Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup Maryland Department of Agriculture Annapolis, MD January 11, 2007 Highlights and Action Items • It was suggested that NY give an overview presentation of their nutrient management program at a future AgNRWG meeting. It was proposed that this meeting be held in Gettysburg, PA in order for it to be more centrally located for all members of the Bay Program. Kelly Shenk will contact NYSDEC and the Upper Susquehanna Coalition to invite them to present at a future workgroup meeting. • Results from version 1.0 of the 2030 trend forecast will be sent to workgroup members in mid-January. Comments on these results are due to Sally Bradley (sbradlev@chesapeakebav.net) by Tuesday, February 6th. • Comments on the workgroup's revised Scope and Purpose are due to Sally Bradley by Friday, January 19th. The document will then be revised based on these comments. Bill Rohrer will be presenting the workgroup's ideas for a revised Scope and Purpose to the Nutrient Subcommittee at the NSC's January 24th meeting. • The March 8th AgNRWG meeting will focus on a thorough presentation and discussion regarding how agriculture is modeled in Phase 5.0 of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. The workgroup has identified a list of key questions and to be addressed by Rob Burgholzer, University of Maryland. Handouts and Presentations • Agenda 1-11-2007 • DRAFT AgNRWG Revised Scope and Purpose • DRAFT Description of AgNRWG Scope and Purpose • MD State Technical Committee Meeting: 2007 Conservation Innovation Grant Process I. Introductions/Review of Agenda Bill Rohrer • Bill Rohrer, workgroup chair, began the meeting at 9:30 am. Introductions were made and the meeting's agenda was reviewed. II. New Ag Coordinator Mark Dubin • Mark Dubin is the new Agricultural Technical Coordinator hired by the Mid-Atlantic Water Quality Program and stationed at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. His first day of work was December 18th. Mark introduced himself to the workgroup and discussed his work plan. Before Mark was hired for this position, he worked for Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection. His past work included developing some of the new BMPs for PA's Tributary Strategy. • Bill Rohrer pointed out the need for a liaison to keep all of the jurisdictions informed and to help link progress and activities between the states. Perhaps Mark can assist with this. III. West Virginia Nutrient Management Overview Christina Richmond 1 ------- • Christina Richmond, WV Department of Agriculture, presented an overview of West Virginia's nutrient management program. • All nutrient management in WV is voluntary. However, in order to participate in any NRCS cost share programs, nutrient management plans are required. • The five WV counties in the Potomac Valley produce approximately 115,000 tons of litter per year. • WV has 88 certified nutrient management planners. In order to maintain their certification, planners must complete 12 hours of continuing education every two years. • All Pilgrim's Pride poultry growers have a nutrient management plan that is written by a certified planner. WV calculates that over ninety percent of their poultry growers have a nutrient management plan. • WV's AMA Litter Transfer Program funds the transfer of approximately 10,000 tons of litter out of the watershed annually. Funding for this program is contingent upon NRCS budget review each year. • Currently, a mining company is working with the University to try to get an additional 5,000 tons of litter out of the watershed each year. They are proposing that this litter be used in mine reclamation. For this potential project, they are looking at using breeder litter. WV's AMA Litter Transfer program only uses turkey and broiler litter. • The Lost River Watershed was the site of a pilot BMP assessment during the summer of 2006. All agricultural landowners within the watershed were contacted by mail, phone, or by a personal visit from a summer intern to assess the level of BMP implementation on farms without cost share assistance. This was a priority for the stakeholders initially involved with the development of WV's Tributary Strategy. This data is being analyzed and will be released this spring. • Mill Creek Watershed, located in Grant and Pendleton counties, is the focus of a potential 319 program. Funding has been secured to develop a watershed-based plan. This area was chosen due to the consistent high levels of bacteria recorded through WVDA's six year comprehensive water quality study. • The Wardensville Experimental Farm/WVU located in Hardy County, WV is the home of a multi-partner water quality improvement project entailing the combination of the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and implementation of natural stream restoration techniques on Moores Run. This project serves as a demonstration and has hosted several educational field days over the past year. • There is a farm in WV that burns poultry litter to heat its poultry houses. • WV's nutrient management program is in need of both money and people, just like other jurisdictions in the watershed. For example, Hardy County and Grant County are the top two agricultural counties in WV, yet they are looking at combining NRCS offices. • There are no major expansions currently planned in WV's poultry industry. • One problem in WV is that they lost a lot of the farmers' trust when they tried to do a Tributary Strategy. • Q: Did you meet with the farm community separately regarding the Tributary Strategy before you met with the rest of the stakeholders? o A: They held meetings with two different Tributary Strategy groups. The groups were from different areas of the WV watershed. One area was more urbanized and the other area was more agriculture-based. 