MINUTES

AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD

Rachel Carson State Office Building

February 18, 1998

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

Attendance

Members
Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Donald Lichtenwalner, Grain Producer
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Bunt)
Lyle Forer, PA Department of Agriculture
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Steve Crawford, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Cappabianca)
Chad Weaver, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Senator Wenger)
Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Cass Peterson, Sustainable Agriculture Representative
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer
Bruce Holbrook, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Agencies, Advisors, and Guests
Frederick Marrocco, DEP, Bureau of Water Supply Management
Sue Wilson, DEP, Citizens Advisory Council
Bill Cummings, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel
Carol Young, DEP, Office of Water Management
Milt Lauch, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Stuart Gansell, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Alisa Harris, DEP, Office of Water Management
Sarah Blackman, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Joe Piotrowski, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Don Fiesta, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Tom Juengst, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Steve Taglang, DEP, Office of Policy
Mary Bender, PA Department of Agriculture, Office of Policy
Glenn Maurer, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Cedric Karper, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Curtis Kratz, Moyer Packing Company
Mike Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Diane Wilson, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP, Deputy Secretary for Water Management
Doug Goodlander, State Conservation Commission
Christian Sautter, PA Department of Agriculture
Walter Peechatka, PennAg Industries
Bill Brubaker, PA Agronomic Products Association
Jonathan Brightbill, DEP, Office of Policy
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection

Minutes

The minutes of the December 17, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed.

Nationwide Perspective on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) Requirements

Joe Piotrowski, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), noted that in the past the focus has been on controlling point source (pipe) pollution discharges, which has resulted in a decline in point source discharges from 43% in 1977, to 15% in 1994. Non-point source pollution discharges have increased from 57% in 1977, to 85% in 1994, with approximately 60% of this agriculturally related. In order for EPA to meet its goal that waterways be fishable and swimable, more interaction is necessary in the future with agriculture, since agriculture is a major factor in non-point source pollution. Several Board members expressed concern that if the general public looked at the percentages given, it would appear that agriculture is to blame, and has not implemented any conservation measures. Piotrowski acknowledged that more animals are being produced in a smaller area and are no longer spread out throughout several watersheds, so this is a concern. The estimated manure nitrogen production from confined livestock is very heavy in Pennsylvania.

There have been several events which have highlighted the need to address large livestock operations. Among them are manure lagoon failures, watershed impairment, nutrient related total maximum daily loads, grassroot group concerns, pfiesteria outbreaks, and the President’s Clean Water Initiative. Vice President Al Gore, on October 18, 1997, directed EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop a runoff plan within 120 days. A workgroup has developed an initial draft that includes a strategy to address animal feeding operations (AFOs). The goal of this initiative is to minimize environmental and public health impacts from AFOs; expand compliance and enforcement programs; identify AFOs and priority watersheds; issue more NPDES permits (found only half of the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are permitted); revise existing CAFO regulations; and provide increased EPA/USDA coordination.

The EPA is currently involved in the national pork production dialogue and national poultry dialogue. The pork dialogue is a meeting of government, industry, and general public to discuss water quality issues. A manure management committee is addressing issues such as training and manure lagoon design. In the poultry dialogue, EPA Region III developed a strategy that has been expanded nationally. The National Broiler Council is now taking the lead in discussing volunteer steps to resolve non-point source problems that may be caused by the poultry industry.

Piotrowski noted that EPA was sued over its alleged failure to properly implement total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), or requiring the proper implementation of TMDLs by the states. EPA has reached settlement with seven states, including one pertaining to Pennsylvania’s implementation of the TMDL program. The settlement will last 12 years, and will require that TMDLs be developed for all 570 segments (watersheds) listed on the 1996 section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Seventy-four of the 570 segments list agriculture as a major cause of non-point source pollution. Sources of pollution include nutrient runoff, suspended sediments, pesticides, bacteria, and low dissolved oxygen. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned if Pennsylvania’s Nutrient Management Regulations would satisfy this requirement. Piotrowski stated that it would not, since the TMDLs are based on water segments (watersheds), so if nutrient management plans were required of every farm in the watershed it may be what is needed; but the Nutrient Management Regulations only require concentrated animal operations (CAOs) to develop nutrient management plans. Carl then questioned how the data was obtained to determine that 570 segments in Pennsylvania were degraded. Piotrowski stated that data is obtained from state monitoring and assessments. Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP Deputy Secretary for Water Management, added that DEP Regional Office biologists conduct stream assessments and then standards are set for the stream.

