Draft - DEP Homepage



MINUTES

AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY BOARD

Rachel Carson State Office Building

Room 105, First Floor Conference Room

Harrisburg, PA

August 22, 2007

Betsy E. Huber, PA Grange, called the meeting to order.

Attendance – Members

Larry Breech, Pa Farmers Union

Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission

Janis Dean, Citizens Advisory Council

Karl Diamond, State Conservation Commission

Duane Hobbs, Ag Chemical Manufacturers

(?) Jay Howes, representing Representative Art Hershey, PA HouseGovernment

Betsy E. Huber, PA Grange

Marge Hughes, Kenneth Kephart, representing Doug Beegle, The Pennsylvania State UniversityPA Department of Environmental Protection

Hosea Latshaw, USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Roxana Levan, USDA-Farm Services Agency (FSA)

Keith Masser, Vegetable Producer

Cathy Curran Myers, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Kelly O'Neill, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Walt Peechatka, PennAg

Louis Sallie, PA Farm Bureau

Andrea Sharretts, PA Farm Bureau

Kim Snell-Zarcone, Penn Future

(?)Bill Wehry, PA Department of Agriculture

Agencies, Advisors, and Guests

Karl Brown, State Conservation Commission

Karl Dymond, State Conservation Commission

Janis Dean, Citizens Advisory Council

Denis Newbold, Stroud Water Research Center

Kelly O'Neill, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Louis Sallie, PA Farm Bureau

Kim Snell-Zarcone, Penn Future

Duke Adams, Dean Auchenbach, Tom Barron, Doug Brennan, Bill Brown, Bob Gibson, Marge Hughes, Rod McAllister, George Mentzer, Claudia Merwin, Bonita Moore, Glenn Rider, Frank Schneider, Tom Starosta, Steve Taglang, John Wetherell, Diane Wilson, PA Department of Environmental Protection

Introductions

Ms. Betsy Huber called the meeting to order. Everyone in the room introduced themselves.

The first agenda item wasis a talk on Riparian Forested Buffers by Mr. Denis Newbold, of the Stroud Water Research Center. Mr. Glenn Rider, DEP, provided the introduction for Mr. Denis Newbold.

Mr. Rider stated that buffers are not new to any of us. People who put up fences and keep cows out of the creek or limited the cows' access ended up with 10 ft, 15 ft and 20 ft buffers along their streams. Nutrient Management Regulations were revised and there were a number of tools in there that kept manure out of the streams. One of those tools was a vegetative buffer up to 35 feet. Just last month, another piece of legislation was passed, The Resource Enhancement and Protection Program (REAP). REAP is – a tool in which a farmer can get a tax incentive for at a 75% level for creating and maintaining a riparian forest buffer in 50 feet in width. Science says that 50 feet is where you start to see substantial water quality benefits to the stream. The composition of that buffer is important. Ideally, the buffer should be a combination of trees and grasses. Riparian forest buffers seem to provide more benefits to water quality than other types of buffers. and we see that in the REAP program. Typically when we talk about water quality benefits with buffers, we are talkingare talking about benefits that keep something from getting into the stream. And typically when we talk about agriculture, we are talking about pollutants like nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. But there are other benefits, such as providing cover for the stream, habitat for fish and aquatic species, stabilizing stream banks, moderate temperature, and leaves as food source for aquatic organisms which leads to a healthy ecological system in the stream. Mr. Newbold is a research scientist and has worked for the Stroud Water Research Center in Chester County since 1983. The Stroud Water Research Center is a very respected resource center.

