Executive Council's
Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Initiative
Subcommittee Reports
September 1993
'' '
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Acknowledgments
Co-chairs of the Subcommittees:
Raymond Forney
Technical Assistance, Outreach and Education Subcommittee Co-chair
Du Pont Remington Farms
Louise Lawrence
Intergovernmental Coordination and Partnerships Co-chair
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Walter Peechatka
Intergovernmental Cuuidiuaiiuu and rvntuvisUips Co-dhoir
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Torn Simpson
Research Subcommittee Chair
Maryland Department of Agriculture
University of Maryland
Richard Weismiller
Technical Assistance, Ou uracil and Education Subcommittee Co-chair
College of Agriculture, University of Maryland
Staff; Stacy Seidlitx
Maryland Office of the Governor
The following reports were prepared by the three subcommittees of the Executive
Council's Agricultural Nonpoim Suuicc Initiative and provided the basis of the
Steering Committee's final recommendations to the Executive Council,
-------
Participants in the
Executive Council's
Agricultural
Nonpoint Source
Initiative
Farm Organizations
American Farmland Tnisf
Maryland Association of Conservation Districts
Maryland Farm Bureau Federation
Maryland State Grange
Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts
Pennsylvania Farmers Association
Pennsylvania Farmers Union
Pennsylvania State Grunge
Society of American Funwteis
Soil Conservation Committees
Virginia Farm Bureau Federation
Agribusiness
Delaware/Maryland Agribusiness Association
Dupont
PENNAG Industries Association
State
Maryland Department of Agriculture
AyenciesMaiylaud Dimmit mum, of the Cnvitvnmcnt
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Maryland Governor's Office
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Department of Agriculture arid Consumer Services
Universities
Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
College of Agriculture, Perm State University
Maryland Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Legislators
Legislators from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Federal Agencies
LISDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
USDA Cooperative Extension Service
USDA Forcot Service
USDA Soil Conservation Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Environmental Organizations
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
-------
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Report from Ac Technical Assistance, Outreach
and Education Subcommittee
Total Resource Management Planning
Report tram tl»t Imci t;i/»cuu»i;«nal Coordination
and Partnerships Subcommittee
The Team Approach
Report from the Research Subcommittee
Research Coordination
-------
42*
Report from the Technical
Assistance, Outreach and
Education Subcommittee
Total Resource Management
Planning
Introduction
Both the farming community and jjnvern mental
agencies have experienced frustrations with the current
way plans and permits for farms are developed and
implemented. Farm plans and permits are not written
by a single department within each Mate but. by
numerous local, state and federal agencies, Because
there are so many different actors, planning for a single
farm is a complex and contradictory process. Fre-
quently farmers are placed in the difficult position of
deciding which plan to follow and which one to vio-
late because the plans contradict each other.
To resolve these issues the Technical Assistance,
Outreach and Education Subcommittee recommends
that the Total Resource Management Planning process
be adopted in the Chesapeake Bay states of Virginia,
rVnnsylv.mi.i and Maryland. This approach will pro-
vide the farmer with a menu of resource management
options that can be adapted to the individual farm.
Total Resource Management Plan is defined as:
A comprckmske coordinated abroach to agri-
cultural natural resource management that meets
the gtuils of and demonstrates environmental steu/-
U'dship, maintains a viable tigrin/lturtil trtmamy
and complies with goveminrnttfl regulations.
Goals
The goal of Total Resource Management Planning is
to identify ways to manage agricultural land hoiistically
by including both environmental and economic fac-
tum. Thi; process makes the farmer aware of the rela-
tionship amonf> the various plan components and
moves the farmer toward full implementation of the
plan. It represents a way to balance environmental
needs with economics and limited planning resources.
The process stresses the importance resource steward-
ship and economic viability as incentives for participa-
tion. In developing and implementing the plans, the
talents of the farmers and the federal, state and local
agencies that impact agriculture, the farmers and
agribusiness should be combined into resource manage'
ment teams. Wherever possible, opportunities for
increased involvement of the private sector in the
teams should be pursued.