Several Board members questioned whether time should be allowed to see if the Nutrient Management Regulations have an impact, before drawing conclusions, since older data is being used for stream assessments. Piotrowski acknowledged that agriculture in Pennsylvania has done much in the last few years to improve, but more needs to be done. People are now getting sick from nutrient runoff water pollution. There is not sufficient time to wait for the Nutrient Management Regulations due to the time limits set in the lawsuit settlement. Piotrowski noted that the Nutrient Management Act was a good first step but that other states have done much more such as banning feedlots. Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, remarked that Pennsylvania has been proactive, rather than reactive, like other states that are reacting to problems that have developed. Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer, stated that the problems have not developed within the past five years, and we should therefore give the Nutrient Management Act time to work. He also noted that 300 animal units is probably not a viable agriculture operation, and the CAFO regulations will significantly change agricultural operations. Piotrowski acknowledged that EPA, under the lawsuit settlement must require the state to implement a TMDL Program. If the state does not do it then EPA will.

Update on the Interim Permitting Policy for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and the Proposed Strategy for the Implementation of CAFO Requirements in Pennsylvania

Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP Deputy Secretary for Water Management, distributed copies of the Interim Policy for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, (attachment # 1) which were released to the public January 16, 1998. He noted that Department is currently developing a draft CAFO strategy and related regulations for Pennsylvania to address federal requirements regarding CAFOs. Until the strategy is finalized and supporting regulations and permits are in place, it is necessary for the Department to have the interim policy to address newly proposed CAFOs. It is anticipated that it will take one to two years to finalize the CAFO strategy. Dr. Archer noted that the Department will look for assistance from the Board in the development of the CAFO strategy.

Follow-up on the Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP) Monitoring Council

Dr. Hugh Archer, assured the Board that its major concerns over the CVMP, criminal trespass and how the data that is collected will be used, will be addressed by the Monitoring Council, which has been renamed the Monitoring Panel. Dr. Archer stated that the data collected by volunteer monitoring groups will not be used for enforcement since the samples would not stand up in court. This data may be used for scientific purposes to allow the state to better manage its resources. Chairperson Bill Adams noted that the Board sent a letter to Secretary Seif regarding concerns over the size of the Monitoring Panel, and the number of agricultural representatives on the panel. Dr. Archer stated that the size of the panel was reduced from 25 members to 15, with three of those being agricultural representatives. Technical advisors have also been named to assist the Panel in its duties. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, and Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts, were named to serve on the panel. The third agricultural representative is to be named by the PA State Grange (Brenda Shambaugh was appointed after the meeting to serve in this capacity.)

Carl Shaffer, stated that he felt agriculture was not adequately represented, and that the membership of the Panel did not meet the motion approved by the Board at its December meeting, that the membership consist of at least 1/3 agricultural representatives. He was not interested in serving on the panel if it was not a workable arrangement. Dr. Archer reminded the Board that the panel’s goal is to provide guidance and technical and scientific support to the monitoring groups in the state. The panel will also be advising DEP regarding what the data collected should be used for. Dr. Archer urged the agricultural representatives to serve on the monitoring panel, and if the other panel members attack agriculture, to let him know, and he will disband the panel since it will not be meeting its mandate. Bruce Holbrook, Department of Environmental Protection, noted that he personally knows several members that are named to the Panel, and believes they will be responsive to the interests of the agricultural community. Dr. Archer acknowledged that a lot of thought went into the creation of the membership of the Panel to ensure it was balanced.

Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer, thanked Dr. Archer for his comments, but expressed his concern that as politics change, and people in certain positions leave or retire, how will the future of the program be protected Dr. Archer responded that it is important to develop a framework for the Panel that will set limits on what can be done. Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer, expressed his concern that confrontations between the agricultural community and monitoring groups will be inevitable in this program. Steve Crawford, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, stated that he believes the credibility of the CVMP is questionable, due to the use of citizen groups, and noted that the Legislature will be watching this program very closely. He also noted that the Department has a responsibility to administer programs in a credible way.

Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer, made a motion that the three agricultural representatives named to the CVMP Panel attend the first meeting, and that the Board relinquish its position that at least 1/3 of the membership of the panel consist of agricultural representatives. He also added that the Board reserves the right to withdraw the agricultural representatives to the panel if it appears that the other members are ganging up on agriculture. This motion was seconded by Cass Peterson, Sustainable Agriculture Representative. Dr. Archer noted that the CVMP Panel will meet on February 25, 1998 at 10:00 a.m., in Harrisburg. He suggested that the agricultural representatives give a report to the Board at its April meeting regarding the CVMP Panel. Robert Pardoe agreed to amend his motion to include that suggestion. The motion was then voted on by the Board and approved with one dissenting vote.

Implications of Senate Resolution 91, Creating an Agricultural Development Advisory

Board

Pam Witmer, DEP Legislative Liaison, briefed the Board on the provisions of Senate Resolution 91, which was passed in December 1997, creating an Agricultural Development Advisory Board. She noted that staff from DEP and Department of Agriculture are meeting to develop a draft manual of best management practices (BMPs) to be developed prior to the first meeting of the Board, as mandated in the Resolution. It is anticipated that the Board will first meet sometime this summer. DEP Secretary James Seif and Agriculture Secretary Sam Hayes will be meeting to discuss the future direction of the Resolution. Witmer noted that not all members named to be on the board have yet been appointed. She offered to periodically update the Board on the progress of the Agricultural Development Advisory Board.

Follow-up on the Proposed Revisions to Chapter 92 and Chapter 97 (Water Quality) Regulations

Milt Lauch, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, noted that the Board had questioned at its December meeting whether some agricultural waste may be defined as industrial waste. Lauch had researched this question after the meeting and found little in the federal regulations regarding agricultural waste defined as industrial waste. he noted that the revisions involve moving some sections of Chapter 97, Industrial Waste Regulations, to Chapter 92, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Regulations. These revisions will have little or no impact on the agricultural community, with the exception of the CAFO section and the permit exemption for return irrigation flows.

Explanation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) Program

Stuart Gansell, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, explained that the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program was established by the federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d). The purpose of this program was to identify remaining sources of pollution and allocate pollution control responsibilities in places where water quality goals have not been achieved. As was mentioned during Joe Piotrowski’s presentation, EPA was sued over their alleged failure to properly implement TMDLs, or require the proper implementation of TMDLs by the states. A TMDL is the maximum amount of pollutant that a stream can handle before the stream becomes impaired. EPA has reached a settlement in seven of the lawsuits, including one pertaining to Pennsylvania’s implementation of the program. Under the consent decree requirements Pennsylvania will sign a memorandum of understanding with EPA, to do the program on behalf of EPA. This requires the state to assess all unassessed wadeable streams within 10 years; identify and prioritize all significant lakes within 5 years; assess 100 significant lakes within 10 years; establish TMDLs for those waters listed on the 1996 303(d) list; and prepare TMDLs for newly listed waters within 3 years. As of 12-31-97, of the 84,198 stream miles in Pennsylvania, 13,134 have been assessed, 8,511 miles were found to be unimpaired, with 4,693 miles impaired. Of the impaired waters, 4,142 miles (88%) are caused by non-point source pollution. Sources of non-point source pollution include abandoned mine drainage (36%), Agriculture (26%), unidentified non-point sources (19%), urban runoff (7%), habitat modifications (4%) and construction (2%.) The sources of impairment are determined by biologists based on the adjacent land use.