2 ------- • Q: What is WV's CAFO strategy? o A: WV has no CAFO program. After the court ruling, the development of a CAFO program came to a standstill. DEP is waiting for EPA to come out with their guidance. • The largest poultry farm in WV has 13 houses, but the average WV poultry farm has 2.5 houses. The farmer that has 13 houses is not in the NRCS litter transport program. However, he does voluntarily sign up to either sell or give away his litter. • Q: Are there farmers who rely solely on the NRCS transport program to move their litter/manure? o A: Yes, there a few that solely rely on this program. • Q: What will these farmers do if the funding for the transfer program goes away, since funding is never guaranteed? o A: The funding for the transfer program did go away before. When this happened, most of these farms still transported some of their litter. Basically, the lack of a transport program just limited how far across the boundary the litter was transported. • A recent success for WV was that over half of the CREP money spent last year was spent in Hampshire County, which is in the Bay watershed. WV also worked on a project to try to count the unaccounted for BMPs. • ACTION: It was suggested that NY give an overview presentation of their nutrient management program at a future AgNRWG meeting. It was proposed that this meeting be held in Gettysburg, PA in order for it to be more centrally located for all members of the Bay Program. Kelly Shenk will contact NYSDEC and the Upper Susquehanna Coalition to invite them to present at a future workgroup meeting. IV. Progress Report on EPA-CBPO Funded Project Dr. Robert Hill • Dr. Robert Hill, University of Maryland, presented the work plan, schedule, and deliverables for the EPA CBPO-funded project that he is working on. The title of his project is "Relative Phosphorus and Nitrogen Loss Efficiencies Based on Nutrient Management Planning". Dr. Hill's PowerPoint presentation can be accessed at: http://www.chesapeakebav.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=7895&DefaultView=2. • Project objectives: o Determine the relative nutrient loss efficiencies of some best management practices commonly recommended in nutrient management planning. o Evaluate the differences in phosphorus and nitrogen losses resulting from the use of organic sources versus commercial fertilizer. o Determine the impacts of incorporation and manure type on phosphorus and nitrogen losses. o Estimate phosphorus and nitrogen losses at a watershed field scale using the results of the current study to calibrate a watershed field scale model. • This project is a small plot study. It would have been too expensive to start with a larger scale project. After this project is completed, the published results for the small plots could be extrapolated out to a larger scale. • A piedmont field site and a coastal plain field site were selected for this project. The piedmont field site is located in Washington County and the coastal plain field site is 3 ------- located in Wye Narrows in Kent County. Both sites have similar phosphorus levels. For this project, soil with a moderate phosphorus fertility index value was needed. • Treatments will be applied to the field sites that will mimic phosphorus and nitrogen based planning. The project will look at a nitrogen-based plan, a phosphorus removal plan, and a plan where no phosphorus is applied. Also, there will be one set of plots with manure incorporation and another set of plots without manure incorporation. • Poultry manure will be used on the plots during the first year of the project and dairy manure will be used on a separate set of plots during the second year of the project. • A variable intensity rainfall simulator will be constructed in year one. They did not design the simulator, but this will be the 4th one that they have built. It allows for intermittent rainfall (up to 6 inches per hour). The design of this simulator greatly reduces this project's water requirement to only 6-8 gallons per minute. During this project, the simulator will be used to apply simulated rainfall (70-90 mm/hr) to the plots for approximately 30-minutes. • Soils will be sampled once or twice a year in the larger plot area to a one-meter depth in order to determine soluble nitrogen and phosphorus transport. Soil samples may also be taken at more narrow ranges of depth near the soil surface to determine