These teams of agency personnel, the private sector
and the individual farmer should work together to
develop a site specific plan for the farm. By working
together competition, conflicts, overlap and paperwork
among the agencies should be reduced This process
should result in reliable, useful resource documents
that the farmer can easily refer to as he/she manages
his/her farm. By providing sound documentation, the
plans can assist farmers in tracking the benefits of the
practices and compliance with the permits and plans,
The plans will help evaluate future management alter-
natives. However, the plans should maintain enough
flexibility to allow farmers to change the practices
when needed. While the process described here is
specifically targeted to sericulture, the concepts of
Total Resource Management are applicable in urban
and suburban settings.
Components
While each state may vary on the specific content of
the plan, a Total Resource Management plan should
strive to include nine basic components with emphasis
on Soil and Water Quality and Nutrient Management
plans. The site specific needs will determine which
plans should be used and their priority. Tire states may
want to add other components to individual plans as
necessary. It should be noted that each of these com-
ponents is not a required subsection of a plan docu-
ment, All farm operations may not need or want to
involve nil t-V-,.. ,r/.tn^ Tfipsp ' -i >;-i(V itui>!s" MrC listed
as general guidance to direct efforts to ensure a "total"
or comprehensive approach to the planning proce-
dures. The list of basic components follows:
1. Soil and Water Resource Management, This plan
component consists of planned best management prac-
tices (bmp) the land user {decision maker) has agreed
to implement to reduce soil erosion and prevent sur-
face water degradation. Levels of implementation can
be tied to resource sustai liability such as the soil loss
-------
tolerance (T) or federal/state/local program criteria.
Also, this component could contain optional brop
alternatives or recommendations that the decision
maker may wish to consider in the future, Planned
bmp's need to reflect consistency and potential effects
on and by other plan components.
2, Nutrient Management. This plan component
addresses the use of all nutrient inputs with plant
uptake for crop and forage growth to achieve a nutri'
em balance. Total inputs from crop residues, legumes,
muiuK, aludgta, ulIici vigeiiuc inputs, as well as com-
mercially applied fertilizer!} are balanced with realistic
yield estimates of desired crops and forages. In addi-
tion, factors such as timing, method of application,
associated bmps, etc may be included.
3. Crop and Pest Management, This plan compo-
nent addresses the agronomic and management related
needs of the decision maker. Bmps related to produc-
tion and management objectives as well as the control
of pests (insects, diseases, and weeds) would be includ-
ed. This component will often appear as recommenda-
tions or advice due tn fhn rfwtinnary nature of man-
agement due to specific but variable conditions such as
the weather, disease outbreaks, increases in insect pop-
ulations, etc.
A, Animal Management. Tins yjmpuiiKiii addresses
the production aspects and environmental concerns of
animal production or diversified agricultural opera-
tions. Included within this component would be bmps
designed around specific animal production operations
such as swine, beef or dairy production facilities, This
would include a greater degree of management related
decisions and tecommendations than what might be
included in the Nutrient Management or Soil and
Water Resource Management components,
5. Farmstead Assessment, The storage, handling,
And rnntampf rlkfwviu) nf K,rK •mittt'ente cKomiccilc
are addressed in this component. Major issues involve
both surface and ground water protection, health
impacts as well as related worker protection concerns.
This assessment is confidential to die fanner,
6, Forest Management, Many agricultural operations
include woodland as a part of a total farm operation.
These woodland areas provide multiple uses such as
timber production, wildlife habitat., aesthetic beauty,
windbreak protection, and improved watershed runoff
characteristics.
?. Wildlife Habitat Management, This component
may be separate but complimentary to the Forest and
Soil arid Water Resource Management components,
for certain land owners and decision makers, wildlife is
the main emphasis of land managftmpnf arrivistes on a
portion or the entire farm. Secondary wildlife uses of
cropland, hedgerow, windbreaks, etc. are extremely
common.
8. Economic Impact Analysis. For most land man-
agement operations, the activities, techniques and
practices used must provide some economic benefit to
the operation. Other considerations such as iccreatioH-
al use and aesthetics may be viewed in a negative cash
flow situation, but most operations have to produce a
profit in order to remain viable. This component pro-
vides the necessary documentation ot the effects of the
plan and its components to an operation. Items con-
tained within this component might include cash flow
scenarios of projected expenses and income, amortiza-
tion over time of the cost of bmps, and a variety of
farm management alternatives and record keeping
options, according to the operators needs.
9, Regulatory Compliance, This component
addresses many of the documentation or report process-
es a land user or decision maker faces in their land
management operation. Items may include specific fed-
eral/$f»tp/Wal program documentation dealing with
highly erodible land, wetlands, pesticide application,
local or state environmental zoning requirements, etc.
