Barnyards are in need of attention on many dairies and future regulations are aiming to make sure that attention is paid.The new Pennsylvania Manure Manual has not yet been released by the Department of Environmental Protection, but all indications are that barnyards are going to receive greater attention than they have in the past.Future regulations on manure management and cropping practices have been discussed previously, but barnyards are a major concern of environmental regulators.Barnyards are often areas that are not suited for cropping, get too much traffic for a ground cover to really take hold, and are just not a priority for maintenance or improvement on most farms.However, from and environmental standpoint, barnyards are a major source of manure runoff to streams.Heavy rains can easily flush manure from barnyards into local streams if there is not a system in place to prevent this.Also, from an animal health standpoint, improperly maintained or designed barnyards can contribute to mastitis and hoof health problems.
Barnyards can be dirt lots or paved areas.Barnyards that are dirt can quickly become mud pits.Standing in wet conditions, like a muddy barnyard, can soften hooves leading to hoof problems and lameness that can negatively impact milk production.Also, if animals are left in barnyards long enough during the day they will eventually lay down exposing the teats to environmental mastitis pathogens.Although environmental mastitis is generally easier to treat compared with contagious mastitis it can still lead to a great deal of lost production and income before it is controlled.Lastly, the cleaner the barnyard is kept the cleaner the cows will be at milking, which means less cleanup at milking.
Concrete barnyards can be better than dirt barnyards, but only if maintained.Uneven concrete can lead to injury and hoof problems.Also, unless concrete is poured so that there is good drainage it can become just as wet and sloppy as a dirt barnyard.
There is cost share money available for barnyard improvements through Natural Resources Conservation Service, county Conservation Districts, and private groups.The following are some areas to consider about your own barnyard.
Is the barnyard cleaned regularly?Scraping barnyards weekly will prevent hoof problems and eliminate the potential runoff of manure from the barnyard.
Are there curbs on the concrete barnyard?Curbs keep manure from running off the barnyard into local waterways.
Is there a system to collect runoff from the barnyard?If the barnyard is curbed, there needs to be a drain so that the barnyard doesn’t become a pool.However, the collection of rain water and other material from the barnyard needs to be treated as any other manure laden runoff and should be run through some type of filtration or storage system.
Is excess rainwater running into the barnyard?Roof gutters and down spouts should be designed to divert rainwater away from the barnyard into a filtration area.
In short, proper design of rain gutters and downspouts to divert rain water away from the barnyard, a proper filtration or storage system for collection of runoff from the barnyard, and scraping the barnyard to keep manure from building up will protect local waterways and prevent herd health issues.For more information on this issue visit the Penn State Agriculture and Environment Center at www.aec.cas.psu.edu to watch a webinar on barnyards, exercise lots and water quality.
Winter spreading of manure is not something that is popular with many environmental folks. This has recently come to a head in Iowa where they are allowing producers to spread manure in the winter for five more years with approval by the state. However, a local advocacy group, that has been fighting this ruling, is vowing to take note of every bit of manure spread and report any problems.
The winter months, when the ground is frozen, are the months that see the most manure runoff because the manure and it's nutrients do not have an opportunity to be incorporated into the soil. Therefore, they sit on top of the soil until the ground thaws. Therefore, any sudden precipitation or snow melt can lead to manure runoff into local waterways.
In Pennsylvania, winter manure spreading is still allowed, but with certain regulations. For example, the maximum that can be spread is 5,000 gallons of liquid manure or 20 tons of dry manure per acre or applied to the phosphorus removal rate of the coming year's crop. There needs to be 40% crop residue, a growing cover crop, or pasture for manure to be spread on any field. There may be other rules that apply once the new Manure Manual regulations come out this spring, and the EPA is still working with Pennsylvania to try to eliminate winter spreading all together.
Although many do not like winter manure spreading, including many farmers, building enough storage to last through the entire winter is very costly. For example, an average concrete storage big enough for four months of storage on a 100 lactating cow dairy can cost around $50,000. With milk prices and feed costs the way they are finding that kind of money is difficult. There are cost-share programs available to alleviate the installation costs, but even coming up with the money to cost share is challenging for many small dairies.
This is a very difficult issue with no good solutions, but for now responsibly spreading manure any time of year is a must.
Environmental regulations are moving fast and furious and it can be hard to keep up, but all dairy farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed will be affected so understanding these new regulations is a must.The final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or “pollution diet”, will be out by December 31st and will outline the official and final rules going forward.Because the final TMDL is not out yet this article will focus on the preliminary TMDL and Pennsylvania’s final Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).The final TMDL will reflect the WIPs submitted by each state in the watershed unless EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) thinks that the state WIPs will not meet water quality goals then EPA will override the state plans with their own regulations.
