Farm and environmental groups from Pennsylvania participated in a listening session this week by the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service on setting spending priorities for the new funding provided in the 2008 Farm Bill for farm conservation in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

The Department of Agriculture, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, PA Farm Bureau, Grange and the PA Association of Conservation Districts all provided comments and were remarkably similar in their recommendations.

Department of Agriculture

Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff said Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Compliance Plan requires the removal of 25 million pounds of nutrient pollution farmlands in the watershed and that farmers need assistance to meet this goal.

“At present, the majority of Pennsylvania agriculture operations do not have comprehensive nutrient management programs and do not have access to state funds that make wide-sweeping conservation improvements possible,” said Secretary Wolff. “When utilizing new Chesapeake Bay funding, we must strive to achieve a minimum baseline compliance, and direct this new funding to farms that have not previously had support in instituting conservation measures.”

Pennsylvania’s new 2008-09 budget that started July 1 provided over $1.2 billion in water infrastructure funding, including for wastewater plant upgrades, but provided no additional funding for farm conservation, in fact, it included some cuts. (See PA Fair Share for Clean Water website.)

Secretary Wolff reviewed the accomplishments of Pennsylvania’s compliance efforts to date and recommended four overall funding priorities—

· Streamside Buffers: Streamside buffers can protect these and other sites from the effects of flooding, drought, pollution and soil erosion. Farms are among the most critical places to ensure that streamside buffers are in place, since farm soil is a resource that must be protected from flooding and drought and because farms must have nutrient management strategies in place to avoid damage to nearby water sources.

· Cover Crops: Additional cover crop acreage will provide additional means of protecting the bay as well as the soil resources in the bay region. But many farmers require assistance when developing plans to plant cover crops for the first time. When farmers make the financial investment to plant these new crops, we must ensure that they receive the necessary guidance to help them do so in the most effective manner possible.

· No-Till, Land Stabilization: Federal dollars should continue to target the problem of soil erosion and to support current programs that do so. Pennsylvania has invested tremendous time and financial resources in our farmland preservation program, but to truly preserve farmland we must also protect it from damages due to erosion and improper nutrient management

· Nutrient Management Planning: Pennsylvania has substantial need for additional technical assistance and nutrient management planning and implementation assistance in order to ensure that programs are deliverable statewide and in a timely and efficient manner.

He said livestock stream exclusion and riparian buffers, continuous no-till and implementation of comprehensive nutrient management plans, including feed management when appropriate, should all be priority farm conservation practices.

Secretary Wolff also suggested funneling the new funding through existing programs saying, “I believe that this new funding should be channeled through the USDA NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program in each state, with separate record keeping and prioritization from other EQIP funds. New funding should support on-the-ground practices located on working farmlands in order to result in a direct reduction of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings.”

Technical assistance to farmers to design and install farm conservation practices is vital to meeting Bay nutrient reduction goals he said.

“I recommend that a portion of each year’s allocation be used towards expenses for Technical Service Providers to ensure that funds are able to result in program delivery on the ground as quickly and efficiently as possible,” said Secretary Wolff. “Conservation planning relies on availability of technical assistance, and is a first step in using these new funds effectively. Along with program delivery, communication and messaging to farmers regarding emerging conservation practices and planting techniques is needed to ensure that farmers can implement new and more effective conservation techniques soon after they become available.”

Secretary Wolf concluded his remarks by thanking U.S. Senator Bob Casey and Congressman Tim Holden for the role they played in helping to secure additional federal funding for Chesapeake Bay programs.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Matt Ehrhart, Pennsylvania Director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the federal funding earmarked for the Bay Watershed could reduce nitrogen pollution by as much as 40 million pounds annually, if targeted properly.

Ehrhart called for the Chesapeake Bay funding to be channeled through the USDA NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program in each state, with separate record keeping from other EQIP funds. The funding should support on-the-ground practices located on “working” lands which will result in a direct reduction of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loadings.

The Chesapeake Bay funds, Ehrhart said, must be supplemental to the EQIP and other program dollars available to farmers in the watershed, not simply displace them.

Ehrhart recommended the majority of the funding go to those practices that have been identified in each state as providing the most effective water quality protection for the least cost, and there should be an annual review to inventory whether an acceleration of the actual on-the-ground implementation has or has not occurred, including assessment of practices under contract versus practices completed.

PA Farm Bureau

The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau told NRCS additional funding for Chesapeake Bay water quality improvement projects provided under the 2008 Farm Bill should be directed at fortifying existing agricultural conservation programs in Pennsylvania.

"Given the degree of effort and program development that has already taken place so far in Pennsylvania, we think it would be a serious mistake for additional monies to be used for creation or development of programs that radically deviate from Pennsylvania’s existing programs,” said PFB Natural Resources Director Jennifer Harry.

Harry noted that programs in Pennsylvania are sound and have stepped up to the plate to improve water quality within the Bay watershed and that any limitations in effectiveness of existing programs are due to a lack of funding.