Recommendations
The subcommittee recommends that the Exec-
utive Council develop and utilize the concept of
Total Resource Management Planning Baj> wide.
The subcommittee further recommends that the
Executive Council sign m agreement at its August
1993 meeting reflecting this focus.
The agreement should include the following compo-
nents;
<> If not already in place, each state shall draft and
sign memorandums of understanding among the
appropriate federal, state and local agencies to
assign responsibilities for developing Total
Resource Management Planning
~ Each state should develop a work plan for imple-
menting Total Resource Management Planning,
in consultation with farmers, farm organizations,
rtguljusiucas ami other states if necessary,
~ The agencies and private sector representatives
that are coordinating Total Resource Manage-
ment Planning within each state should meet reg-
ularly with the coordinators in the other states to
share information and solve problems.
The following is a suggested workplan for states to
fnllow
-------
Inter-agency Commitment and the
Memorandum nf Understanding (MOU)
4 Identify planning resources available within the
federal and stare conservation agencies and the
private sector for the nine components listed
above. Identify which groups have the resources
to write or work on each component and how
developed their capabilities are,
¦d- ! Vv»>I<^p and sign, a MOU among ilic >..i>lisei va-
fion and planning agencies and possibly the pri-
vate sector that designates roles in the process.
The states should examine funding and other
resources available to the effort to implement
Total Resource. Management Planning in the
state,
¦v* It is highly desirable to designate a project man'
ager to oversee and manage the process.
*0» Each signatory should -appoint appropriate staff to
spearhead the development and implementation
of Total Resource Management within the state
and inform all appropriate staff of this assign-
ment,
Developing the Plan
~ Develop a format, for the Total Resource Manage-
ment Planning process. Include a review of
applicable regulations that impact farmers so that
they may be incorporated into the plan.
~ Review the format plan with the signatories and
obtain approval,
Producing the Plan
M^eiUfy planning capabilities duiuug fluid H'dff III
each geographic region of the state. If necessary,
develop local level MOUs,
4- Assess field personnel training, communication
and logistical needs within each geographic
region. Circulate assessments to appropriate man-
agers of each signatory organization for approval.
Prepare instructions for guidance and training of
field personnel, Including roles and responsibili-
ties of various agencies, progress reporting and
relationships to existing Dtoerams. Circulate
instructions and guidance to appropriate man-
agers in each signatory organization.
Use best available tracking systems to monitor
results. Work with Nl'S subcommittee efforts to
develop a Baywide tracking system.
~ Implement or install any improvements needed in
communications and logistics within each gco-
graphic region.
O- Conduct field personnel training in each geo-
graphic region of State. Include dist.rier managers
as well as planners in training,
~ Set up local interagency planning teams and
assign specific responsibilities within the team to
individual employees. Agencies may want to
include the specific team responsibilities as a part
of the position description for field personnel.
Involve the private sector in service delivery as
much as possible.
-0- Set up training for local delivery teams.
Marketing the Plans
Develop educational strategics and prepare infor-
mational products. Make local conservation and
farm organizations aware of the plans. Inform
local conservation groups and signatory agencies
of the completion of training. Carry out educa-
tional strategies according to plan,
Writing an Individual Plan
~ After receiving a request from a farmer to devel-
op a Total Resource Management Plan, the
Delivery Team meets with the land owner to
determine which priority components are needed
and who will provide that expertise. Critical
issues such as soil and water conservation,
manure/nutrient management, weed and pest
control and gpnffii) rrnp rrwuagsment one! pro
duction issues should be addressed,
& To obtain the best input from the land owner,
the plans should be developed off-season.
~ Determine lead person for developing and coordi-
nating the plan.
*.A- UuuJ (,'vrron wVH'r.lmnU..- plan wuliug JO consulta-
tion with the other personnel and the land
owner.
•v* Plan ro follow-up rontucc with ch« land owner to
revise the plan as needed.
~ While the various planners should work to elimi-
nate conflicts among the various plan compo-
nents, the land user should be an integral part of
the process.
3
-------
Report from the
Intergovernmental,
Coordination and
Partnerships Subcommittee
The Team Approach
Trtt-ffvliirHnn
The Intergovernmental Coordination and Partner-
ships Subcommittee recommends that the states of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia adopt a team
approach to agricultural nonpoim source pollution
management and regulation in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. The team strategy should focus primarily on
two areas: coordination among the management agen-
cies and coordination of service delivery to the farmer.