Buffers – Denis Newbold, Stroud Water Research Center

Mr. Newbold remarked that Glenn provided a good summary overview. The word vegetated buffer is used and is deliberately ambiguous as to mean either forested or grass. Mr. Newbold discussed both streamside vegetated buffers and streamside forested buffers. Streamside forested and vegetative buffers filter nutrients and sediments that would otherwise reach the stream. They also protect and restore stream habitat and stream ecosystem services. High nitrogen removal rates are attributable to denitrification and occur where flow pathways are shallow and soils are highly organic. Mr. Newbold had charts that showed where 15 feet of buffer removed 50% of nitrogen, 75 feet of buffer removed 75% of nitrogen and 300 feet of buffer removed 90% of nitrogen. One chart described phosphorus removal by riparian buffers. The phosphorous rRemoval efficiencies ranged from 20-95%, depending on the buffer width which ranged from 20 to 200 feet. , Mmost of the the phosphorous removal occurs from overland flow., Mr. Newbold reported that reported widths for effective removal range from 20 to 200 feet, efficiency is higher for wider buffers and that , grass and forest buffers are both effective.

Trees provide more stability in a buffer system. Streams are wider in a natural state versus a degraded state, about twice as wide in the forest. The stream channel is much more stable in a forested state and there are more square meters of stream bed, in forested land. 50 feet of riparian buffer makes a considerable difference while 100 feet of riparian buffer gets the full effect. Streams become wider, when trees are present, and these are tangible results. The same length of stream has a lot more habitat and more organic matter.

Inspired by Mr. David Welsch, there is aare 3 buffer zone approach to applys demonstrated on to the land. The 3 buffer zones include trees and shrubs, managed forest, and grass. Mr. Newbold stated that the Stroud Water Research Center had some land available to them where they were able to set up a project using the 3 buffer zone approach, to. They wanted to see if it worked on a farm, and to see how long it takes before the buffer zones worked., so they created their own

Small streams (order 1-4) are estimated to remove 41% of all nitrogen inputs via denitrification Rule of Thumb: A forested buffer is BMP wherever the riparian zone was forested in its natural state. They were looking at nitrate concentrations in the stream water.

In 6 years, of the research project, the where nitrate concentration actually got worse. I, it turns out they had a new farmer who was applying more fertilizer to the field versus the previous farmer. With the change in nutrient applicationsand there was not enough time to push the extra nutrientsat through the system. Another factor that attributed to the increase in nitrate concentration was thatAnd the trees were small. Mr. Newbold estimated that Denis Newbold stated that they probably should have used herbicide on the new trees, to help them grow faster. Iit took about 14 years for the trees to grow and that herbicide use, early on, may have helped. After the seventh year in the research project, they began to see an increase in a growth in the trees. After 8 years, of the research project, the nitrate concentration dropdropped whichs They had taken the land out of agricultural production. correspondeds with the growth of trees. Probably never get to 90% removal. They used overlaid flow collectors and measured the sediment

After the seven years into the experiment, they began to see an increase in a growth in the trees.

Trees provide more stability. Streams are wider in a natural state, about twice as wide in the forest. Channel is much more stable. There are more square meters of stream bed In forested land. 50 feet makes a considerable difference, 100 feet for full effect. Streams become wider and these are tangible results. Same length of stream has a lot more habitat. More organic matter. Less tangible result of riparian buffers is the prevalence of the cadis fly.

Mr. Larry Breech asked about an estimated cost per square foot or acre to implement these kinds of riparian buffers. Mr. Newbold stated that he could not give him some numbers. Deputy Secretary Cathy Curran Myers, DEP, suggested that an individual may check the NRCSS has a website. NRCS and probably offers fair market value numbers that they pay and they are posted on the NRCS website. Ms. Diane Wilson, DEP, stated that NRCS cost share is roughly $1,400 per acre unfenced land and $2,400 per acre for fenced land. that we'll pay. Fenced, $2,400 per acre Federal and State will fund. But it is on average. $1,400 - $2,500 per acre of actual buffer.

Mr. Karl Brown asked whyQuestion between – in 1999 and -2006, in the research project, there was an increase reduction in the nitrates to the stream. Mr. Newbold responded that a new farmer used morea lot of fertilizer than the previous farmer. Before 1991, Mr. Newbold did not know what the fertilizer ratio was.

