A Balanced Approach toAA BalancedBalanced ApproachApproach toto Ensuring Strong … · 2011. 9....

A Balanced Approach toA Balanced Approach toA Balanced Approach toA Balanced Approach to Ensuring Strong Farms,Ensuring Strong Farms,

Clean WaterClean Water

Presentation to National Pork Board and National Pork Producers Council

Environmental Committees

August 17 2011August 17, 2011

Ms. Kyle J. Zieba EPA Region III, Water Protection Division

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction

56%

1%

PA Nitrogen Delivered Loads to Ch k BChesapeake Bay

Agriculture 56%

Forest 22%

PointAir Deposition

Point Sources

12%Urban 6%

Septic 3%

1%

Assistance forAssistance forAssistance forAssistance for BMPsBMPsBMPsBMPs

$14.2 Million in ARRA funding through Pennvest, CBF

• 43 farms receiving 219 individual BMPs • 16.5 miles of new forested buffers • 11 1 miles of existing buffers receiving specific • 11.1 miles of existing buffers receiving specific

protection • 82 acres of associated wetlands enhanced or restored

ti f 124 j b (f ll ti i l t f )• creation of 124 jobs (full time equivalents for a year) • Estimated reduction of 948,697 lb of Nitrogen yearly • Estimated reduction of 295,910 lb of Phosphorusp

yearly • Estimated reduction of 1,028 tons of sediment yearly • Estimated 21 204 metric tons of carbon offsets yearlyEstimated 21,204 metric tons of carbon offsets yearly

FaJ'ffis with Ag BMPs Funded by ARRAIPENNVEST through Chesapeake Bay Foundation Forested Buffers · Funded by USDA's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

PROJ ECT TOTALS

190 NRCS pt'Klice codes {some aMPs include mult ipl.

practice codes)

$1 4 .2 million toU ) cost

SOMER5ET

, .., .. .. SUSOUBwmA

~~ ~ " ... '" '" ... WAYNE " .. '"

WYOMIN G i CAMERON SULUYAN LACMW

LYCOM ING 1 .".., '"

CLEARFIELD ...~Ju~IQ.~MB!A ,,~

ItU 1t14....., '" -"'-'--_On..........-..­

C/lMBfll... .-~BLAII{

~..... w_HUtmNGDON o .........,.,....

CUMIlERL.AND ." , ,'" "­L/IJ.ICI<.STER '" '" ... ,~~FUl'"TON f RANKLIN 111

,~ '" ." ... ~"' 1169 1170'" " 0 510 2OJ(J 40

• CSF required I<IndO'o•• "ero 10 restOfe or IlfOtect 35' min im .... width l orested bull.n on all streams 00 tile farm to participale in CSF's appIicaUoo to PENNVESTfor "II BNI' lun<l5. Of 120 13IldoWllers fIlterHted. onI~ three r. fused. AU but lwo or tile IlI'Idownen in the l i"'" project li'l(<< rarms) ~-used eREP wiler. buffer '''''tor.lion was ooeded.

t t t

$5.83 million to PA through NFWF Grants

• 116,160 linear feet of livestock exclusion fencing installed

• 138,072 linear feet of riparian stream buffer (min 35ft width) restored 31 967 f BMP i i• 31,967 acres of BMPs put into practice on aglands 772 acres con erted to rotational gra ing• 772 acres converted to rotational grazing

• 127.5 acres of wetland improved/restored/createdimproved/restored/created

ac es o o t

$9.28 million to PA through CBPO

• Funding to conservation districts for technical i tassistance

• BMP Implementation – 4,000 acres of no-till / year,000 / yea – 1,000 acres of precision agriculture / year – 9,000 acres of cover crops / year

50 acres of rotational grazing / year – 50 acres of rotational grazing / year – 5 miles of stream bank fence installed / year

• Compliance Assurance – 225 – 450 ag inspections / year – 50 – 100 compliance actions / year

ComplianceCompliance Assistance andAssistance and

OutreachOutreach

InspectionsInspectionsInspectionsInspections

Targeting Methodology

S b atersheds at head aters ith TMDLs

g g gy

• Sub-watersheds at headwaters with TMDLs

• Ratio of square miles / miles of impairedq p streams / number of animal feeding operations

• Public Water Systems with treatment for nitrate removal as an indicatornitrate removal as an indicator

• Nitrate Maximum Contaminant Level i l tiviolations

Ldlll..;d;:'lt:1 vUUI n y

"

, . , : .

.; . .. . ,

l egend

.. F¥o'S'~

o IIW"'pw1

• USGSWeIII

• o...eB)4..OC3IOOI'II

Lancaster AFO.