This multilevel team approach to agricultural issues
should include the following three teams: policy, tribu-
tary coordination and watershed delivery,
The goal of the team approach is to bring the agri-
cultural assistance and regulatory agencies at the feder-
al, state and local levels together to address agricultural
nonpoint source issups. Ry working together, the aeen-
cies can develop coordinated policies, procedures, data-
bases, etc thus maximizing the use of their resources.
The benefits of improved coordination include better
service lu die fat-mot by streamlining th# permit
process, reducing conflicts between permits and reduc-
ing the number of visits by agency personnel.
Increasing the role of the private sector in service
delivery will be an additional benefit.
Policy Team. A senior level agricultural policy ream
within each state with high level representation from
state and federal agencies that are responsible for regu-
lating or assisting the agricultural community. The role
of this team will be to guide and shape agricultural pol-
icy in the state and to coordinate and promote intera-
gency efforts. The Policy Team, may be appointed by
the Governor in each state or may be based on exist-
ing bodies such as the State Conservation Committee
or Commission.
Tributary Coordination Teacua* Trihutrtty Co or
dination Teams are regionally based teams in the pri-
marily agricultural watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay
Basin. The membership of these teams will range from
regional representatives to the farming community to
state and federal agencies that, have an interest or
impact on agricultural practices in the watershed. The
teams will carry out the policy of the state in the
watershed and work with the local delivery system to
plan the whole range of programs within the watershed
from costshare to education. These teams should be a
part of the states overall tributary strategy and coordi-
nate with other efforts in their tributary.
Watershed Delivery Teams, Watershed Delivery
Teams are small, interagency teams that provide the
actual services to the farmer. As certification programs
develop the private sector also should he included in
these teams. Several teams may be based in each
watershed to provide coordinated service delivery to
the farmer, These teams will work together wtrh the
farmer to implement total resource management plans.
Redirecting agricultural agencies toward a team
approach will require a fundamental change in individ-
ual and agency thought processes. A true team
approach should include everyone from the front line
service deliverers to the heads of agencies, By bringing
all the actors together, the agencies ihut assist or regu-
late the agricultural community can ensure the farmer
that they are providing the best service possible, The
efforts to reduce agriculture's contribution to nonpoint
source pollution also should tie into a the total effoit
to reduce pollution in the watershed.
Challenges
Potential challenges to developing an interagency
team approach include obtaining commitments, recog-
nition and direction from the Governors and the
agency heads. Direction from agency head* i» impor-
tant in allocating limited resources and avoiding cre-
ation of additional bureaucracy. Prioritizing resources
to the watersheds, counties and districts will provide
additional challenges. Substantial local leadership will
be needed to develop the ream approach because the
teams will to beyond the current county and district
based uigrtuUational atructurco. AIeio, naoA tn
develop methods for recognizing and rewarding team-
work that cross traditional agency lines will need to be
developed.
Policy Teams
Description
A senior level agricultural policy team withm each
state that has high level representation from the state
and federal agencies that ate responsible for regulating
or assist int.' the agricultural community. The role of
this team will be to guide and shape agricultural policy
in the state and to coordinate and promote intera-
gency efforts. In most states, the Policy Team could be
based on existing bodies such as the State
Conservation Committee or Commission,
4
-------
Composition
At a minimum, the team should consist of the
Secretaries or Commissioners of Agriculture, Environ-
ment and Natural Resources, the directors of the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
the Extension Service and the Soil Conservation
Service, the directors of the land grant institutions and
local leadership in the state. Other agencies with NFS
alau aliuuld L"L. !uvlud\-d laviul'AIJ. If
the State Conservation Committee or Commission
does not include these individuals as voting members
then these individuals should he added. If the
Committees or Commissions are not adequate, the
states may need to develop separate policy teams with
appointments made by the Governor.
Memorandum of Understanding
The official members of the policy team should sign
a memorandum of understanding to provide direction
and spell out responsibilities. The members of the ream
should have sufficient authority to make decisions
about resource allocation; to agree that, plans meet var-
ious regulatory and individual agency requirements;
and to prioritize treatment areas by watershed- The
team also should include environmental and farm orga-
nizations as advisory members.