The fertilizer applicationsy fluctuate from year to year, but it all averages out.

Ms. Andrea Sharrets asked if the center had any research related to legacy sediments. Mr. Newbold indicated they do not have any such research in design. Different crops were rotated hay, corn, and beans.

Watershed Permits Overview, Chapter 92 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permitting, Monitoring, and Compliance) – Tom Starosta, DEP Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation

Mr. Tom Starosta, DEP, presented the concept of Chapters 91 and 92 – Watershed Permits. He indicated that the proposed concept is to have watershed permits protect water quality standards, with terms and conditions which may supersede existing terms and conditions. Watershed permits could also provide a framework for pollutant credit trading. He anticipates that wC. W – this is the challenge.atershed permits would be issued following a watershed-wide assessment of water quality problem (TMDL or other assessment). Mr. Starosta reported that Ssome pollutants persist and accumulate in the watershed, resulting in a threat to water quality standards only after a threshold loading or concentration is reached at some point. in the watershed New methods and tools have enabled DEP to better determine when watershed-wide concerns apply, when developing TMDLs or Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits, and to quantify appropriate limits to address the problem. The ability to issue watershed-based NPDES permits for both point source discharges and non-point sources will provide the implementation process to complement these watershed-wide assessments.

Watershed permits are issued following watershed-wide assessment of water quality problem (TMDL or other assessment). DEP would determine when a watershed permit is necessary following such an assessment.

Holders of the proposed watershed permits could include NPDES permittees, within the watershed that discharge the pollutant of concern. There may be Ssome provision for deminimus discharges. may be appropriate. Nonpoint sources of theat pollutant within the watershed may also hold the watershed permit, but each of these concepts is still under discussion. He asked the board for input on this concept, specifically on how to address nonpoint sources.

He explained that the concept proposes to have the watershed permit as an overlay on top of existing NPDES permits, and could cover one or more pollutants contained in the facility –specific permit. Mfacility-specific

LStill. LGetting thoughts.toWatershed permits will protect water quality standards. Watershed permits have terms and conditions which may supercede existing terms and conditions. Watershed permits provide a framework for pollutant credit trading.

Important tool for achieving water quality standards in challenging scenarios.

Costs to NPDES permittees are not expected to increase directly as a result of the proposed watershed based permitting concept, but costs of compliance in general are increasing in the face of escalating population and development pressures. DEP believes that watershed-based permitting will help minimize the cost of compliance.additional costs to NPDES permittees. If pollutants can be effectively controlled at the watershed level, broad-brush and excessively conservative approaches to issuing effluent limits can be avoided. If nonpoint sources in the watershed can be effectively controlled, assimilative capacity may become available for allocation to point sources. Pollutant credit trading provides needed flexibility. Appropriate incentive to permittee for highest, cost-effective degree of treatment is provided ) because excess credits can be sold). Regulatory costs to DEP will increase, but watershed permits will be within framework of existing mission and process.

Deputy Secretary Myers offered an examplethis is just one situation to to put the watershed permit concept into context. A strategy was developed for the Chesapeake Bay, which includes a legal obligation downstream that we have to meet. There is a compliance point downstream where we can't send more than a certain amount of nutrients. We have to ask all our point sources to cut back so they don't contribute to the violation of that standard. We told the point sources that it part is mandatoryfor that program, but nonpoint sources for most of the farmers it is voluntary, at this moment. There are encouragements to the nonpoint sources to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs)do those things (swales, cover cups, continuous no till). Plus some increased mandatory programs. That is really the nonpoint source picture for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed..

Deputy Secretary Myers stated that Pennsylvania has locally impaired streams, like the Conestoga and the Chillisquaque. If the stream is not meeting its basic required use, it's impaired. Then DEPwe looks to see what the causes are, usually multiple causes, but some will be agricultural impairments from excess nutrients. Everyone in the watershed will have to do something additional to improve the impaired stream.

