Update on Chesapeake Bay TMDL

I went to a listening session on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL yesterday and things are getting a little clearer.

The current state of things is:

• Pennsylvania contributes 41% of N and 24% of P to the bay.
• Agriculture in Pennsylvania contributes 52% of the N and 50% of the P.
• The bay can handle 200 million lbs of N per year and 15 million lbs of P per year.
  
• The target loads for PA are 73.6 million lbs of N and 3.16 million lbs of P.
  
• The current loads as of 2008 are 118 million lbs of N and 4 million lbs of P.

How is the TMDL going to work? They are dividing the Chesapeake Bay into 92 segments (only two segments in Pennsylvania) based on watersheds. Total allowable loads of N and P will be rationed out to the states and then the states will decide how to rations those loads out even further to non-point and point source pollutors. The division of nutrient loading amongest the states is that the worst waterways are expected to do the most. From the view here in Lancaster County, we will be expected to do a lot! However, the good news is that we will get credit for all the good practices we have already implemented.

Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay is going to be, and has been, a huge undertaking, but if we can get all 17 million people who live is the watershed to do there own small part it will be a lot easier.

If you are interested in learning more about the Chesapeake Bay TMDL check out the EPA website epa.gov/chesapeakebayTMDL

Draft Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay

The draft strategy for the Chesapeake Bay just came out today and although I haven't read all 99 pages yet the summary version gave some good insights into what might be in the full draft. For those of you who haven't heard about this, in May 2009 President Obama released an executive order stating that the Chesapeake Bay is a priority for the federal government. The strategy for the bay is very comprehensive and supports three main areas:

• Restore Clean Water
• Conserve treasured places and restore habitats, fish, and wildlife
• Adapt to the impacts of climate change

These actions will be achieved through the following means:

• Empower local efforts
• Decision-making through science
• New era of federal leadership

The main strategy is to develop a TMDL for the entire bay that will set pollutant limits for N, P, and sediment. Agriculture will play a big part in the restoration of the bay and will likely face greater pressure to reduce N, P, and sediment contributions to local waterways. It is unclear what the new world might look like for agriculture, but the more proactive we can be the better. Below is a link to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order web site that has the full report and a shorter summary. There is a 60 day comment period on this report so get involved.

http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/

Water and Poo...

Although I try to not get too deep on this blog the link below to a YouTube video is a nice break in an otherwise rough year. The farmer who put together this video has a lot of other links on, and is doing a great job of getting his message out to a new audience. I commend him for taking the time and effort to try to educate folks in a way that will get their attention without being controversial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAUw9GO6tgE&feature=channel

Next Step In Bay Clean-up Coming

Last week at the Mid-Atlantic Water Program meeting I heard a nice update on the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order. A previous post discussed some of the issues around the 202 reports that were released earlier this fall and the TMDL that is being developed for the bay. The executive order and the TMDL are not necessarily connected, but the goals of each coincide and the process for complying with both will be similar.

From the standpoint of the excutive order the next step is the release of the 203 reports that are due out November 9th. These reports will describe more specifcially what the upcoming process will be and the goals of the executive order. There will be a 60 day comment period on these reports and they will become law in May 2010. The comment period on these reports will be very important because they have been developed with little input from the states, which means that the agencies within the federal government are really driving this process. It is anticipated that these reports will request increased federal funding to reach the goals, which is great, but will also require increased regulation of CAFOs.

The increased CAFO regulation could take on many forms from expanding the definition of a CAFO to include more operations, lower thresholds for current CAFOs, and attention to details that thus far have not necessarily been well inforced. For example, any storm water leaving a facility that houses animals can be considered a "discharge". There may also be more emphasis on practices that are done for no other reason than improving water quality (i.e. buffer strips).

This executive order and TMDL are very bold changes in regards to the Chesapeake Bay and any farmer or ag industry professional needs to be following this process closely because it will impact farming in the watershed.

Manure Application

Manure Du Jour is a weekly webinar series hosted by the Agriculture and Environment Center at Penn State. Topics include discussions about nutrient management, and reducing the potential for nutrient emissions to air and water. The following is a nice summary of manure application concerns that were addressed during a previous Manure Du Jour webinar.

What environmental challenges are associated with land application of manure?
Land application of manure presents both systemic- and short term challenges. Under the current agriculture structure in Pennsylvania in which large quantities of feed are imported, farmers do not have an adequate amount of land to assimilate the sheer volume of nutrients on the farm and balanced cycling of nutrients cannot be achieved. The net result is an over abundance of nutrients in soils, presenting near term and long term challenges for ongoing farm production and a reservoir of nutrients that can move across- and through the soil via surface- and groundwater to local streams and rivers.