Roles
The role of the team will he as follows:
~ Set the tone for major decisions concerning in
the agricultural nonpoint source pollution in the
state.
~ Refine the objectives of the Executive Council to
Al lLlc iuf ila, atrtlv
4- Resolve conflicts among participating agencies.
~ Develop a statement of objectives, clarify and
facilitate relationships between federal, state and
local agencies.
~ Promote the total resource management, concept
within the member agencies and the state.
•v> Initiate development of an accurate accounting
and assessment system to track the implementa-
tion of btnps and clearly show the results.
~ Establish the guidelines for what the Tributary
Coordination Teams will address.
> Continually, monitor and respond to the needs of
the Tributary Coordination Teams.
~ Identify potential problems in implementing the
resource management plans.
"> Implement both technical and team building
training for the Tributary Coordination Manage-
ment Teams and the Watershed Delivery Teams.
Strive to incorporate farmer participation in the
programs and decision making.
Tributary Coordination Teams
Description
Tributary Coordination Teams are regionally based
teams in the primarily agricultural watersheds of the
Chesapeake Bay Basin. The teams will consist of
rational representatives that have an interest in or
impact on the installation of agricultural practices in
the watershed. The membership should represent a
broad range of interests that impact the individual
wal.cislieds fiom the farming community to state and
federal agencies. The teams will carry out, the policies
of the different levels of government in the state in the
watershed and work with the local delivery system to
plan a range of programs within the watershed from
coscshate to education.
Identification of Tributaries
Each state, through the Agricultural Policy Team
should identify the agricultural watersheds within its
boundaries where the teams will be located. The h.'ca-
tion of these teams may be based 011 the Tiibui.aty
Strategies that are already being developed, based on
the 1992 Amendments to the Chesapeake Bay
Agreements.
Composition
Within the identified agricultural watersheds, local
involvement in uritiunt to the dto«»'opi"g Mmt Input
from agency heads along with local leaders should
decide which individuals are best suited to the team.
By encouraging local involvement from initial team
development, the farming community is included as an
active participant from the beginning of the process.
Although the make up of the teams will vary from
watershed to watershed, the following primary agencies
should be represented on each team;
Farmers
Soil Conservation Districts
Soil Conservation Service
Extension Service
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
State Conservation Agencies:
County officials
5
-------
Depending on the watershed, other agencies or orga-
nizations may need to be added to team. These agen-
cies include;
Private industry
Nutrient management consultants
State and federal natural resource agencies
State environmental agencies
Farm organisations
Others as required
Relationship to Other Teams
The Tributary Coordination Teams within each
state will report their progress and problems that they
have encountered to the policy team. Open communi
cation between the Policy Team and the Tributary
Coordination Team is critical to the success of a team
approach. The Policy Team must understand the tech'
meal and oigaiiUatiunai workings at the watershed
level to make effective and beneficial policies. The
Tributary Coordination Team also will help coordinate
the efforts of the Watershed Delivery Teams to ensure
that services are being provided to the most critical
areas in an efficient manner.
Role
The tole of the team is described as follows;
~ Facilitate implementation of public policy by the
local districts and agencies within the watershed.
-y- Inventory water relevant resource information fot
the watershed.
~ Collect and coordinate data gathered within the
watershed from the districts.
~ Identify resource issues and needs.
~ Act as coordinator between the districts within
the watershed.
~ Work with local delivery systems to meet nutri-
ent goals.
~ Keep the watershed focused on meeting reduction
goals.
~ Recommend and coordinate whole range of pro-
grams within watershed including costshare, edu-
cation, demonstration, etc.
~ Set priorities for watershed delivery teams.
~ Develop and implement team training programs
for agencies within their tributary,
Watershed Delivery Teams
Description
Watershed Delivery Teams are small, local teams of
individuals from agencies and the private sector that
provide planning and implementation services to the
farmer. As teams, their primary function will be m
deliver Total Resource Management Planning and
other planning services to farmers in their region. The
teams, while primarily based in the Soil Conservation
Disrfti-ts, should combine the efforts of all of the agen-
cies that impact the delivery of planning services to
farmers. As certification programs develop, the role of
the private sector in the teams should increase.
W&txrakcJ EXlivwi y Tedium fthuukl woik closely with
the Tributary Coordination Team in their area to allo-
cate planning resources to the most critical areas.
