MINUTES

AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD

Rachel Carson State Office Building

December 17, 1997

There being a majority of the Board members present the meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chairperson Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange.

Attendance

Members
Brenda Shambaugh, PA State Grange
Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University
Frank Long, PA Association of Conservation Districts
Bill Baumgartner, USDA, Farm Service Agency
Jay Howes, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Bunt)
Christian Herr, PA Department of Agriculture
Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer
Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer
Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer
Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer
Mike Brendle, Poultry Producer
Janet Oertly, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Lynn Slabicki, House, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Rep. Cappabianca)
David Brubaker, Agri-business Representative
Chad Weaver, Senate, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (Sen. Wenger)
Dr. Hugh Archer, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Agencies, Advisors, and Guests
Curtis Kratz, Moyer Packing Company
Ken Reisinger, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Gail Phelps, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel
Rick Stehouwer, Penn State University
Mary Bender, PA Department of Agriculture, Policy Office
Tom Juengst, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Milt Lauch, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Stuart Gansell, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Bill Gerlach, DEP, Office of Chief Counsel
Carol Young, DEP, Office of Water Management Deputate
Mike Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Ken Bartal, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation
Edward Brezina, DEP, Bureau of Water Conservation
Joe Piotrowski, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sarah Blackman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cedric Karper, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Glenn Maurer, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Mohammad Farooq, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Don Fiesta, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Jeff Clukey, DEP, Citizens advisory Council
Steve Taglang, DEP, Office of Policy
Alisa Harris, DEP, Office of Water Management Deputate
John Mank, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission
Chris Allen, DEP, Public Participation Coordinator
Dean Auchenbach, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection

Minutes

The minutes of the October 22, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed.

Update on the Proposed Strategy for the Implementation of the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Requirements in Pennsylvania - Dr. Hugh Archer, DEP, Deputy Secretary for Water Management

Dr. Archer noted that the proposed CAFO strategy has changed since the Board’s October meeting. It is anticipated that it will take 6-12 months to implement the proposed strategy so the Department has developed an interim permitting policy for CAFO’s. Copies of the interim permitting policy (attachment # 1) and the proposed CAFO strategy (attachment # 2) were distributed to the members. The interim permitting policy will apply to all proposed new or expansions of existing animal operations which result in over 300 animal equivalent units (AEU’s) housed at the proposed animal concentration area regardless of the acreage available for manure disposal. Proposed CAFO’s must obtain a Water Quality Management Part II permit from the Department for any proposed manure storage facility (lagoon, pit, etc.) prior to the construction of any structures or improvements associated with the new or expanded operation. Operations will also need to obtain an NPDES permit for earthmoving activities regulated under the Chapter 102, Erosion Control regulations. If the proposed operation is located within a special protection watershed an approved Nutrient Management Plan or Manure Management plan must be submitted to the Department.

Under the proposed CAFO strategy, new feeding operations with 301 to 1,000 animal units and a potential to discharge to surface waters, would be required to submit a Nutrient Management Plan to the county conservation districts for approval, and must then implement the plan. DEP regulations would be amended to allow a "permit-by-rule" provision, which would be documented by the certification statement now required as part of the Nutrient Management Plan review and approval process. A general permit will be established for new feeding operations over 1,000 aniaml units. These operations would be required by the general permit to prepare and implement a Nutrient Management Plan as required by the Nutrient Management Act. Operations with a manure storage facility or treatment/storage lagoons as part of the operation will be required to submit an application to the Department for a Part II Water Quality Permit. Part II Permits will allow DEP to review the structural and operational integrity of the facility and consider additional Part II permit requirements to include the consideration for groundwater monitoring, liners for lagoons, and siting limitations on a site specific basis. A new CAFO of 1,000 aniaml units or a new operation of 301 to 1,000 aniaml units with a potential to discharge to surface waters, would require an individual NPDES Water Quality Permit and a Part II Permit. A Pollution Preparedness Contingency (PPC) Plan would also be required to respond to any spills. Any new feeding operation which is designed or planned with discharges to surface water is required to obtain an individual NPDES Water Quality Permit and a Part II Permit. In addition a Nutrient management Plan and a PPC Plan would also be required. DEP, in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, will assess the integrity of existing manure storage facilities at CAFO’s in Pennsylvania over the next three years, with priority given to facilities located in High Quality and Exceptional Value watershed areas.