• ,,,,,,,,,, UnpenTlf1ed Noo

. .

..

'" . '.'.

..

...

...

o 1 5 3 •

> •

~.,

.. .. .'

. >

.. .'

.. . .' . . ,

,~ .,. •-' .. -.' -,

,.

>,

..

"

, ,­

0

Watson Run

0

Legend

LanenlerAFOs

• PerrMted

Unpermitled

• W'J>m

_p,....• sw• PWSI,ICl

lteatment

• lOll exdl8nge

• reverse OsrroSIS

t

=

Watson Run • Area of watershed: 2.74 sq. mi.

3 31 il f i i d• 3.31 miles of impaired stream – Source: Agriculture – Causes: Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/

Low D.O., Siltation • 25 Potential AFOs, no permitted CAFOs • Density of Potential AFOs = 9 12 per sq mi• Density of Potential AFOs 9.12 per sq. mi. • 5 PWSs, 4 with treatment systems • TMDL requires reduction of 1,720 lbs/yr

Phosphorus and 715 tons/yr of Sediment

FindingsFindingsFindingsFindings

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Months of Manure Storage (on 19 dairy farms)

4 months of storage

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Months of Storage

0a u e s

Chesapeake Bay BMPsChesapeake Bay BMPs # with

# i h # with some # without

Riparian Bufferspa

Stream Fencing

C CCover Crops

Manure Storage >4 months

Proper Agronomic Use of Manure

1

1 1

4

3 1

10

20

9

20

15

17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage

Compliance with PA Regulations*

# with Met w/ NMP # without

PA Chapter 102 Conservation PlanPlan

Manure Management for Environmental Protection

No Discharges to Surface or Ground Water per Chapter

91.36

Properly Designed, Constructed, Operated, and Maintained Manure System

3

3

21 Needs additional analysis

17

8 16

Needs additional analysis

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage Percentage

*Based on Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Title 25, Chapter 91.36, Chapter 102 and related guidance including PADEP’s Manure Management Manual and PA Technical Guide

Drinking Water SamplingDrinking Water Sampling ResultsResults

• Sampled 19 out of 24 farm wells

• 9 out of 19 contained total coliform• 9 out of 19 contained total coliform bacteria

• 6 out of 19 contained E. coli

• 16 out of 19 exceeded the MCL for• 16 out of 19 exceeded the MCL for nitrate*

– Ranging from 11 to 43 mg/L; Avg. 19.2

Muddy Run

• • :

•

• • • • • •• •• • • •

• • •• • •• • •• • • •• •• • •• •• •

•• • • • • • • •• • • • ••

• ,, •, '. •Legend • , ,

• • • •• • •• t.nc..er,J/o • • FWSLO C<. • •• ..-'~• M~ • • •

1teatment • • •• •• IOI'I lXd'llngt • ~ •• •

• IItWlf5Jt 0 ..,-0. • • • •

Muddy Run • Area of watershed: 8.84 sq. mi.Area of watershed: 8.84 sq. mi. • 8.66 miles of impaired stream

S A i lt – Source: Agriculture

– Causes: Nutrients, Suspended Solids

• 88 Potential AFOs, no permitted CAFOs • Density of Potential AFOs = 9.95 per sq. mi. • 15 PWSs, 10 with treatment systems

Plan to Meet Muddy Run TMDLPlan to Meet Muddy Run TMDL

• 35% Cover Crops35% Cover Crops • 10% Conservation Tillage • 50% Stripcropping/Contour Farming 50% Stripcropping/Contour Farming • 51% NMPs • 30% Grazing Land Management implemented • 30% Grazing Land Management implemented • Nearly 7 miles of Stream Bank Vegetation • 7 miles of Stream Bank Fencing • 7 miles of Stream Bank Fencing • 2 miles of Stream Bank Stabilization

Outcomes • 75% compliance with state requirements75% compliance with state requirements • 4 check inspections

2 f l t DEP • 2 referrals to DEP • 1 state action

Nickel Mines/ Meetinghouse Creek

Coordination on CAFOs

• Negotiated agreement between EPA and DEP

• Targeted large CAFOs in Franklin, York, Lebanon, and Adams counties ,

• 5 inspections through September 2011 Meeting with conservation district staff • Meeting with conservation district staff

• Follow- up discussion on issues, f t ti d l l denforcement actions and lessons learned

\

-

Take Home Messages • Multi-program, balanced, flexible Multi program, balanced, flexible

approach • Financial outreach and complianceFinancial, outreach and compliance

assistance to all producers • Partnering with local organizations • Partnering with local organizations • Everyone must do their part • Equitable, level playing field

Questions/Discussion