There being a majority of the members present the meeting was called to order by Chairperson Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union at 10:05 a.m.

Larry Breech, PA Farmers Union
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Karl Brown, PA Department of Agriculture
Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Bill Adams, PA farm Bureau
Tim Murphy, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer
Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange
Kristen Ebsersole, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Slocum)
Jackie Staufer, USDA, Farm Service Agency
Larry Cogan, Horticulture Producer
Thomas Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer
Samuel Elkin, Livestock Producer
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Bunt)
Bruce Holbrook, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Agencies, Advisors, and Guests

Donn Fetterolf, PA Farm Bureau
Owen Thomas, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Tom Fidler, DEP, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management
Bill Gerlach, DEP, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel
Susan Wilson, DEP, Citizen’s Advisory Council
Tom Juengst, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Don Fiesta, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Robert Junk, Jr., PA Farmers Union
Oswald Bordner, Dauphin County Citizen
Curtis Kratz, Moyer Packing Company
Steve Taglang, DEP, Office of Policy
Mike Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Marsha Brown, Adams County Citizen
Carol Young, DEP, Office of Water Management
Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP, Deputy Secretary for Water Management
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection

Introduction of Members and Guests

Chairperson Breech noted that the Board now has two new members. Karl Brown will represent the PA Department of
Agriculture, and Glenn Maurer, the PA Department of Environmental Protection. It was also noted that on January 28, 1998, Governor Ridge reappointed Thomas Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer; Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer; and Michael Brendle, Poultry Producer, to three-year terms on the Board. Their terms will now expire on January 27, 2001.

No public comments were received.

It was noted that the name of Tom Fidler was misspelled in the December 16, 1998 meeting minutes. The minutes were then approved with the above noted correction.

Judith Kipe-Nolt, Bloomsburg University; and Ron Phelps, NRCS, Pocono Resource Conservation and Development Council, presented the results of an EPA section 319 grant study on reducing non-point source pollution through soil microbial enhancement. The study used activated microbial windrow (AMW) composting to produce high quality compost from manure. The AMW composting is a method in which environmental conditions are controlled to enhance compost quality and speed up decomposition. The AMW composting process requires that the compost be turned on a regular basis which was done through the use of mechanical turners which can produce the desired windrow size and shape, while aerating and fluffing the windrows. The windrows were then covered with a synthetic fleece to help regulate moisture levels. The composting process is completed within 6-9 weeks depending primarily on the degradability of the carbon sources incorporated.

Two replicated field trails, one in Lackawanna County and one in Columbia County, were conducted to evaluate the effects of compost, manure, and conventional fertilizer on soil quality. Several physical, chemical, and biological soil quality indicators were monitored during the two and a half-year study. Water infiltration rates and water holding capacity were significantly better in the compost and manure treatments than in the conventional fertilizer treatment. No differences in soil bulk density or temperature were detected. After the second year significant differences in soil organic matter were detected. Compost plots had the highest levels of organic matter, followed by manure plots, then the fertilizer plots. The two biological indicators studied were earthworm populations and total microbial biomass. Earthworm populations were highest in the manure plots, followed by compost plots, while very few earthworms were present in the conventional fertilizer plots. After applications and tillage, and throughout the crop cycle, manure treatment had the highest levels of microbial biomass. Levels stabilized in the fall and were similar in the compost and manure plots, but were significantly greater than in the conventional fertilizer plots. In conclusion, the soil in the conventional fertilizer treatment was of poorer quality than the soil in either the compost or manure treatments. With the exception of the significantly higher organic matter content in the compost treatment, no clear differences in quality between the compost and manure treatments were detected.

In the study, nitrate leaching was monitored by determining nitrate concentrations in soil cores to a depth of one meter. Over the two year period 16% more leaching was detected in the manure treatment than in the compost treatment. The compost and conventional fertilizer treatments were not significantly different. If composting of manure is to serve as a nutrient management option to alleviate some of the problems associated direct field applications of raw manure (nitrate leaching, flies, odor) it is important that crop growth is not adversely affected. Corn was chosen for the study since it is considered the crop most likely to be adversely affected by the slow release of nitrogen from compost. Early corn growth was consistently greater in the compost plots than either the manure or fertilizer plots. The nitrogen concentration however, was generally lower and by the time of silage harvest in the fall, total nitrogen in the above ground plant material was similar for all treatments. A detailed copy of the final report was distributed to Board members for their review.

Tom Fidler, DEP, Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management, reviewed with the Board what has happened regarding the concerns raised by Marsha Brown at the December 1998 meeting. Fidler discussed this issue with Marsha Brown and EPA Region III staff on December 22, regarding the seeps on her property and the potential risk to livestock. A follow-up letter regarding this issue was sent to EPA on January 8. Tom Fidler also brought this concern to the Department’s Clean-up Standards Scientific Advisory Board at its February 4 meeting. The consensus of the Board was that very little risk assessment information exists regarding the effect of low level toxins on large animals. Fidler was referred to Dr. Robert Poppenga a veterinarian toxicologist at the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary School. Information regarding the Marsha Brown farm was sent to Dr. Poppenga to further study this issue. Tom Fidler will continue to look into this issue and report back to the Board once more conclusive information is available. Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau, noted that a similar problem exists in Fulton County where several animals have died, but tests by DEP show no substances in excess of the MCLs. Adams asked if this situation could be included in the dialogue with Dr. Poppenga. Tom Fidler stated that this could be done.

Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP, Deputy Secretary for Water Management, and Bill Gerlach, DEP, Bureau of Regulatory Counsel, reviewed the draft Antidegradation regulations with the Board. Members had received a copy of the draft Antidegradation regulatory package to review prior to the meeting. The Department has been working to update and revise the Commonwealth’s Antidegradation program to meet the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Department established a regulatory negotiations group to assist in the revision of the state regulations. The Department received over 1700 comments on the 3-22-97 proposed regulatory changes. While this process was taking place EPA issued regulations superseding portions of the existing state Antidegradation program. The purpose of the Advanced Notice of Final Rulemaking (ANFR) is to provide additional public participation on the revised proposal prepared by the Department after considering public comments on the 3-22-97 proposed Antidegradation regulation. The ANFR lays out a process to protect existing uses when available data indicates that surface water attains or has attained an existing use. Such protection is primarily accomplished through permitting (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting) or approval (sewage Facilities Planning) process with opportunities for public participation. The Department will present the final regulation to the Environmental Quality Board in May 1999. The final regulation will be developed based upon the proposed rule and the ANFR input from the public on these proposals, and input from Advisory Boards and Committees.

Board members questioned the impact the draft Antidegradation regulations will have on agriculture. Dr. Archer stated that the draft regulations would have little impact on agriculture since agricultural operations have non-point source discharges rather than point source permitted discharges. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, noted that a segment of agricultural operations defined as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), would be affected by these regulations. Dr. Archer acknowledged that CAFOs would be affected, but that if the agricultural operation is not a CAFO the regulations will have no impact. Board members choose not to comment on the ANFR for the draft Antidegradation regulations.

Mike Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, noted that these lists are a requirement of the Federal Clean Water Act. The 305(b) list is a report card of water quality conditions, which contains a detailed summary and explanation of state programs to affect and track water quality. This report is submitted to EPA every two years, with the last report submitted during the summer of 1998. The 303(b) list is a subset of water quality conditions, which lists all waters where treatment requirements for point and non-point sources will not meet the required uses. This list does not include waters where a point source discharge is not meeting its criteria, but all available technology based controls have not been met. Sherman noted that Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) will be developed for areas listed on the 303(d) list.

Sherman noted of the 104 watersheds in the state water plan, 28 have been identified as impaired due to agriculture. The exact number of farms located in agriculturally impaired watersheds can not be determined at this time and would require a more detailed follow-up assessment using conservation districts and USDA, Farm Service Agency data. The members questioned how the source of an impaired waterway is determined. Sherman stated that Department looks at the use of the adjacent land and interviews landowners to establish the cause of the impairment.

Dr. Archer noted that Pennsylvania must implement a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Program since we are a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) delegated state. The law to permit CAFO operations has been on the book since the 1970s. Pennsylvania choose too not issue permits but rather work with the Farm Bureau to address farms with problems. The growth of the confined animal operation industry and environmental problems forced EPA to require states to implement NPDES permitting for CAFOs. At the same time that occurred the Act 6, Nutrient Management Regulations, were being developed, and it was determined that the CAFO strategy would compliment Act 6. A CAFO stakeholders group meeting which was recently held addressed two large concerns. The first concern was how should the strategy address existing operations in special protection watersheds since you cannot use a general permit in a special protection watershed. The stakeholder group proposed a simplified permit procedure for existing CAFO operations with 301 to 1,000 animal units (AUs) in special protection watersheds. This would involve a one-page application with no additional regulatory burdens. The second concern was how new small CAFO operations would be handled in special protection watersheds. It was decided that the simplified conditions for existing operations would be extended to new small CAFOs in special protection watersheds. Bill Adams noted that the Department is moving in the right direction to address small operations in special protection watersheds.

Dr. Archer noted that the Department is very committed to full public participation in all its regulatory programs. A public hearing is required for operations proposed in Exceptional Value watersheds. DEP will respond to requests for public hearings for any operations proposed in high quality watersheds. He noted that DEP will run the public meetings, and often the comments we receive at these meetings are beyond the regulatory scope of the Department. Senate Resolution 91 may result in the authority being given to local governments to regulate the siting and odors of large animal operations. The Board members noted that they would like to see the final version of the CAFO strategy before formally commenting or endorsing it.

Bill Adams noted that he learned that Dr. Archer would be leaving the Department. Adams thanked Dr. Archer for his good working relationship with agriculture and his appreciation of agriculture. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee noted that the entire Board shared this opinion of Dr. Archer. Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer, made a motion that the Board commends Dr. Archer for his work with the Board and on behalf of agriculture. Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer seconded this motion, and the motion was passed unanimously by the Board.

Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau, and Chair of the Board’s CAFO and AFO Committees updated the Board on the activities of those committees. The CAFO Committee Board met twice to review the strategy and submitted written comments to the Department in October 1998. The AFO Committee met in December 1998 and submitted written comments to EPA on January 7, 1999.

Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer, suggested that farmers could use a simplified version of the CAFO strategy once it is finalized. Perhaps the Department could develop a one-page fact sheet.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Dean M. Auchenbach
DEP Liaison