Jay Howes, House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee, noted that it appears the interim permitting policy is more stringent on CAFO’s with 301 to 1,000 animal units than is the proposed CAFO strategy. Jay suggested that the interim permitting policy only apply to CAFO’s with 1,000 animal units and above. Dr. Archer noted that the interim permitting policy only applies to new or expanded operations. Jay also expressed concerns over the assessment of existing manure storage facilities, as proposed in the strategy, and what would happen if problems are found? Dr. Archer explained that if problems are found during this assessment DEP will inform the operator of their risks and liabilities, and make recommendations for corrections. If a discharge or adverse impacts have occurred the Department will consider taking enforcement actions. Dr. Archer also noted that the Department needs to make it clear that these assessments will be for CAFO’s with 1,000 animal units and over. Several Board members expressed their concerns that these requirements will drive agricultural operations out of the state. Dr. Archer noted that these are federal requirements and there would be similar requirements in other states. Dr. Archer suggested that an official from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provide the Board a nationwide perspective on CAFO’s at the Board’s next meeting. He also suggested that Stuart Gansell, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, provide an explanation of total maximum daily loads (TMDL’s) at the Board’s next meeting.

Dr. Archer requested that Board members contact him at 717-787-4686 if they have additional comments or concerns regarding the proposed CAFO strategy. Robert Pardoe, Jr., Dairy Producer, made a motion that the Board accept the interim permitting policy for CAFO’s with the concerns expressed at the meeting. This motion was seconded by Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer, and the motion was passed unanimously.

Status of the Producer Member Terms on the Board

Chris Allen, DEP, Public Participation Coordinator, noted that the Board had made a recommendation that the terms of the nine producer members of the Board be staggered to avoid all nine terms expiring at the same time. The Governors Office has stated that the producer member terms are set by statute in the legislation that created the Board, and cannot be changed without changing the statute. The Governors Office recommended that terms may be staggered as long as some members agree to continue to serve until reappointed or replaced. This would allow the Governor to reappoint or appoint some producer members to three year terms, and at a later date reappoint/appoint additional producer members to three year terms. This would result in staggered three year terms of service. Chairperson Shambaugh noted that the producer members had already agreed to staggered terms and that list could be used by the Governors Office when making reappointments or appointments. A copy of this list will be provided to Chris Allen to be forwarded to the Governors Office. It was noted that the producer member terms expired on October 6, 1996, and all have agreed to serve until reappointed or replaced.

Meeting Agenda’s, Review and Timeliness

Chris Allen addressed the Board’s concern over the Department’s review of the Board’s meeting agenda’s and the timeliness of these reviews. Chris noted that agenda’s are reviewed by the executive deputy staff to ensure coordination between the Department’s approximately 33 advisory boards or committees. The Department also needs to determine who will address the issue and what the Department’s response will be. Chairperson Shambaugh noted that the Board’s greatest concern is the timeliness of the review, and questioned if the DEP Liaison could send the members a draft agenda. Chris stated that the DEP Liaison could send out bullet points regarding issues for the next meeting. Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau, noted that he will assume the Chair of the Board in 1998, and questioned whether he has the authority to schedule any issues he feels are pertinent, or is he under limits? Chris acknowledged that there are no limits regarding what items may be placed on an agenda. Tom Oyler, Jr., questioned whether issues not listed on the agenda may be discussed at the meeting. Chairperson Shambaugh noted that the agenda includes time for comments/issues/concerns of the Board where issues not on the agenda may be brought up for discussion if they are pertinent to the Board.

Proposed Amendments to Chapters 92, 93, 95, 96, and 97 (Water Quality) Regulations

Milt Lauch, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Management, and Stuart Gansell, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, provided a brief overview of the proposed amendments to these water quality regulations. These regulations are being revised as part of the Department’s regulatory basics initiative, to ensure that state regulations are no more restrictive than federal regulations. Milt addressed Chapter 92, NPDES Permitting, and Chapter 97, Industrial Waste regulations. Under Chapter 92.5a., the "permit-by-rule" is established for CAFO’s. In section 92.5 b., it identify’s operations that would not qualify for the "permit-by-rule." Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, requested a copy of the federal definition of a CAFO. Milt stated that he will provide the members a copy of this definition with the meeting minutes (see attachment # 3.) Under section 92.4, Exclusions from permit requirements, the inconsistency with federal regulations for return irrigation flows were addressed, and are now exempt from NPDES permit requirements. It was noted by Tom Oyler, Jr., that under the Chapter 97 regulations some agricultural waste may be defined as industrial waste. Milt stated that he will check into this issue and will report back to the Board at its next meeting.