The Pennsylvania WIP focuses on increasing enforcement of current laws.The PA Clean Streams law requires that all farms, regardless of size, control sediment and nutrient discharges from their farm, which includes from fields, silage and manure storage, milk house, barnyards, and animal concentration areas.To this end, all farms that disturb more than 5,000 square feet of land are required to have an erosion and sediment control plan (E&S plan), which is similar to a conservation plan.These plans do not need to be approved at the state or county level, but do need to be on the farm.As of November 19, 2010 this regulation was changed to include “animal heavy use” areas, require additional BMPs (best management practices) for fields within 100 feet of a stream, require that soil erosion be reduced to the highest amount that can be tolerated and still maintain sustainable crop productivity indefinitely (T), and require an implementation schedule.
The Pennsylvania WIP also relies on updates to the Manure Management Manual, which will be completed by spring 2011.The contents of this manual apply to all farms that have animals.At minimum, farms are required to have a manure management plan that covers collection, storage, and application of manure on fields.Specifically, it will address overall manure application, winter application, stockpiling manure, manure storage, pasture management, and animal heavy use areas.The Manure Management Manual will also require farms to apply manure at rates that will minimize phosphorus runoff, unless they can show that the risk is extremely low, such as with soil testing and the P-Index, a tool to determine the potential loss of phosphorus from the soil to waterways by looking at a variety of factors.
Farms with greater than 700 dairy cows (milking and dry), or CAOs with greater than 300 cows, are considered CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) by the federal government and the state of Pennsylvania.CAFOs are required to adhere to even stricter laws than CAOs.Small farms can be deemed a CAFO by EPA if there is a point-source discharge from that farm into a local waterway, which could be something as simple a point leak in a barnyard where material from the barnyard can escape to a local waterway.The rules that apply to CAFOs may become stricter and it is possible that CAFO rules could be expanded to cover more farms if EPA does not determine that the Pennsylvania plan is sufficient to meet water quality goals.
Some consumers are willing to pay extra for organic milk to support the method of production of that particular product even though the actual product is not different from conventionally produced milk. Would consumers be willing to make that same choice for milk that has an “Environmentally Friendly” label? That is a question that is being tossed around these days as a way to make improving local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay more financial feasible.
The quality of the water in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay is gaining a great deal of attention lately after President Obama issued an Executive Order in May 2009 designating the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure that needs to be preserved. Also, the requirement for a TMDL (total maximum daily load), or a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay watershed, have put everyone and every practice within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed under a microscope. Agriculture is especially feeling the heat. Even though agriculture has made more progress in reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment going to the Chesapeake Bay than any other segment, they are still the largest contributors of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to the bay overall.
Although everyone agrees that they want clean waterways, the economic crisis is making achieving those goals even more difficult. The economy has hit everyone, but dairy farmers were especially hit hard with low milk prices and high feed costs in 2009. Although the milk price paid to farmers has increased in recent months it is not enough to make up for the huge losses that occurred last year and it will take many years for the dairy industry to recover. Therefore, convincing farmers to spend money they don’ t have on a management practice that may be good for water quality but will not increase milk production or bring in extra income is a very hard sell. In other businesses, when increased regulation requires capital investment the cost of that investment is passed on to the consumer of that product, but farmers do not have that luxury. Farmers are paid based on the amount of milk they produce and the pounds of fat and protein in the milk, not the method of production (except for organic). However, what if a new brand of milk were produced similar to how organic milk is marketed where consumers would pay a premium for milk produced on farms that met curtain environmental and nutrient management requirements and the premium paid by consumers would be passed onto the farmers that made the capital investment to improve the environment.
In order to truly improve local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay everyone in the watershed will have to do their part, and it is not fair to expect one segment of the community to carry so much of the burden. Many farmers have a desire to reduce what environmental impact they may be having, and many have taken those steps on their own and invested their own money with no hope of seeing any financial payback for their investment. However, there are others that just don’t have the money to spare and this type of program might take a best management practice from too expensive to doable. Of course developing a new label and monitoring that the farms that sell their milk under that label are doing what they are supposed to do is not a simple task, but improving water quality in the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed will take every idea there is.