phosphorus content. • Schedule for year one: (1) construction and calibration of rainfall simulator and weir control structures, (2) recruitment of graduate student to work on project, (3) literature review (to be done by an undergraduate student), (4) location and establishment of experimental areas, (5) soil sampling and analysis, (6) application of nutrient management treatments, (7) rainfall simulation on plot areas, (8) analysis of runoff samples, (9) statistical analysis of results, and (10) preparation of quarterly and year one summary reports. • Schedule for year two: (1) application of nutrient management treatments, (2) soil sampling and analysis, (3) rainfall simulation on plot areas, (4) analysis of runoff samples, (5) statistical analysis of results, and (6) preparation of quarterly and year two summary reports. • Schedule for year three: (1) model exploration and training, (2) identification of useful literature data for modeling purposes, (3) data tabulation and formatting for model use, (4) model calibration, (5) determination of scaling factors, (6) model estimations of potential losses, (7) determination of nutrient loss efficiencies for BMPs, and (8) completion of thesis for master's student. • Q: How will this project be related to the MAWQP BMP project that Tom Simpson and Sarah Weammert are working on? Are you coordinating with them? o A: They have not discussed this yet. Kelly Shenk thinks that there will be some overlap between this project's literature review and the literature review for the MAWQP BMP project. She suggested that this project's undergraduate student meet with Tom and Sarah. This would help save time and money. However, several members of the workgroup thought that these two projects should not coordinate with each other and that their literature reviews should be independent. V. 2030 Trend Forecast Update Peter Claggett • Peter Claggett, USGS, gave the workgroup an update on where they are with the land change model. As of right now, the results are almost fully compiled. • The SLEUTH model, which is used in the trend forecast, looks at the change in impervious surface (both the pattern and the magnitude) and replicates it into the future. The model will 4 ------- not project new impervious in certain areas, including open water, parklands, steep slopes (greater than 21%), and protected lands. • This trend forecast is not trying to determine the exact location of land change. Instead, it is trying to determine the magnitude and pattern of this change (are farm lands or forests going to be lost?). The results will be aggregated. Example: Collectively, in region X, we expect to see Y amount of farm land lost and Z amount of forest land lost. • The land change model is calibrated on data from the 1990s. • This model also has a component that looks at the resistance of farm land (relative to forest land) to urbanization. This resistance is based on historic trends in beef cattle, dairy cattle, and broiler populations (1992-2002). Areas that have an increasing number of animals are expected to be more resistant to conversion, whereas areas that have a decreasing number of animals are expected to be less resistant to conversion. • LUAU (Land Use/Animal Unit Model) provides a regression equation between animal populations and land use at the county scale. Regression equations are based on analysis of Phase 5 land use and animal population data for 1982, 1987, 1992, 1997, and 2002. • The animal population forecasts were adjusted by combining the two estimates (the LUAU model estimate and the linear extrapolation of recent trends estimate) based on r2 values. • Timeline: o January 2007- Distribute information from the land change trend forecast to the workgroup for comments. o March 2007- The workgroup will have a second chance to review and comment on the information. o June 2007- The information will be distributed to the subcommittees for approval. • Peter asked the workgroup to tell him what format they would like the information to be in: o One workgroup member said that they would like to see the data at the county scale so that they can evaluate it. o It was suggested that only adjusted maps be shown for animal populations (maps that combine the LUAU and linear estimates). • Q: Is it possible to see what those numbers would be based on the 5 year census, 10 year census, etc.? o A: Yes. Rob said that this is possible. • Any jurisdictions that have annual poultry data should give this information to Rob. • ACTION: Results from version 1.0 of the 2030 trend forecast will be sent to workgroup members in mid-January. Workgroup members will then have approximately 2 weeks to review these results. Comments are due to Sally Bradley by Tuesday, February 6th. The received comments will be incorporated into version 2.0 of the trend forecast. VI. Finalize Workgroup Refocus Kelly Shenk • At the past two meetings, the workgroup discussed how the AgNRWG should be refocused. Based on these discussions, Kelly Shenk and Sally Bradley drafted a revised Scope and Purpose for the workgroup. At today's meeting, workgroup members provided comments on this draft. For a more detailed description of the workgroup's Scope and Purpose responsibilities, please see the handout. 