Deputy Secretary Myers stated that DEP is setting up a Chapter 102 regulations work group tois looking at the issue of agriculture impaired waters. Any number of things you can do, we want to do it the right way. The watershed permit concept lets us put into one place the total reductions that need to be made, which sources would be impacted, includingWhat is everyone else suburban area stormwater. or agricultural contributions. Each one will have to develop the appropriate BMPs to reach nutrient reductions. Buffers may be the most straightforward, understandable and well known BMP. So we are highlighting buffers today, but there are other choices such as terraces, swales, crop rotation, no till, cover crops and wetland restoration.

Mr. Ken Kephart raised the question that he’sQuestion was asked – I've heard over the years that implementation and update of the conservation plans wasare going slow. If we addressed the concerns of implementing and updating conservation plans, would the watershed concerns not be improved – if we addressed the concerns would they be corrected ??

Deputy Secretary Myers stated there are many forms of conservation plans for different programs. She stated that NCRS does the farm plans and the conservation plans by and large. They have been short staffed in response to the demand. Everyone wants to participate in the incentives program, and frequently they then go on the shelf. Other times they are fully implemented and updated and improving their farms every year and on the cutting edge and finding new things to do. We have conservation plans, farm plans, erosion and sediment control plans and sometimes people talk about one as if it were the other. The answer would then be yes, if we had complete conservations plans with nutrient plans in balance, but we would have to have everyone in the watershed implement their program. huge resource We need to have enough people to do one for every farm and they were implemented, we would be in good shape. But I think we can get there.

Triennial Review, Chapter 16 (Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy, Statement of Policy) – Tom Barron, DEP Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation

The Clean Water Act requires states to periodically, but at least once every three years, to review, and revise, and update, as necessary, their water quality (WQ) standards and criteria. Revise and update water quality criteria:

The rRevised and updated water quality criteria is found in Chapters 93 and 16 ando reflects the latest scientific information and new Federal guidelines for criteria development. Revisions are based in part on the most recent complete compilation of nationally recommended WQ criteria. EPA's 2002 compilation includes recommended WQ criteria for 126 priority pollutants and 17 other compounds or chemicals. New methods for deriving human health WQ criteria includes change in the national recommended fish consumption rate to 17.5 g/day, which is currently 6.5 g/day. DEP hasMore added the revised and, updated and other criteria that is currently contained in Chapter 16 (Statement of Policy) into the new criteria tables in Chapter 93 WQ standard (regulation), which include the following agriculture-related chemicals.

Mr. Tom Barron had a chart showing pesticides, – animal feed additives, – antibiotics, and – micronutrients. Mr. Barron explained that there is – no real impact on farming unless you have a TMDL NPDES permit.

Updated criteria Cclarifies they definition of "Conventional treatment" for Potable Water Supply (PWS) use protection. Mr. Barron

Aaddeding that other intervening, more sensitive uses may apply if the specified critical use does not afford adequate protection. Deputy Secretary Myers clarified that in a here – what is a standard system, - we protect all our surface water for drinking (after treatment). Mr. Barron also mentioned that aAdded was a reference to Drainage List X to indicate the U.S. EPA's 2004 Beach Act Federal promulgation at 40 CFR 131.41 for bacteriological WQ criteria. This criteria applies to the Lake Erie coastal recreational waters with/in Pennsylvania. (for federal requirement) Also Aadded was migratory fishes (MF) criteria use to the mid-Atlantic slope drainage basins (– the Delaware, Susquehanna & Potomac Rivers) and

Reconfirm the removal of water contact (WC) protected us on selected waters within PA's WQS for portions of the Delaware Estuary and for the outer Erie Harbor and Presque Isle Bay. Chad, striped bass, trout, restore the historical use, navigation and traffic, water contact sportsUupdates and corrections for missing items, typos, translation errors, missed references, and/ or errors. Updates, revisions, and corrections for typos, translation errors and missed references associated with prior rulemaking and/or publication activities.Mr. Barron Ddescribed that notations will need to be added to the stream drainage lists to identify where previously approved site-specific WQ criteria apply.