Why don't farmers implement certain best management practices (BMP) on their farms? For those who are not farmers, it may seem obvious going onto a farm that a certain BMP should be implemented. The farmer may even agree with you but yet there is no plan to implement that BMP on the farm. The biggest reason BMPs are not implemented is the economy. Farmers have no money to spare so even if there is cost sharing available there just aren't the matching funds from the farm perspective to make the BMP go forward. Everyone has been hit by the overall economic crisis, but farmers were hit especially hard with low milk prices that will take many years to recover from. In short, most farms are in survival mode and extras are just not going to happen. Unfortunately there is no good solution to this issue until the milk price and the overall economy improve.
The other reason I see why farmers don't implement a specific BMP on their farm is that they don't know what to do. With limited funds they don't know what BMP would be most beneficial to them, and they may not be aware that some BMPs are actually required. For example, farms in Pennsylvania have been required to have a conservation plan and a manure management plan since the 70's but there are many farmers that do not know that they are required to have these two plans on file. If we want farmers to improve nutrient management and soil conservation on their farm we need to be very specific about what they need to do.
eXtension is a website that was developed within the last 5 years and is turning into a great resources on a number of issues. All the material on the website is peer reviewed and comes from reputable research institutions and extension professionals so it can be trusted. It has information on the following general topic areas:
Community - master gardening and entrepreneurship
Disaster Issues - floods, oil spill, wildfires, and agrosecurity
Energy - farm and home
Family - child care, food and fitness, care giving, food safety, parenting, and personal finance
Farm - manure management, bee health, beef cattle, dairy cattle, corn and soybean production, cotton, goats, horses, organic, and small meat processors
Pest Management
Youth
Hidden under the "manure management" sub-section of the "Farm" tab is a great page on environmental regulations related to livestock and poultry operations. This explains both water and air quality regulations that are enforced at the national level. There are many state and local regulations that farmers will also need to follow which aren't discussed on this page, but it is still a great resource for the national laws. On other pages is a dearth of information on environmental tools and management strategies that can be employed on varies types of farms.
This is the last in the series looking at what is measured in the Chesapeake Bay and if those measurements are moving in the right direction. In agriculture we mostly hear about nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, but as we have learned so far there are many other areas that are evaluated. The previous articles in this series have focused on water quality, plants, and invertebrates, which are directly impacted by nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. This last installment of the series will focus on the larger aquatic fish and shellfish that live in the Chesapeake Bay and are indirectly impacted by the excess nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the bay.
Although there are a number of fish and shellfish species in the bay the focus falls on blue crabs, striped bass, oysters, and shad as representative species to track more intensely. Many of these organisms are harvested for commercial sale and that harvest is tightly regulated. Also, these fish and shellfish are popular with tourists and are a source of local pride, which means their commercial value is only part of their overall value to the region.
One third of all the blue crabs sold in the United States come from the Chesapeake Bay and they need good water quality and underwater grasses to survive and thrive. Within the bay ecosystem they are consider both a predator of bottom dwelling organisms and prey for birds, which makes them a very important species. Their numbers are holding steady around the goal populations, but decreases in water quality could change their status.
Striped bass is the main fish species evaluated in terms of the health of the bay. The Chesapeake Bay is their primary spawning location on the Atlantic coast. Even though there are water quality concerns with the bay the striped bass population has exceeded the goal population since 1995.
Oysters filter water for food so they are very susceptible to water contamination, and because they filter the water they also help to increase water clarity. As mentioned in previous columns, an improvement in water clarity also improves the health of bay grasses and the entire ecosystem. At their peak, the number of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay could filter all the water in the bay in one week. It takes the current population one year to filter the entire bay. Oysters are only at 10% of their goal population with relatively no trends up or down since the mid 90’s.
Shad, or bay sardines, historically were a big part of the diet and culture of the people in the region. However, they suffered very low populations in the 70’s due to overfishing and dams. Shad spawn upstream so if dams are erected in the streams and rivers that feed the bay the shad have no place to spawn. In recent years fish passage systems have been installed in streams and rivers to provide the shad a way around the dams. The Susquehanna is less than 1% of its goal for shad spawning. Shad serve as a food source for striped bass and other larger fish so a decline in their population will impact other species.
Although this series has been a slight departure from the normal agriculture topics I think it is important to have an understanding of how the Chesapeake Bay as a whole is evaluated and how agriculture impacts that evaluation. The new water quality regulations being proposed for agriculture stem from these Chesapeake Bay evaluations that have been outlined in this series so although it may seem abstract the evaluation of the bay directly impacts all farmers in the watershed.
A draft of the guidance strategy for federal agricultural lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed) was released in March, and although the title implies that these suggestions are only relative to agriculture on federal lands the content implies otherwise. It is suggested in the first few paragraphs of this 246-page document that these suggestions should be taken into consideration by states and other agencies in the development of the local watershed implementation plans. There are twenty implementation measures outlined in this guidance, but the focus of this column will be on the three measures that would most directly impact grazers.
