Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup Maryland Department of Agriculture Annapolis, Maryland May 10, 2007 Highlights & Action Items • The workgroup will hold a conference call on May 24th from 10am-12pm to review the revised BMP definitions and efficiencies from UMD. • State representatives should send the definitions for agricultural BMPs being reviewed in year two of the UMD project to Sally Bradley, sbradlev@chesapeakebav.net by July 1st. These definitions will then be compiled and discussed at the workgroup's July meeting. • The workgroup had no objections to the land cover revisions that were proposed by Peter Claggett for the Phase 5.0 watershed model. • Bill Rohrer will be stepping down as workgroup chair since he has held the position for one year. A new chair will be elected at a future meeting. The chair must represent one of the state agricultural agencies within the watershed. Please be thinking of recommendations. • Agendas for the next 2-3 workgroup meetings will be drafted and sent out to the workgroup for review. Ideas for agenda items should be sent to Sally Bradley. Handouts • Agenda 5-10-07 • BMP Definitions and Efficiencies Handouts o Overview of Year 1 BMP Definition and Efficiency Recommendations o Process for the EPA-CBP Funded Project o Conservation Plan ¦ Recommendations o Conservation Tillage ¦ Recommendations o Off-stream Watering with Fencing, Off-stream Watering without Fencing, Off- stream Watering with Fencing and Rotational Grazing ¦ Recommendations ¦ Recommendations Overview ¦ Comments by Mary Leigh Wolfe ¦ Comments by Jim Curatolo o Wetland Restoration ¦ Recommendations ¦ Comments by Tess Wynn ¦ Comments by Lee Daniels I. Welcome and Introductions Shenk • Kelly Shenk, who is acting as workgroup chair for this meeting in Bill Rohrer's absence, began the meeting at 9:30 am. Introductions were made and the meeting's agenda was reviewed. II. Review of BMP Definitions and Efficiencies Simpson & Weammert 1 ------- • The workgroup reviewed the agricultural BMP definitions and efficiencies that the University of Maryland is proposing as part of an EPA-CBP funded project. Tom Simpson, UMD, and Sarah Weammert, UMD, attended the meeting to present the project's recommendations and to answer questions from workgroup members. • After the AgNSRWG reviews these proposals, the proposals will be reviewed by the Tributary Strategy Workgroup, the Nutrient Subcommittee, STAC, and the Water Quality Steering Committee. • The BMPs reviewed at this meeting were the agricultural BMPs for year one of the project: conservation plans, off-stream watering BMPs, conservation tillage, and wetland restoration. Cover crops and buffers, which are also year one BMPs, were not ready to be reviewed at the time of this meeting. They will be reviewed by the workgroup at a later date. Conservation Plans • For conservation plans, UMD is not recommending any changes to the efficiencies because they feel that there is not enough data to warrant a change. Conservation plans were last reviewed and adjusted in 2003. • Q: Is simply tracking that a farmer has a conservation plan, regardless of whether or not the plan is implemented, a good way to track this practice? o A: This is a broader issue that goes beyond just this BMP. Documenting the level and degree of implementation is important. However, this is not something that should be figured into this practice's efficiency. The efficiency number assumes that this practice is being implemented. • Workgroup recommendations: o The definition of this practice should be modified so that it specifies exactly what is included in this efficiency. When finalizing this definition, it was suggested that the project team get input from NRCS. o The name of the practice should also be changed since the efficiency does not include all parts of a soil conservation plan, just the plan's erosion control practices. o This efficiency should be based on literature. It should include documentation on how the AgNSRWG determined this efficiency in 2003. o All practices have a lifespan that needs to be taken into account in tracking and reporting. This will be added to the future research needs list for this practice. Off-Stream Watering BMPs • Off-stream watering BMPs include: 1) off-stream watering with fencing, 2) off-stream watering without fencing, and 3) off-stream watering with fencing and rotational grazing. • The proposed efficiencies for the off-stream watering BMPs are much lower than the current efficiencies. • For the off-stream watering with fencing BMP, the efficiencies recommended in the handouts are: 12% TN reduction, 10% TP reduction, and 20% TSS reduction. Concern was voiced by workgroup members that these efficiencies are too low. Tom Simpson indicated that they made an error in how they treated the data and agreed that they were too low. He proposed changing these efficiencies to 24% TN, 40% TP, and 40% TSS. Tom says he believes that the data can support this change, but increasing the efficiencies even more would require additional data for support. If workgroup members know of data that would support higher efficiencies for this practice, they can send it to Tom and Sarah. 