Stuart Gansell noted that Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards, provides designated uses for water, and water quality standards to protect those uses. Most changes in these regulations were made to define terms and clarify statements. Updated and deleted standards are based on new information and standards. DEP is considering making a change to the Chapter 93 regulations. Currently all PA waters are protected for use as a potable water supply. The Department is considering whether they should impose criteria only at the known sources of potable water, or require the criteria on the entire stream. The Department would like to receive feedback from the public regarding this proposal. The Chapter 95 regulations, Waste Water Treatment Requirements, covers waste load allocations and compliance standards. The Chapter 96 regulations, Water Quality Implementation Standards, which describes water quality standards, sets restrictions for heated water and phosphorus discharges, and establishes limits for total maximum daily limits (TMDL’s) for surface waters. Stuart will further explain TMDL’s at the Board’s next meeting.

Report from the Chapter 105 Regulation Committee

Bill Adams, Chairperson of the Board’s 105 Regulation Committee, reported that the Committee meet with Ken Reisinger, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, on December 9, 1997, to review the proposed revisions to the Chapter 105, Dam Safety and Waterway Management regulations. The committee focused on the waiver of permit requirements ( section 105.12) and the wetland replacement criteria (section 105.20d, compensatory mitigation for environmental impacts, which replaces section 105.20a.) Bill noted that the Department will no longer require one-to one replacement of wetlands but will consider other options. Bill noted that the Committee has reached no decisions at this point regarding the proposed revisions to the regulations. Bill noted that the Department’s Wetlands Protection Advisory Committee is also currently reviewing these regulations.

Discussion and Comments Regarding the Proposed Revisions to the Chapter 105, Dam Safety and Waterway Management Regulations

Chairperson Brenda Shambaugh opened the floor for discussion by members on the proposed revisions to the Chapter 105 regulations. The majority of discussion centered on the Department’s proposal to consider other options for wetland replacement. Ken Reisinger, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, noted that the Department currently requires one-to-one wetland replacement. The Department however, recognizes that other activities may have a greater environmental impact then merely one-to-one wetland replacement. The proposed revision in the regulation (section 105.20d) would allow the Department the flexibility to consider other projects such as riparian corridors, streambank restoration and stabilization, and mine drainage treatment and remediation. Tom Oyler, Jr., Fruit Producer, questioned what impact the federal regulations will have on the proposed revisions. Ken stated that Department staff are looking at the Federal 404 guidelines, and are working with federal agency staff to ensure that state and federal permits may be issued simultaneously under these regulations.

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

Tom Juengst, DEP, Bureau of Water Quality Protection, distributed copies of the proposed revisions to the Field Application Section to the Manure Management Manual (attachment # 4.) This section was revised to be consistent with the Nutrient Management Regulations, and to provide a uniform system that will minimize differences and conflicts. This revision also includes an opportunity to update the manual to include new practices and address current problems. The Field Application Section is one of nine booklets that provide guidance to the agricultural community for the implementation of the PA Clean Streams Law. Tom expressed his thanks to Doug Beegle and Les Lanyon from Penn State University and Joel Myers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, for their efforts in developing the draft Field Application Section.

Tom then outlined some of the revisions to the Field Application Section. a general "introduction to nutrient management" was added at the beginning of the section. Updated poultry manure production numbers were added to page 15, and the manure nitrogen availability factors were matched to the 97-98 Agronomy Guide (pages 18-19.) The revisions also match the manure spreading limitations in the Nutrient Management Regulations, including setbacks from concentrated water flow areas, streams, springs, lakes, ponds, and agricultural drainage systems. It does allow application of manure within 100 feet of a well, if it is applied downslope of the well, or incorporated within 24 hours.

Tom requested the Board’s comments regarding the proposed revisions to the Field Application Section of the Manure Management Manual. Chairperson Shambaugh asked members to review the section and be prepared to comment on it at the Board’s February meeting. Tom also distributed copies of the final version of the composting supplement to the Manure Management Manual. The Board had reviewed and commented on the composting supplement in draft form.