The one that has, and will continue to get, the most attention states: “Exclude livestock form streams and streambanks and provide alternative watering facilities and stream crossings to reduce nutrient inputs, streambank erosion, and sediment inputs and to improve animal health.” This push has been coming from the federal, state, and local level for some time and there will continue to be pressure on this issue. Research has shown that when cattle are fenced out of the streams there are significant reductions in fecal coliforms, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total solids in the streams. Also, from the cow standpoint, hoof health and udder health are generally better in cows that are not allowed to stand in water. This guidance does not specify a suggested buffer zone width, but even a simple poly wire along the bank can have benefits for water quality and animal health.
The other measure that relates directly to grazing operations states: “Minimize nutrient and soil loss from pasture land by maintaining uniform livestock distribution, keeping livestock away from riparian areas, and managing stocking rates and vegetation to prevent pollutant losses through erosion and runoff.” Many well managed grazing operations are already implementing practices that would address these issues as too high a stocking density without proper rotation will decrease pasture quality and intake. This measure also suggests that the streambank buffers, mentioned previously, should not be grazed except under specific circumstances.
The last measure directly addressing grazing operation states: “Manage runoff from livestock production areas under grazing and pasture to minimize off-farm transport of nutrients and sediment.” With properly managed pastures the vegetation should reduce and prevent a great deal of runoff, but high traffic areas and compacted soils can facilitate runoff from pasture areas. It is unclear how sacrifice lots/paddocks fit into these regulations, but the goal of all of these measures is to eliminate as much as possible all runoff from agricultural operations and that includes cultivated fields, barnyards, pastures, and sacrifice lots.
It is unclear how these specific measures will play out in Pennsylvania, but it is clear that more regulations are coming and they will impact everyone.
Pasture walks scheduled: Below are three pasture walks I will be involved with and presenting some of this information and how these new Chesapeake Bay regulations might impact you.
June 29th Amos Ebersol at 590 Red Hill Rd, Narvon, PA. A conventional jersey operation with a thriving direct marketing business. Karl Dallefield of Midwestern Bio-Ag will be speaking. Lunch will be provided.
June 30th Roman Stoltzfus at 1143 Gap Rd, Kinzers, PA. A highly diversified organic dairy grazing operation. Karl Dallefield of Midwestern Bio-Ag will be speaking. Lunch will be provided.
July 21st Stephen T. Stoltzfus at 5268 Amish Rd, Kinzers, PA. An organic dairy operation. Dr. Gregory Martin of Penn State Extension will be speaking on fly control. Lunch will be sponsored by Beitzel’s Spraying.
“Habitats” and the “lower food web” are terms that are probably not familiar to many of us, but they are part of the overall health evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay. Bay grasses, phytoplankton, and bottom habitat are all measured to determine the overall habitat and lower food web score, which is then compiled into the overall bay health score. Like the water quality issues discussed in the last column, what happens on the land can directly impact habitats and the lower food web of the Chesapeake Bay.
Bay grasses are doing relatively well with 42% of the goal achieved for the number of acres of bay covered, and 99% of the goal has been reached in the upper sections of the bay that are most influenced by what happens here in Pennsylvania. There are 16 species of bay grasses and they provide shelter and food to aquatic organisms, improve water clarity, decrease shoreline erosion, and add oxygen to the water. Bay grasses, like grasses on land, need nutrients and sunlight to thrive. Therefore, you might think that the excess nitrogen and phosphorus going into the bay would be helpful to the bay grasses, but the decrease in water clarity caused by excess nutrients (discussed in last column) blocks sunlight from reaching the plants and actually leads to a reduction in grasses.
Bottom habitat is a complex measurement and, like bay grasses, is doing relatively well with 42% of goal attained. The bottom habitat score is reflective of organisms, like oysters and shellfish, which live and feed on the floor of the bay and other organisms that live above and below the sediment surface. The bottom habitat is a good measure of the health of the bay because these organisms cannot move away from pollutants like fish and other more mobile organisms can. Lack of dissolved oxygen is the main cause for a decrease in the quality of bottom habitats and low dissolved oxygen is caused by excessive nutrients in the water as addressed previously.