What are the benefits of no-till vs. tilled soils?
No-till practices offer several benefits to soil health over conventional tilling.
• Soil erosion and nutrient loss from erosion is reduced
• Soil quality is improved
• Biological activity in soil is higher
• Soil surface residue is retained
However, no-till practices are at odds with the environmental benefits of incorporating spread manure into the soil. Incorporating manure into the soil:
• Reduces ammonia volatilization
• Reduces runoff of water-soluble phosphorous
• Decreases odors.

How can the best of both no-till and manure incorporation be achieved?
New technologies have been developed that incorporate manure while still retaining the benefits of no-till practices. These technologies deposit manure into the sub-surface with minimal disruption to the soil and include a shallow disc injector, high pressure manure injector, and aerator with banded manure. Use of these practices can reduce ammonia emissions, odor, and loss of water-soluble phosphorous as well as maintain the soil health associated with no-till practices.

Related Resources
View the “Water Quality-Land Application” epi¬sode of Manure Du Jour on the Penn State Agriculture and Environment Web site: aec.cas.psu.edu/news/webinar_archives.asp

Don't Forget About Milk House Waste

The milk house waste is an area that is often overlooked when considering phosphorus (P) loss from the farm, but it shouldn't be. Many things contribute to high P levels in milk house waste, including the cleaning detergents that have high P concentrations, manure, residual milk, and feed. An article put out by SERA-17 suggests two solutions to prevent this P from getting into local waterways; install a septic type system or utilize vegetated or non-vegetated filter strips. Septic type systems work much the same as regular septic systems in that solids settle out into a tank and the water flows into a septic field. Non-vegetated filter strips work by bringing P in contact with soil or other material that binds P. Vegetated strips works by slowing the flow of material allowing the vegetation to remove the P from the soil.

Deciding on what system to go with will depend on the soils on the farm, where a filter strip could be located, and of course the cost of each system. If designed and maintained properly filter strips can remove up to 90% of the P from waste water. However, if the filter strip is too small for the amount of milk house waste it can become saturated and will have to be regenerated. The benefit to vegetative filter strips is that the once the vegetation removes the P from the soil it can be harvested and utilized elsewhere, which helps to keep the filter strip from becoming saturated. Septic systems are not problem free either. They can be more expensive to install and fatty solids in the residual milk can clog the septic field so septic tanks need to be pumped regularly to keep them working properly.

Brian Holms, Professor at the University of Wisconsin, recommends that farmers do what they can to reduce water usage in the milk house because the less waste you have to deal with in the first place the better. It is also beneficial from a water utilization standpoint so reduce the amount of water used in the milk house. He also recommends that the milk content of the milk house waste be reduced. There can be up to 5 gallons of milk left in the systems after each milking. Simply rinsing the system with water and collecting the rinse will remove the residual milk, and the collected material could be fed to calves as a supplemental milk source. Removing the milk from the system expands the options of how to deal with waste, and alleviates the clogging of septic systems as mentioned above.

http://www.sera17.ext.vt.edu/SERA_17_Publications.htm

EPA Takes a Stand on the Chesapeake Bay

The EPA, following the new executive order put forth by President Obama, is going to be taking a much stronger stance on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay by using the full power of the Clean Water Act. EPA is working with the watershed states (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New York, West Virginia) and the District of Columbia to develop a TMDL (see previous posting for explanation) for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed, which will be the largest and most complex TMDL developed. To make it a more manageable, the overall bay TMDL will be broken down into 92 smaller TMDLs for individual bay segments. Each segment will be assigned pollution loads, or how much nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, etc. can be in the waterways, and these loads will be further broken down to how much can come from non-point source (farm and hard-surface runoff) and point-source (sewage treatment plants, and urban stormwater discharge) discharge. Unlike previous bay clean-up efforts, there will be 2-year milestones that must be met or there will be financial consequences to the offending state(s). The goals are to have the TMDL written by December 2010, and have all the practices in place by 2025 that will result in the reduction of nitrogen loads by 174 million pounds and phosphorus by 14 million pounds. Previously, environmental groups have complained that the federal government was not taking the lead in cleaning up of the Chesapeake Bay, but with this new executive order EPA is putting the Chesapeake Bay front and center. It is still not entirely clear how this order will impact agriculture, but, needless to say, ag will need to keep up the good work and go even further to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses from farms.

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/BayTMDLFactSheet8_6.pdf