5 ------- • When reviewing the revised Scope and Purpose, it was suggested that the workgroup think about how their responsibilities are related to the Nutrient Subcommittee's responsibilities in the NSC's revised Scope and Purpose. • In the draft Scope and Purpose, "sediment" was added to the workgroup's name, making it the Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup. No one at the meeting objected to this change, although it was suggested that we check with the Sediment Workgroup to make sure that they do not have a problem with this. • The workgroup may need to enhance their membership in order to expand their expertise, or they could just invite people who are experts on particular topics to attend workgroup meetings as needed. • Two examples of possible priority practices that the workgroup could focus on are listed in the description handout. The priority practice described in Example 2 is the promotion of full implementation of dairy feed management. So far, four different CIG projects regarding this topic have been funded. It was proposed that either CBP or MAWQP facilitate a meeting where the project leads from these four projects could get together to discuss and share their results. • Q: Could this workgroup recommend the next phase for another CIG proposal regarding dairy feed management? o A: Possibly. • Q: Can this group influence future RFPs? o A: Kelly Shenk thinks that this is possible and that it would be a great opportunity for the workgroup. • How do we get farmers to care? This year, there is extra money left over from EQIP because there were not enough quality applications. • One thing that might help get implementation is tying commodity payments to a requirement for a certain level of implementation practices. This would have to take place at the congressional level and not at this workgroup's level. However, the group could still have an opinion on this idea. Ideas have to start somewhere. • There are no representatives from the conservation districts participating in this workgroup. Some members thought that this would be useful. One suggestion was to go to the conservation district representatives, rather than have them come to us. If we offer to go to them, they may be more receptive to the idea. • The task of reviewing BMP efficiencies was downplayed in the workgroup's revised Scope and Purpose. According to the revised scope, when feasible, ad hoc groups would review the efficiencies and provide the workgroup with their recommendations, rather than always having the entire workgroup review an efficiency. This would free up some of the workgroup's time. • It was suggested that this workgroup also act as advisors to higher-level groups. For example, we could present recommendations for the Ag Caucus to consider. This role is not clearly defined in the current draft Scope and Purpose. • In the past, the workgroup hosted technical exchanges and field tours. These types of activities have since been eliminated. It was suggested that the workgroup begin hosting technical exchanges again. However, instead of doing geographical technical exchanges, maybe the workgroup could do topical technical exchanges. Workgroup members could select a few targeted topics that they wish to learn more about. 6 ------- • Suggested revisions to the list of workgroup responsibilities in the draft Scope and Purpose (responsibilities with no suggested revisions are not listed below): o Provide recommendations and promote the implementation of priority agricultural systems, approaches, or conservation practices that, if fully implemented, would make significant progress towards improving water quality by reducing nutrient/sediment loads from agricultural croplands and animal operations. o Assist in revisiting the agricultural portions of the State tributary strategies to ensure that the mix of best management practices chosen are the most suitable to the area, have the greatest potential for implementation, and can effectively reduce nutrient and sediment loss. o Project how agriculture will change in the future and explore potential future directions. Stay current on the needs of the agricultural sector and changes in agricultural enterprises, and determine how to meet nutrient management needs in the future. o Identify nutrient/sediment-related research gaps and demonstration project opportunities for possible CBP or other funding and influence funding priorities to fill these gaps. o Review and approve BMP definitions and efficiencies for agricultural systems and conservation practices by using ad hoc groups of technical experts that can inform the workgroup. Where feasible, use ad hoc groups of technical experts that can inform the workgroup. o Act as an advisory board and provide recommendations to policy makers and program managers on issues regarding agricultural nutrient and sediment reductions. • The workgroup decided that the responsibilities listed in the Scope and Purpose should be numbered and listed in