Appointment of Agricultural Representatives to the Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program Monitoring Council

Mike Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, reported to the Board that the Department will be creating a 25 member Monitoring Council for the Citizens’ Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP.) The role of the Monitoring Council will be to serve as an ad-hoc committee to advise the CVMP, develop a guidance manual for the state, and organize training. It was noted that three of the Monitoring Council members would represent the agricultural community. Carl Shaffer, Vegetable Producer, stated that he felt the proposed size of the CVMP Monitoring council was too large, and agriculture was not given equal representation on the Council. He noted that agriculture is a major land use in Pennsylvania and that agriculture will be most impacted by the CVMP. Carl suggested that a Council consisting of 9-10 members, with three agricultural representatives would be a more reasonable approach.

Tom Oyler, Jr., made a motion that the Board recommend that the Department create a CVMP Monitoring Council consisting of a total of nine members, with three of those members (1/3 of the membership) representing agriculture. It was also further stated that the Board’s approval of this motion should not be viewed by the Department as an endorsement by the Board of the CVMP, since the Board still has many concerns regarding this program. The motion was seconded by Dr. Herb Cole, Penn State University, and the motion was passed unanimously. A letter regarding this motion will be sent to DEP Secretary Seif (see attachment # 5.) The Board members declined to appoint any agricultural representatives to the CVMP Monitoring Council at this time.

Nutrient Management Regulation Update

Karl Brown, Executive Secretary to the State Conservation Commission, provided an update to the Board regarding the Nutrient Management Regulations. He noted that this is a very busy time as the program is starting up and conservation districts are starting to review nutrient management plans. The Commission is also working with the Department to ensure that the CAFO strategy is consistent with the Nutrient Management Act. There are currently over 200 people certified to develop/review nutrient management plans. Additional certification training and exams will be given in the spring and summer of 1998. There are currently 52 conservation districts with delegation agreements to administer the program at level II. There are an additional three conservation districts that have expressed interest in level I (information/education) delegation agreements.

The Commission has developed amendments to the Agri-link Program to make this loan program more attractive to farmers. There is currently $25 million in funds available for loans but the interest rates are about 8-9%. The Commission would like to see the interest rate dropped to about 5%. There is $560,000 allocated for the Plan Development Incentive Program, where concentrated animal operations (CAO’s) could get reimbursement of expenses to have nutrient management plans developed by the private sector. A delegation agreement has been offered to conservation districts to participate in this program.

Carl Shaffer questioned if the Nutrient Management Regulations could fill in for the Department’s proposed CAFO strategy? Karl noted that in order for the state to meet the federal CAFO requirements additional measures are necessary. Carl Shaffer stated he feels it is counterproductive if a farmer has a 310 animal dairy herd and an approved nutrient management plan, and yet still has to get other permits.

Comments/Issues/Concerns of the Board

Brenda Shambaugh noted that Senate Resolution 91, introduced by Senator Robert Jubelirer, calling for the creation of an Agricultural Development Advisory Board, was recently passed by the Senate. The resolution had been referred to the Senate Agricultural Committee which had made some amendments and passed the resolution to the Senate. This resolution had been discussed by the Board at its October meeting and a letter was sent to Secretary Seif regarding the Board’s concerns over this resolution. The resolution will now move to the Secretaries of Agriculture and DEP for the formation of the Best Management Practices Manual.

David Brubaker, Agri-business Representative, announced that he has accepted a position with the Global Rivers Environmental Education Network (GREEN) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He will therefore be resigning his position on the Board. On behalf of all the Board members, Chairperson Shambaugh thanked Dave for his time and service to the Board. It was noted that the Agri-business Representative vacancy will need to be filled on the Board.

Sam Elkin, Livestock Producer, expressed concern over the fact that some Board members are not regularly attending meetings. It was noted that the Board’s Bylaws cover the subject of missed meetings. Under article IV, Membership, page 2, it states that " If the Board member or the designated alternate of a member organization misses two consecutive meetings, the organization shall be notified of the absence." It was noted that in the past this notification has generally not been done. If the problem continues Department staff will begin to notify organizations when two consecutive absences occur.

Adjournment

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m..

Respectfully Submitted,

Dean M. Auchenbach
DEP Liaison