2 ------- • Workgroup recommendations: o One criticism was that the definitions for these practices do not reflect what farmers are actually doing. o It was suggested that rotational grazing be taken out of this practice since we do not have the data. Tom Simpson said that they will try to segregate this out and that they will suggest that it be a separate practice. • It was recommended that workgroup members look at the STAC white paper entitled Innovation in Agricultural Conservation for the Chesapeake Bay: Evaluating Progress and Addressing Future Challenges. This paper can be accessed at: http://www.chesapeake.org/stac/Pubs/STACAgWhitepaper.pdf. Conservation Tillage • For this practice's efficiency, if it is possible to break out runoff and leaching in the model, then they recommend leaving TN runoff the same at 18% and assigning subsurface leaching an efficiency of zero. If surface and subsurface flow cannot be separated, then the recommended median land use conversion efficiency is 8% for TN. • A change is not recommended in the efficiencies for TP and TSS. • Workgroup recommendations: o Because Jack Meisinger was both the developer and the reviewer, it looks like this efficiency is based on just one person's opinion, when, in fact, there is a large set of supporting data to corroborate Meisinger's recommendation. It was suggested that UMD make this point in their final recommendation so that the reviewers understand the extent of data that back up this recommendation. The project team also will try to find additional sources of data from Josh McGraph's tillage study and the "Camacho table". Wetland Restoration • In addition to this workgroup, the wetland restoration BMP will also be reviewed by the Living Resources Subcommittee and the Wetlands Workgroup. • The Bay Program previously adopted the federal definitions for wetlands, which scientists are now saying may not be the best definitions to use. The definitions may therefore need to be revised. The AgNSRWG agreed that the Wetlands Workgroup should be the group to review the definitions for this BMP. If any AgNSRWG members wish to attend the meeting at which this issue will be discussed, please let Sally Bradley know and she will provide you with more information. • Workgroup recommendations: o When tracking this practice, perhaps we should be using information from the wetland database instead of information from the cost-share database. This issue should be brought up at the Wetlands Workgroup meeting. Perhaps some of the state ag representatives who report this data could come to the Wetlands Workgroup meeting in order to discuss these data issues. Project Schedule and Additional Information • The following is the schedule for this project's year one review process: o May 21 Sarah Weammert will send the AgNSRWG the revised BMP proposals for the year one ag practices o May 24 The AgNSRWG will hold a conference call from 10am-12pm to review the revised efficiencies and definitions for the practices discussed today and for cover crops and buffers 3 ------- o May 25 The AgNSRWG will send their final recommendations to the Tributary Strategy Workgroup o June 4 Proposed definitions and efficiencies will be reviewed at the Tributary Strategy Workgroup meeting o June 6 Proposed definitions and efficiencies will be reviewed at the Nutrient Subcommittee meeting o June 20-21 Proposed definitions and efficiencies will be presented to the Water Quality Steering Committee meeting • Q: What will the AgNSRWG's role be for the year two agricultural BMPs (besides reviewing the definitions and efficiencies at the end of year two)? o A: By mid-July, the workgroup should provide Tom and Sarah with the definitions used by the states for year two BMPs that have not been defined by the workgroup in the last 15 years. A single definition is not needed by mid-July, however, obtaining the definitions used by the states will help them get some boundaries/guidelines on how they should do their search. Definitions should be sent to Sally Bradley by July 1st. These definitions will then be compiled and discussed at the workgroup's July meeting. • Year two agricultural BMPs being reviewed by this project are: o Enhanced nutrient management ¦ Precision agriculture- variable rate application ¦ Precision agriculture- enhanced nutrient efficiency/slow release sources ¦ Precision agriculture- reduced application rates o Cover crops- early planting o Small grain enhancement/commodity cover crops- early planting o Dairy precision feeding and/or forage management o Ammonia emissions reductions o Precision or intensive rotation grazing o Horse pasture management o Mortality composters III. Update on Data Acquisition in Pennsylvania Dubin • Mark Dubin, UMD-MARWP, provided the workgroup with an update on data acquisition in Pennsylvania. • PA DEP is trying to improve their data acquisition by working with PA NRCS. Recently, PA DEP filed a freedom of information act (FOIA) in order to retrieve the requested data from PA NRCS. This request was reviewed by NRCS headquarters. NRCS headquarters then compiled a list of recommendations on how this request should be addressed. PA NRCS is currently working on developing language for a response. As it now stands, NRCS will begin providing quarterly reports on BMP implementation to PA DEP. • Since the FOIA went through headquarters, it could eventually be applicable to other states. Before they include other states, however, they are going to try to work out any problems that arise in Pennsylvania. • Q: How will PA NRCS be providing the reports? o A: PA NRCS will be providing the reports to PA DEP electronically in an Excel spreadsheet. The