Composition
The team approach to service delivery caters to the
site specific needs of the land and the land and the
land owner. Therefore, the membership of each team
will vary according to these needs. However, each
District should identify die primary agencies that need
to be involved in this team approach. If necessary,
these agencies may want to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding to further develop the team approach.
In order to implement delivery teams at the local
level, agencies will need to have greater flexibility in
allocating personnel nnfl re-sources to meet the needs of
the tributary strategies and other environmental pro-
grams. Substantial training in team building and cross-
training of personnel to address a broader array of
isisues will be required. Teams may include, but are nut
limited to the following groups:
Team Membership
Soil Conservation Districts
Soil Conservation Service
Extension Service
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service
State Conservation Agencies
County Officials
State and Federal Natural Resource Agencies
Private Sector
Others as required
Role
~ Develop and implement Total Resource Manage-
ment Planning on farms within their jurisdiction.
~ Work with the Tributary Coordination Team to
set priorities tor developing plans within their
jurisdiction.
~ Meet jurisdictional agricultural nutrient reduction
goats,
~ Educate and market TRM planning to the agri-
6
-------
Report from the Research
Subcommittee
Introduction
The Subcommittee focused on three primary mi-cms
that must be addressed to better coordinate nonpoint
source (NPS) research within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed and assure research results are expeditiously
transferred to policy makers and agency managers. The
focus areas arc;
~ research synthesis and consensus regarding cur-
rent and new NPS pollution control/prevention
measures.
4* improved coordination, communication and col-
laboration among NPS research activities in the
Bay states,
~ establishment of mechanisms to assure timely
communication of research results to policy mak-
ers and agency managers.
The iccuuiinendations which follow provide a frame-
work for addressing these focus areas.
Nonpoint Source Workgroup
The Subcommittee recommends that the Sci-
entific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC}
of the Chesapeake Bay Program establish a Non»
jfomnt Smmi> Workgroup,
The Workgroup should be chaired by a member of
STAC with primary emphasis on agricultural sources.
Members should include agricultural scientists from
each state. The chair should be appointed hy STAC,
The Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station of
each state should appoint a scientist to the Work-
group. One member from each state should he an
Extension Specialist appointed by the Director of
Extension, One nonagrlcultural scientist from each
state involved in NPS research should be appointed by
ST AO, TVic role rkc Workgroup wilt h-a-
~ To act as a resource group to provide STAC with
technical input on nonpoint source issues.
~ To work with the STAC representative to the
Nonpoint Source Subcommittee to provide tech-
nic,! I guidance.
~ To coordinate the development, of literature syn-
theses/ consensus on priority research topics.
~ To coordinate annual NPS research conferences.
~ To coordinate communication of scientific infor-
mation regarding NPS pollution controls to poli-
cy makers and agency managers in each state and
the federal government
The Nonpoint Source Workgroup should be
appointed and operational by January 1994. By mid-
1994, literature syntheses on priority topics should be
contracted for completion no later than mid-1995.
Research Synthesis and Consensus
The Subcommittee finds that existing NPS research
specific topics has not been reviewed and synthe-
sized adequately to provide "state of the art" technical
guidance to policy makers and managers.
The Subcommittee recommends that literature
syntheses and scientific consensus papets be devel-
oped for priority tionfwnt sources topics.
Research synthesis and consensus papers should be
developed for the following topics listed by priority.
However, the papers should not be limited to this list
of topics. As appropriate for this initiative, the topics
below focus on agricultural NPS. However, other top-
ic*, such as stuim whIci quality, septic tank tlralrtflelds,
etc., may need to be identified and prioritized by the
Workgroup.
Technical Issues
~ Nitrogen availability from animal wastes (com-
pleted).
o Citver crops (underway),
4* Stream side buffers and stream protection from
livestock (forest buffers only — underway).
Bioo/vnilablc pluA-i^lii/Ju^ in iuiiuff.
~ Nitrogen loss from, arid organic nitrogen applica-
tion to, legumes,
~ Incorporating soil productivity and historical yield
data into nutrient recommendations.
~ Potential for changing feed ration to change
manure nutrient composition.
~ Seasonal effects of practices relative to water
quality and living resources.
~ Significance of atmospheric ammonia discharges
from animal wastes,
~ Farmstead impact on water quality.
~ Watershed nutrient status and animal agriculture.