order of importance. Workgroup members should rank the responsibilities in what they think is an appropriate order. • ACTION: Rankings and additional comments on the workgroup's revised Scope and Purpose are due to Sally Bradley (sbradlev@chesapeakebav.net) by Friday, January 19th. • ACTION: Bill Rohrer will be presenting the workgroup's ideas for a revised Scope and Purpose to the Nutrient Subcommittee at the NSC's January 24th meeting. VII. Phase 5.0 Watershed Model Presentations for March Meeting • Workgroup members listed key questions and topics that they would like Rob Burgholzer, University of Maryland, to address in the Phase 5.0 Watershed Model presentation that he will give at the March AgNRWG meeting. • Key questions/topics: o What are the biggest improvements/changes between Phase 4.3 and Phase 5.0 of the model? o What are the limitations to Phase 5.0? o How will nutrient management plans be credited in Phase 5.0? o Show what the loads would be with and without nutrient management. Use a couple of model segments that illustrate what numbers would look like for high manure counties and those without high manure. o Discuss the issue of "manure acres". o How are we dealing with manure transport? 7 ------- o What are the baseline assumptions that are being used for phosphorus levels before phytase? o Explain the seasonality aspect of the model (some practices are only credited for part of the year, giving credit during growing season, etc.). o Explain the timing assumptions of manure and commercial fertilizer, o Do the other sectors have the same level of detail in the model as the agricultural sector? How does it compare? • ACTION: Rob Burgholzer will use these ideas to help him develop a list of topics that he will cover at the March meeting. He will post on the CBP website his presentation and any documentation on the model for the workgroup's review in advance of the meeting. Either the whole meeting or a large portion of the meeting will be dedicated to the Phase 5.0 Watershed Model. VIII. Updates/Announcements • Manure Procurement Update Meeting: The Manure Procurement Update Meeting was held on December 8, 2006. At this meeting, each jurisdiction provided an update on their plans for meeting the Manure Strategy procurement goal. Sally Bradley will email the minutes from this meeting to the workgroup. • Water Quality Trading Workshop: The objective of this workshop is to look at the water quality objectives in trading programs. Emphasis will be placed on environmental objectives and whether or not these programs are economically viable. This workshop will be held in March, supported by the Mid-Atlantic Water Quality Program and STAC. • Fertilizer Data Workshop: STAC has approved the fertilizer data workshop. It will be held before May 31st. The fertilizer data workshop will be a one-day workshop. It will be by invitation only in order to limit it to approximately 50 people. The steering committee for this workshop will meet on February 1st. At this meeting, they will work on figuring out who the speakers should be, developing an invitation list, and creating an agenda. • Implementation Committee Briefing: The IC has requested an agricultural sector briefing, which will include the status of agriculture and where we are with implementation. This briefing will be presented to the IC on April 19th. A draft of this briefing will be sent out in advance of the March 8th AgNRWG meeting so that workgroup members can provide comments. • MD State Technical Committee Meeting: The MD State Technical Committee Meeting will be held on January 12th. They are meeting to discuss the fiscal year 2007 Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program, specifically the opportunity for MD NRCS to have a state CIG component. Tim Pilkowski distributed a handout regarding this meeting to the workgroup. IX. Meeting Adjourned • The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm. The next AgNRWG meeting will be held on Thursday, March 8th from 9:30 am-2:30 pm. Workgroup members requested that this meeting be held in a larger room. Once a new location is determined, the workgroup will be notified via email. Participants 8 ------- Vitalia Baranyai EPA / HAESF vbaranvai (a), chesaoeakebav.net Kristen Saacke Blunk Penn State kls386(a>, psu.edu Sally Bradley CRC sbradlevfS),chesaoeakebav.net Rob Burgholzer UMD rburgholfa),chesapeakebav.net Peter Claggett USGS DclaggetfS), chesaoeakebav.net Kari Cohen NRCS kari. cohenfo),md.usda.gov Mark Dubin UMD mdubinfo),chesaoeakebav.net Robert Hill UMD rlhfo), umd.edu Beth Horsey MDA horsevea(a),mda. state, md.us Tom Juengst PA DEP tiuengstfo),state.pa.us Jennifer Nelson DNREC iennifer.nelsonfo),state.de.us Russ Perkinson VADCR russ.perknsonfo),dcr.virginia.gov Tim Pilkowski NRCS tim.Dilkowski (a), md.usda.gov Marel Raub CBC marelraubfo),covad.net Herb Reed UMD hreedfo), umd.edu Christina Richmond WVDA crichmond(a),ag. state, wv.us Bill Rohrer DDA William. RohrerfS), state.de. us Fred Samadani MDA samadaf(a),mda. state, md.us Kelly Shenk EPA CBPO shenk. kellv(S),eDa. gov Becky Thur CRC / STAC thurb (a), si.edu 9 ------- |