data will be categorized by county, congressional district, and 8- digit HUC. The information that will be provided in the reports will be based on 4 ------- 2006-2007. Currently, no historic data is being provided. Historic data is not as accurate. • Q: Will the reports indicate whether or not there was any state cost-share? o A: No. • Q: Could fertilizer use data be included in these reports? o A: No. NRCS does not collect that type of data. • Nancy Imler, Chief Information Officer for PA DEP, is the point of contact for this FOIA. IV. Progress Report on Phosphorus Research and Water Bukaveckas Quality RFP • Dr. Paul Bukaveckas, VCU, presented the final results of a project that he recently conducted with Chesapeake Bay Program funding. His presentation, which was entitled "Can we prioritize funding for nutrient abatement based on bioavailability of P?" can be accessed at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7897&DefaultView=2. • Paul previously presented a progress report on this project at the workgroup's meeting on August 10, 2006. His presentation from this prior meeting can be accessed at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=6893&DefaultView=2. • The key issues that were addressed by this project were: (1) Do diverse point and non- point sources differ in the bioavailability of P? and (2) Do P fractions characterized as 'unreactive' contribute to algal blooms? • Knowing what sources release P in a reactive form, rather than unreactive, could influence funding priorities. • This project found that non-point sources and point sources that were not wastewater treatment plants exhibited lower bioavailability of P, but variation was large relative to average values for diverse P sources. Data used in this analysis included literature values obtained from a bibliographic database and the EPA NPDES database for major point source discharges. • A recent study of the Mississippi River showed that 48% of the 'unreactive' P was released during transport through the estuary. This finding suggests that reductions in reactive fractions have a two-fold greater benefit. • Where dissolved P concentrations are high, sorption will occur (decrease in bioavailability) and where dissolved P concentrations are low, de-sorption will occur (increase in bioavailability). Sorption occurs in soil solution and low-order streams and de-sorption occurs in estuarine areas as particles are transported into low-P (saline) waters. • The EPC is the equilibrium P concentration where sorption equals de-sorption. EPC values can be compared to ambient SRP concentrations to predict where sorption and de- sorption will occur. EPC values depend on the types of particles present, the particle concentrations, and the particle shape. • Q: How do EPC values compare to longitudinal gradients in the rivers of the Chesapeake Bay? o A: It depends on what the EPC is in relation to the ambient SRP values. So far, no one has done an EPC for the Chesapeake Bay. There is some information available on EPC values for other rivers; however, EPC values are quite variable. 5 ------- • The range of variation in published EPC values suggests that site-specific data is needed to assess the importance of de-sorption in determining the percentage of 'unreactive' P that becomes bioavailable. • Key data gaps identified by this project include: o Characterization of P fractions in particulate matter entering Chesapeake Bay by sequential extraction techniques (to quantify potential reactivity), o Comparisons of P% in suspended and sedimented particulate matter in Chesapeake Bay (to quantify realized P release), o Determination of EPC for suspended particulate matter in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. V. Re-Evaluating Phase 5 Calibration Land Cover Claggett • Peter Claggett, USGS, discussed efforts that are currently underway to update land cover in the Phase 5.0 Watershed Model. • A 2001 national land data set is currently used in the watershed model for land cover. • If there is better data available, it should be used in the model. Three new data sets that they are considering incorporating into the model are the v2.0 RESAC data layer (currently using RESAC vl.05), aNASS cropland data layer (includes more ag land cover categories), and a common land unit data set from FSA (aerial photography from 2004-2005). • The following are revisions proposed for Phase 5.0 land cover: o Replace RESAC vl.05 with v2.0 (eliminates natural grass and some residential areas) o Reclass CDL as crops with manure, crops without manure, hay, alfalfa, pasture, and nursery o Replace RESAC v2.0 agland with above classes from CDL (apportion county land use into landriver segments accordingly) o Incorporate population density into RESAC v2.0 to map residential neighborhoods • DECISION: The workgroup had no objections to these revisions. • It was pointed out that another remainder land cover class may need to be created in the model if we are going to eliminate the natural grass class. A class is needed for retired farm land that does not receive nutrients, such as hay without nutrients. Unlike the current natural grass class, this new remainder class would not need to be based on raster-derived satellite data. VI. Ag Sector Briefing Follow-Up Shenk & Dubin • A briefing on the agricultural sector was presented to the Implementation Committee on April 19th. The agricultural sector briefing report can be