Rating farms for potential water quality imparts.
~ Biosecurity of manure distribution off farm.
-------
Policy, Economic and Social Issues
"> Natural reeourca versus jurisdictional based man.
agettient of NPS pollution,
~ Factors influencing, and rates of, NPS control
practice adoption,
~ Policy options to implement NPS controls,
~ Economic impact on farmers and industry sectors
to meet the "limit of technology".
A Environmamal tacto-rw U' form -jnrl u>i-virp indus-
try decision making.
~ Impact of changes in farm and service industries
on rural communities and urban markets.
Practice Evaluation and Information Systems
~ Animal density and NPS pollution.
~ Whole farm management models.
~ Information management systems for NPS pollu-
tion control.
4- Sediment reduction to Bay from current conser-
vation programs,
~ Sludge utilization and Bay Program goals.
~ Animal waste storage structures and NPS pallu*
tion control.
~ Status of watershed Or regional nutrient budgets.
The literature syntheses should answer the following
questions;
~ What is the current state of knowledge?
~ What recommendations can be made and with
what level of confidence?
4- What other knowledge or information is needed?
V- How critical is the need for additional knowledge
needed?
Funding of Research Synthesis
The STAC will be responsible for the operation and
support of the Workgroup as part of its activities, but
the cost of publication and circulation of the consensus
papers will be the responsibility of the Boy Program
Nonpoint Source Subcommittee. The cost to develop
and write each research synthesis is estimated at
$10,000, Five to ten priority topics should be reviewed
each year for at least three years.
Research Coordination, Collaboration
and Communication
Research Funding
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Subcommittee has found that only one percent
{$190,000 of $18,500,000) of Day program funding is
currently used for research on all aspects of NPS pollu-
tion control. This would seem to be in conflict with
the 1992 Amendments to the Bay Agreement which
call for extending the limits of technology for NPS
controls, Clearly, all aspects of the restoration effort,
particularly implementation, are important.. However,
the nutrient revaluation concluded that unless new
technologies for NPS control ate developed, it is
unlikely that we will achieve our nutrient reduction
and. aocociatcd living r©eoutcst' go&lc.
The Subcommittee recommends that 5 to 10% of
the Bay Program budget for the next five years be
committed to allied research on nonpoint source
pollution control with primary emphasis on agricul-
tural sources. This could be accomplished either
through additional funding or redirection of existing
funds. The funds should be managed by the NPS
Subcommittee utith technical support from the
STAC NPS Workgroup. Request fur pmposuls for
these funds should encourage collaborative projects
by researchers in each state¦
Section 319 Clean Water Act and Coastal Zone
Management
The Subcommittee also discussed the opportunity for
coordinating Section .319, Clean Water Act, and
Coastal Zone Management funding in support of
applied research and demonstrations on new agricultur-
al NPS technologies. Current rpsrrirrinns limit the
application of these funds for such activities.
The SuJbcomniittee recommends that EPA and
NCAA evaluate options for allowing more flexibility
in use of these funds by the Bay states to support
applied research and/or demonstration? of new NPS
control technologies. The states should write their
requests for proposab for these funds to encourage
proposals on NPS controls within the limitations
established by EPA or NGAA and should coordi-
nate these fimds with Bay Program objectives.
Agricultural Experiment Stations
The Subcommittee found that 25% of all federal
research money going to state Agricultural Experiment
Stations must be used for regional (multi-state) pro-
jects. The use of these funds is largely determined by
the state Experiment Station Directors. There has been
limited use of these funds for agricultural NPS
research
It is recommended that Bay State Experiment
Station Directors commit one-third to onc-hxdf of
their regional funding for the next five years to sup'
port coWaborative research on NPS pollution pre-
ventian.
8
-------
USDA-Agricultural Re search Service
The USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
has substantial research expertise located in the Bay
states. Certain researchers are doing NFS work, but it
is not coordinated with, or integrated into the Bay
Program, except to b limited extent in Pennsylvania,
The Subcommittee recommends that the
Executive Council request that USD A, through
ARS, establish a coordinated NPS research pro-
p-am at Bay state facilities based m the needs of
the Bay program. This effort should be developed in
consultation with the NPS Subcommittee and
STAC NPS Workgroup. The program could he
modelled after the Management Systems Et.'aliwtion
Areas in the mid-west.