Bill Adams, questioned what is defined as a wadeable stream? Gansell responded that a wadeable stream is one that a person is able to get into the stream to look under rocks for stream life. The Ohio River would be an example of a waterway that is not wadeable. Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University, questioned how a stream was defined. Gansell noted that the state water plan divides the state into 104 watersheds. One of these watersheds could be selected as a unit, which would then be broken down into an area. Biologists would then determine what streams they will look at within that area. Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer, felt that the percentages for sources of impairment should be broken down even more, since failing septic tanks could be causing the stream impairment, not necessarily agriculture. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, questioned whether you would be able to swim or fish in an impaired stream. Gansell answered that you may be able to fish in an impaired stream but the fish species may not be abundant, and may not be a type desired. He continued by saying that the assessment will tell you the health of the stream and the quality of habitat. He noted that TMDLs may be numeric, narrative, or both. The state favors the use of a narrative in order to describe the problem and potential solutions, so that the people living in the watershed can address the problems. DEP will need partners to complete all the TMDLs that need to be done. This is because the state has limited regulatory authority, problems need to be approached on a watershed basis, and solutions must be community driven. Mike Brendle, remarked that he feels the Nutrient Management Act will have an effect on the number of impaired streams in the state, if the Act is given time to work.

DEP’s Compliance Initiative

Alisa Harris, DEP, Office of Water Management, provided an update to the Board on the Department’s compliance initiative efforts. Dave Hess, Executive Deputy Secretary for Policy and Communications, had initially briefed the Board about this initiative at its June meeting. Harris noted that once the system is in place, people will be able to access the Department’s world wide web site to review the compliance history of a company or business. The Department has developed a draft classification of violations, which lists over 2,100 possible violations. The Department is requesting that its advisory boards and committees review the draft classification of violations and provide any comments they have to the Department by April 10, 1998. Harris acknowledged that other groups have raised concerns regarding this initiative over quality control issues, such as insuring that the material is updated. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, suggested that the Department also provide a listing of companies or business that are doing positive things for the environment, such as following ISO 14000 requirements, or to note when they have received awards for their efforts. Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts, questioned whether the Department could pull out the specific regulations that pertain to agriculture. Harris suggested that the Board focus on water quality regulations since they will most likely affect agriculture. Chairperson Adams requested that Board members individually review the draft classifications of violations, and if they have any comments, contact Dean Auchenbach by April 1, 1998.

Comments on the Proposed Revisions to the Field Application Section of the Manure Management Manual

Chairperson Bill Adams noted that he received no comments from Board members since the December meeting regarding the proposed revisions to the Field Application Section of the Manure Management Manual. Tom Juengst, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, updated the Board on some minor revisions made to the manual since the December meeting. These changes include modifying the wording in the examples for nitrogen application rates to state that they must meet the Act 6 requirements, adding a paragraph regarding farmer responsibility under the Clean Streams Law, and the addition of farm scale worksheets. Jay Howes, House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, questioned whether Doug Goodlander, State Conservation Commission, was comfortable with the proposed revisions to the Manual. Goodlander stated that DEP staff worked closely with Department of Agriculture staff to ensure that the revisions to the Manual are consistent with the Act 6 requirements. Tom Juengst stated that it is anticipated that the Manual will be finalized and available by this summer.

Implementation of Executive Order 1997-6 (Agricultural Land Preservation Policy)

Jonathan Brightbill, DEP, Office of Policy, noted that Executive Order 1997-6, Agricultural Land Preservation Policy, is an update of Executive Order 1996-3, with some additions. The additions include adding to the definition of "primary agricultural land," farmland enrolled in Act 319 of 1974, as amended (Clean and Green), or Act 515 of 1996, as amended; and land in soil capability class IV. The guidance for implementation of the Agricultural Land Preservation Policy is the same as currently used, with the above noted additions inserted. Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University, stated that this policy will have an impact on Land Trusts in Pennsylvania, and suggested that the Department provide this information to them. He noted that this policy will have widespread implications for Pennsylvania. Jonathan Brightbill noted that the information will be available on the internet, once approved. Frank Long made a motion that the Department send a letter to Land Trusts in Pennsylvania notifying them of this policy. This motion was seconded by Dr. Cole, and was passed unanimously by the Board.

Comments/Issues/Concerns of the Board

Jay Howes, House, Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee, noted that the Mushroom Manual, entitled "Best Practices for Environmental Protection in the Mushroom Farm Community," was finalized in December 1997, and is now available. Department staff will mail a copy of this manual to each Board member in the future.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m..

Respectfully submitted,

Dean M. Auchenbach
DEP Liaison