accessed at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7897&DefaultView=2 and the PowerPoint presentation can be accessed at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=8270&DefaultView=2. • MDA does not agree with the following sentence on page 21 of the ag briefing report: "There is little question those programs within the Bay which have implemented cost- share rates at 100 percent or greater above the costs of implementing the practice did create an increased adoption by the agricultural community. This in effect allowed the landowner to implement the practice and receive a profit besides." MDA said that farmers 6 ------- do not earn a profit for implementing practices and that this perpetuates misinformation. Mark Dubin informed the group that there are programs out there that pay more than the cost of the practice for implementation, such as CREP. He did, however, agree that the word "profit" may not be the correct word to use. Perhaps this word could be changed to "compensate for loss of production". It was also recommended that an example be included in the report. Mark Dubin will revise the report based on these comments. The ag sector briefing report is intended to be a living document that can continually be updated. • At the IC meeting, it was proposed that an agricultural forecast paper be developed that would look at how agriculture may change in the future. The IC was asked whether or not they thought that this would be a good idea. It was decided that a concept paper should be developed by the workgroup that would detail what we think this report should look like, what it will address, and why it would be useful. The IC will review this concept paper at a future meeting. • Kari suggested that we talk to ERS about this forecast paper because their economists do a lot of trend work. • The ag targeting project is another issue that was discussed at the IC meeting. As part of this project, Mark Dubin has been working with Jeff Sweeney and Tom Simpson to lay out a plan for developing a targeting/prioritization tool. This tool will be a voluntary tool that will be developed using existing information. As this project moves forward, the workgroup will have opportunities to provide input. They hope to have this tool available by the end of the summer. • In addition to this project, USGS is also developing a more detailed targeting tool. The USGS tool is expected to be available in a couple of years. VII. Updates and Announcements All • EPA-USDA MOU: A Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and USD A was signed on May 9th. This MOU can be accessed at http://www.chesapeakebav.net/comet uploads/7991/EPA USDA MOU.pdf. As part of this MOU, EPA has agreed to work with CBP partners to develop a tool for identifying priority ag watersheds and conservation practices. • Fertilizer Data Workshop: The STAC workshop on understanding fertilizer sales and reporting information was held on May 1st in Frederick, Maryland. The workshop went well. It was attended by stakeholders that are not usually at the table for these discussions. A draft report to STAC has been distributed to steering committee members for comments. It was suggested that a similar workshop be held for manure data, which would include discussions on the accuracy of manure numbers and tracking manure practices. This could be a potential focus for this workgroup in the future. • Future Workgroup Meeting Agendas: Agendas for the next 2-3 workgroup meetings will be drafted and sent out to the workgroup for review. Ideas for agenda items should be sent to Sally Bradley. It was recommended that the meetings be more focused, possibly with a different theme for each meeting. If a single theme is not enough for one meeting, then perhaps the meeting could be divided into a morning and an afternoon session. • Workgroup Chair: Bill Rohrer will be stepping down as workgroup chair since he has held the position for one year. A new chair will be elected at a future meeting. The chair 7 ------- must represent one of the state agricultural agencies within the watershed. Please be thinking of recommendations. VIII. Meeting Adjourned • The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 pm. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, July 12th from 9:30am-2:30pm at the Adams County Agricultural and Natural Resources Center in Gettysburg, PA. Participants Bill Angstadt DMAA an es tadtco n s u 11 a ,ao 1. com Sally Bradley CRC sbradlcYC/.chcsaDcakcbav .net Paul Bukaveckas VCU pabukaveckasi®,vcu.edu Peter Claggett USGS pclaeeeti® chesapeakebav.net Kari Cohen NRCS kari.cohenc/.md.usda. gov Renato Cuizon MDA cuizonrmc/mda. state .md .us Mark Dubin UMD-MARWP mdubini® chesapeakebav.net Beth Horsey MDA horscvea cMnda. state .md.us Tom Juengst PA DEP tiucnestc/,state .pa.us David Kindig VADCR da v i d. k i n d i sc/dcr. v i re i n i a. so v Eileen McLellan Environmental Defense emcle 11 an a,cnv ironmentaldefcuse.ore Jennifer Nelson DNREC i ennifer.nelson®,state. de .us Tim Pilkowski NRCS tim.pilokowskicMnd.usda.eov Herb Reed UMD hreedi®,umd.edu Fred Samadani MDA samadaf cMnda. state .md.us Jennifer Schaafsma MDA schaafi a c/ mda. state .md .us Kevin Sellner CRC/STAC sellnerki®,si.edu Kelly Shenk EPA CBPO shenk.kel he/,CDa.eov Tom Simpson UMD tsiniDSoncMimd. edu Jeff Sweeney UMD i sweenevi®,chesapeakebav .net Becky Thur CRC thurbc/si.cdu Sarah Weammert UMD sweammercMimd. edu 8 ------- |