Research Coordination
The Subcommittee feels that many of the record'
mendations for funding will also aid research coordina-
tion, However, it is important that a group review and
evaluate research efforts to assure continued focus and
coordination of NFS research activities in the Bay
states.
The Sttbcommiftee recommends that the
Nonpoint Source Workgroup review and evaluate
NPS research activities tn the Bay states annually.
The Workgroup should submit a report, tt/ith rec-
rnmnMutatHwis on needed change or redirection, to
the NPS Subcommittee, the Experiment Station
Directors and the Director of USDA-ARS.
Communication Among Scientists
The Subcommittee finds that there is not adequate
opportunity for scientists to discuss NPS research
results in relation to the goals and objectives of the
Say program.
Agricultural Research Conference
In order to improve communication and collabora-
tion among wsfwrhers, an annual agricultural NPS
research conference should be held. It is suggested that
the conference be conducted in two parts. At the
beginning of the conference, all NPS researchers would
Uchi JiiOiKLilaLluiiS uu iHtfjui new fkidUiga or ixjultj --'f~
literature syntheses to maintain coordination across
various NPS research topics. Following this, concurrent
sessions should be held that allow for presentation and
discussion of research results on specific subjects by
small groups of researchers actively working on the
topic. Results of collaborative research projects and lit-
erature syntheses should be presented. Consensus dis-
cussions should be encouraged. The conference should
conclude with brief presentations summarising discus-
sions in the concurrent sessions. These conferences
will pnividp agricultural rpsparrhprs rhf> opportunity to
exchange information and encourage the development
of team projects. While the primary participants will
be agricultural researchers and extension specialists,
representatives from agencies may attend. The STAG's
Nonpoint Source Workgroup should coordinate the
meetings.
The Subcommittee recommends the Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Workgroup of STAC annually
conduct a Bay state conference for researchers m
described above. A sum of $ IS,000 should be allo-
cated annually b> the NPS Subcommittee to the
Workgroup to support attendance at the conference.
Research Transfer to Policy Makers and Agency
Manager#
There is a clear need to improve and expedite the
transfer of research results to policy makers and agency
managers. The Subcommittee feels that leadership for
this effou should be by sutjiitbts involved in or famil-
iar with the research.
The Subcommittee recommends that the STAC
NPS Workgroup coordinate efforts directed at scien-
tific communication to policy makers and agency
managers. This effort should be lead by a tatkgroup
coordinated by the three Extension representatives.
The tmkgrmtp will serve as the forum to assure sci-
entific communication to the Bay program, includ-
ing it* subcommittees and the federal agencies.
Each of the Extension representatives will be
ftrr i-mndituiting scientific communica-
tion to Ojfncultural and environmental agencies in
their respective states, This group should inform
agencies of nm research results that relate to exist-
ing J-oJis-y an A prog™*"*
The Subcommittee recommends that a separate
executive summary oriented to the goals and objec-
tives of the Bay program be required for all final
reports for projects funded through the Bay
Program, Sec¦ 319, CZM. Experiment Station
Regional Funds or any USDA-ARS Chesapeake
Bay related program, These summaries should be
distributed to NPS Subcommittee members and key
state and federal agency managers.
The Subcommittee recommends that each state
establish an annual one day forum u>h«re NPS
research results and their policy and programmatic
implications are presented by researchers to policy
makers and agency managers.
The Subcommittee recommends that the NPS
Subcommittee have a thirty minute to one hour
9
-------
research update at each meeting. The research
updates should be no more than fifteen minute
Imeftrigs by scientists to the Subcommittee. The
topics should be selected by the STAC-NPS Work'
group based on research relevance and current
NPS Subcommittee needs,
General Recommendations
The success of the recommendations above depends
upon a strong commitment and reprtoritization by
agency and university administrators. It also requires a
substantial commitment of time and effort by scientists
and others. The Subcommittee recommends that the
Executive Council request agency and/or university
administrators to strongly support the proposed activi*
ties. Scientists should be appropriately recognized and
rewarded for their involvement.
The Nonpoint Source Workgroup of STAC would
have numerous tasks and responsibilities under the
proposed recommendations. It is recommended that
the Workgroup have one fall time technical or admin-
istrative staff or intern to support its activities. It is
suggested that the staff person be assigned either
through the NPS Subcommittee or the Chesapeake
Research Consnrrii im.
10
------- |