediment control plan must be available and kept at the farm site. Bob Pardoe, Jr. also suggested that the words "under normal conditions" should be added after the word "ensure" in the third paragraph. Frank Long recommended the fact sheet note that the plan must be updated when a change in the farming operation occurs. John Mank stated that he would revise the fact sheet based on the comments received.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:26 p.m.