Revise/Update portions retained in chapter 16

Last page of Tom Barron's handout contained a timeline for triennial review of water quality standards for 2008.

July 2008 is the mandatory deadline to submit final rule-making to EPA for review and approval.

During the proposed rulemaking process, the regulation will be opened up to the public for 45 days for testimony and written comments beforeto being considered by the Environmental Quality Board as a final regulation.

Walt Peechatka stated that one of the frustrations over the last few years for fish farmers and aqua culture industry in the Commonwealth is the consumption advisory that has been put out by the Commonwealth. He is pleased to see that the fish consumption rate has been changed, but he wonders how does the Health Department and Fish Commission feel about the issue of fish consumption advisories. Deputy Secretary Myers responded that because of the problem with communication, in regards to Public Health Information about fish consumption advisoriesy, that we tried to get the proper message that fish is good for you. T and here are some restrictions, in certain areas,some places and they are very conservative and carefully evaluated. WBut we do have committees, including Fish Commission, Department of and Agriculture, as well as DEP and Health on the same committee including non technical people and health and from the fish commission. We are conscious of the problem. And we have a team of peopleDepartment working on this issue.

Mr. Jay Howesmes suggested that Department of Agriculture Pesticide Council would probably like to hear a talk on the chemicals/pesticides discussed during Mr. Barron's presentation.

Proposed Facility Odor Management Regulations, Chapter 83 – Karl DymondDoug Goodlander, State Conservation Commission

Mr. Karl DymondDoug Goodlander stated that odor management is a new science. He discussed the purpose of the proposed regulations and pointed out that plans are not required to completely eliminate the offsite odors and are not air emissions based regulations. The overall plan is for farms to manage odors.

Mr. DymondGoodlander stated that the PG-5 Supplemental Odor BMP holds the farmer accountable for what they have control over. It also Ppreempts local ordinances regulating the management of odors generated from animal housing or manure management facilities. Municipalities cannot be more stringent than the state. Financial assistance for existing agricultural operations is available from the Nutrient Management Fund.

Odor Management Plans (OMP) are proposed to be developed and approved in specific circumstances. There areApplicability has two basic requirements:nor existingandn eExemption cCriteria, as proposed, that include – Aanimal hHousing fFacilities that undergo – replacement of existing equipment or– replacement of an existing facility that has been destroyed, under circumstances beyond the operator's control. Also proposed is the exemption of

Iimproving manure storage integrity when less than aand greater 15% increase in storage volume. Another proposed exemption includes added treatment technology on existing operations, when the technology is designed, constructed, and operated consistent with the odor management guidance.

Adding treatment technology – existing operations when designed, constructed and operated consistent with the odor management guidance.

PMr. DymondDoug Goodlander stated that the plan will include site evaluation and Omethodology that determines the potential for impacts from offsite migration of odors usingAct site specific factors. This methodology will determine if any BMPs are needed.

Doug Goodlander based on the OSI scoring thresholds:n which are ,l(all applicable)andwhich is above

50 and 100 are the middle range, animal based practices, site specific solution.

Doug GoodlanderThe Existing and planned odor BMPs. ag operation and planner choose from a list of approved odor BMPs,bmps which they believe to be practical and economically feasible for that ag operation. Mr. Dymond stated that the site evaluations need to show what is existing and what is planned.

Mr. DymondDoug Goodlander talked about the ability to implement supplemental odor BMPs for the purpose of investigating new practices and technologies, without State Conservation Commission (SCC) approval, but providing the SCC withe a notice of update on the BMPs effectiveness.

oug Goodlander We are reaching out to the experts. plan.OC: . Doug Goodlander . Maintain accurate odor BMP recordsschedulesMr. DymondDoug Goodlander stated that the proposed plan review and approval is the same time frames as nutrient management plan approval time frames, which includes a 10-day administrative review and a 90-day technical review: 10 + 90. Ability to confer with experts in odor management and with others who have knowledge of the local community.