She also cautioned against over-funding of conservation programs that seriously reduce farm productivity.

“While nutrient and sediment loading problems exist in agricultural areas in the Bay watershed, programs that take productive farmland out of production will make it significantly more difficult for farm families to keep their farms economically viable. Widespread conversion of farms to non-farm use will create a new set of problems for management of nutrient and sediment loadings in the Bay watershed,” added Harry.

In addition, Harry pointed to an area where PA Farm Bureau thinks there is a glaring shortage of quality assistance that can be provided through Farm Bill funding as part of Chesapeake Bay water improvement efforts.

“There needs to be a significant increase in the number of technical personnel and improved technical assistance available to Pennsylvania farmers for development and implementation of agricultural best management practices. Many farm families understand what generally needs to be done to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff, but they do not adequately understand how to do it in a manner that is both environmentally effective and economically feasible. Increasing and improving the availability of technical assistance can pay big dividends in helping farmers manage environmental quality and economic efficiency on their farms,” concluded Harry.

Online Interview: Agriculture and Chesapeake Bay Health

PA Conservation Districts

Larry Kehl, President of the PA Association of Conservation Districts, told the NRCS that districts provide the technical assistance farmers need to implement nutrient and sediment reduction projects and are vital to meeting Chesapeake Bay cleanup goals.

“As we strive to meet water quality goals through nutrient and sediment management, we believe the USDA should take a comprehensive approach toward water quality improvements,” said Kehl. “These improvements must be highly effective, cost efficient, and easily implemented.

“A good example of this type of approach would be a statewide cover crop and no-till program. We already know that over 50 percent of Pennsylvania farmers utilize no-till because they understand the many financial and environmental benefits of cover crops and no-till planting. Promotion of a more comprehensive program would greatly increase nutrient reductions and would be a cost savings to the agricultural community.

“To date, according to EPA calculations, Pennsylvania farmers have already greatly reduced their agricultural nitrogen load to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. More than 5,000 farms in Pennsylvania have nutrient management plans,” said Kehl. “Many of these farmers consulted with conservation districts to achieve nutrient reductions. It is our belief that technical assistance provided by conservation districts has been a key component in improving water quality and successfully reducing the nutrient and sediment load going into the Bay. PACD recommends that the USDA target funding specifically for technical assistance and Technical Service Providers. This would greatly enhance the implementation of conservation practices.”

Kehl explained that conservation districts are familiar with and promote a number of federal nutrient reduction programs, like EQIP, CREP and farmland preservation. He recommended the new funding be targeted through these existing programs.

“Finally, PACD recommends that USDA allocate funding according to the size of the watershed in each state in the Chesapeake Bay region,” said Kehl. “Pennsylvania has the largest landmass in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Consequently, USDA should allocate Chesapeake Bay funding on a per acre basis in order to be cost-effective and efficient.”

PA State Grange

George B. Wolff spoke on behalf of the Grange in Pennsylvania and expressed their concerns and needs as they apply to the federal Farm Bill and funding of the Chesapeake Bay Provisions. He outlined five priorities to the NRCS--

· Land Cover: "It is vitally important to keep cover on the land, thus reducing soil erosion and at the same time, holding and stabilizing the nutrients in the soil reducing volatization and loss due to water solubility," Wolff said.

· Nutrient Plans: "We believe there is a great need to fund development of conservation and nutrient management plans for land owners." He added, "We remind you that conservation districts have the confidence of land owners, but need extra staffing. Their efforts, combined with private contractors who also need funding, are the developers of soil and nutrient management plans. There is also a need to help land owners pay to install the practices recommended," Wolff explained.

· Soil, Feed, Manure Testing: "We believe that soil, feed and manure tests are an absolute necessity since soil tests are the basis of the correct application of nutrients for the growing crop...Feed tests should be the basis for a balanced nutritional feeding program...and manure tests tell what nutrients are actually in the manure."

· Precision Agriculture: Mr. Wolff spoke about new practices that the Grange feels should be required. "One of these practices," he said, "is precision agriculture which utilizes yield monitors in harvesting equipment which can indicate where there are low yields in a field which will require special soil tests, and then the use of computerized fertilizer spreading equipment, that will be able to apply NPK in varying amounts in different parts of the field, as indicated by soil tests."

· Legacy Sediment: "Agriculture has greatly reduced soil loss through the increased use of no-till cover crops and generally improved conservation practices,” Wolff said.

“However, new knowledge has recently been uncovered indicating that the movement of legacy sediment trapped behind abandoned mill ponds, which generations ago provided energy for saw mills, feed and flour mills and wool mills, is suspected to be a large and direct contributor of sediment to the Bay, along with the nutrients attached to that sediment. We believe that further investigation and effort to manage this previously unknown source of contaminants should be investigated, and efforts to manage that contribution be established and funded."

NewsClip: Agriculture and Chesapeake Bay Health

7/18/2008