The SCC or the ag operation may request input on the odor management plan from a technical committee appointed from the Nutrient Management Advisory Board or from. L local experts too.

There are two main time frames where the farmer does have control. If he hasn't done anything in three years. If use of the new or expanded facility does not commence within three years of the date of plan approval, a new plan must be submitted.

Plan amendments would then be required if significant changes occur on the operation. There is ( no periodic renewals unless operational changes) Animal E units. I iff there has been no increase in the potential for off-site migration of odors., no amendment required.

Odor management proposed regulations and guidance is being published for public comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin shortly.so people can comment. Mr. Doug Goodlander stated that Karl Dymond, the OM Program Coordinator can get you a copy of the guidance and be a speaker

Mr. Walt Peechatka asked aboutA question was asked about the implementation and schedule of the odor BMPs. Mr. DymondGoodlander responded that the the odor management plan must have a schedule of implementation. It's okay to start up the operation, before you have full implementation, as long as you are following your implementation schedule. It is understood that a windbreak or shelter break takes a while to develop develop and for trees to growa row of trees. It is expected that the SCC or delegated county conservation district willWe do status review visit once a year.

Ammonia Monitoring (Overview on PM2.5 precursor emissions including ammonia, the revised 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the recent installation of the ammonia samplers in York and Lancaster to access the components of PM2.5 in the area) – George Mentzer, DEP Bureau of Air Quality

Mr. George Mentzer distributed a 2006 map of Pennsylvania showing values of particulate matter with 2.5 microns of ammonia. There are 17 counties in Pennsylvania that do not meet the criteria for healthy air. By the year 2010, counties must have 15 micrograms per cubic meter. Lancaster and /York counties have shown to be the worst areas in the state. The standard for the 24-hour average PM2.5 dropped from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter in 2006. In 1997 there was no problem. Today, Allegheny, Philadelphia, Lancaster and York counties cannot meet this criteria.

Lancaster has 2/3 of particulates which are sulfate, ammonium sulfate and nitrate. Of particular interest is Wwhere does it come from and how much ammonia is in the air. Some possible answers, but not defined or pinpointed, would include ? Ffarms and? pPower pPlants. How much ammonia is in the air?An ammonia monitor was installedput in a Lancaster CountySite. The Ccost was $56,000 and it has been there for two months. OnceN– a full year's worth of data is collected, it will be reviewed. – maps show particulate matter

Mr. Mentzer stated that he is thinking that Lehigh, Northampton, Mercer and Lawrence counties might fail the criteria.

Exhibit 4 is the chemical makeup of the compound.

Mr. Ken Kephart asked about There was a question about the composition of nitrate/sulfate ammonium and if all nitrate is tied to other compounds. Mr. Mentzer answered that yes, nitrates are tied to other compounds. 17% is all that nitrate combined with ammonium. Speciation sample. Mr. Mentzer added thatsays ammonium nitrate is a major factor., he's not aware of any other

Comments/Issues/Concerns of the Board

Approval of the June 13, 2007, minutes will be postponed until the next meeting. due to a lack of a quorum.

Ms. Andrea Sharrets commented that in regard to watershed permits, that she believes agriculture does not need new regulations but enforcement of the existing regulations. She also commented that anything we can due to get voluntary compliance will pay off in the long run.

Ms. Sharrets wanted to be on the record, as the representative of the PA Farm Bureau, that watershed permits (mandatory implementation of BMPs) is not the way DEP should be going. She also stated that if DEP decides that mandatory implementation is the next step, that farmers will need flexibility in implementation.

Reg tools – we should focus on improvements and voluntary actions

Are buffers really going to achieve what we want?

NOTE: The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 10, 2007.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download