Phytoplankton is a type of algae and is the main algae involved in the “algae blooms” that occur in the bay during the summer months. Phytoplankton serves as the base of the food web, which means it is a primary food source for many organisms in the bay, and is a primary producer of oxygen for the bay. Although phytoplankton is a good thing for the bay, too much of it, or more than organisms can consume, leads to excessive growth or blooms. These blooms eventually die and when that happens oxygen is removed from the water leading to death of fish and other aquatic organisms. Phytoplankton is sensitive to salt so they are more prevalent in fresh water areas of the bay, i.e. the upper section of the bay closer to Pennsylvania.
The Chesapeake Bay has a very diverse population of aquatic plants and organisms but if the balance of these populations is tilted in a certain direction the consequences can be great. For you dairy farmers out there, you can best relate this to the rumen of cows. There are a number of different bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and yeast in the rumen at any one time, and just like the bay, if they are overfed certain nutrients the balance of these organisms in the rumen is negatively impacted along with productivity.
We hear a lot about the “health of the Chesapeake Bay”, but what does that really mean? The health of the bay encompasses three categories; water quality, habitats and lower food web, and fish and shellfish. These three categories are combined to give you the overall “Bay Health” score, which, as of 2008 is 38%, with 100% being a fully restored ecosystem. Since the dairy industry is continually asked to do more to improve the water in the Chesapeake Bay it is important that we understand how we are being evaluated.
“Water quality” gains the most attention in many bay health discussions and is directly impacted by agricultural practices. With respect to the Chesapeake Bay, water quality encompasses four specific parameters: dissolved oxygen levels, water clarity, chlorophyll a levels, and chemical contaminants. Unfortunately, the long- and short-term trends show that only 21% of the water quality goals have been reached and they are not moving in the right direction.
Dissolved oxygen is the amount of oxygen in water. Just like animals on land, fish and other aquatic organisms need oxygen to survive, especially during spring spawning in the shallow waters. Oxygen in the bay water comes from infiltration from the air, underwater grasses (which work much like plants on land), and river and ocean water. Settling and decomposition of algae is the main cause for low dissolved oxygen levels in the Chesapeake Bay. Algae are a food source for many organisms in the Chesapeake Bay, but if there is more algae than the fish and aquatic organisms can eat it will grow out of control and eventually die. When it dies it decomposes. The decomposition consumes much of the oxygen in the water creating an environment where fish and other aquatic organisms cannot survive. These algae blooms are caused by excessive nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that enter the bay from rivers and streams. Therefore, dissolved oxygen levels are a very good indicator of nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay.
Water clarity is a measure of the amount of sunlight that can penetrate the water. Just like land plants, aquatic grasses need light to grow, and light is also important to aquatic organisms so they can see prey and avoid predators. Sediment and plankton are two of the main causes of decreased clarity, but algae blooms can also decrease water clarity. Therefore, water clarity is influenced by the amount of nutrients reaching the bay as well as the sediment that leaves the land.
Chlorophyll a is a green pigment that allows plants to grow, much like plants on land, but a is predominant in algae. Therefore, chlorophyll a is a direct measurement of algae in the bay. As mentioned previously, algae is the base of the food chain in the bay so it generally a beneficial organism, but if there is more than can be utilized it can decrease clarity and reduce oxygen in the water. It is also a very good indicator of nutrient loading.
Chemical contaminants are the last component included in the overall water quality score. Chemicals are monitored on 89 tidal water segments. Metals, like Mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hydrocarbons from gas, oil, and coal burning, and herbicide and pesticide residues are some of the major chemicals that are being monitored. Unlike the other water quality contaminants this one can have a direct impact on human health because fish and aquatic organisms tend to concentrate chemicals. Therefore, warnings are in place on the amount of fish people should eat from the bay.
Obviously not all of these water quality conditions are caused by agriculture, but agriculture does play a role and understanding the score card will make it easier to play by the rules.
Below is a nice article written in the Lancaster Intelligencier/New Era newspaper that talks about a project that I am lucky to be involved with. Penn State received a grant and that money was matched by other sources to fund whatever is needed to improve the water quality in an agriculturally impaired watershed. At the most basic level this is a huge experiment to see what works and what progress can be made when all available resources are concentrated in a small area. This will be a huge learning process for everyone involved in the project, and the goal is not only to just clean up this particular watershed, but to take those lessons learned to other watersheds and hopefully clean up those as well.
Actual article:
Local watershed may be key to saving Chesapeake Bay
Conewago effort to serve as model
By AD CRABLE, Staff Writer
The Conewago Creek watershed — a sparsely populated but heavily farmed area at the junction of Lancaster, Dauphin and Lebanon counties — is being put in a big test tube.
A unique grass-roots cleanup strategy being tried here, if successful, may become a model for how to clean streams across five states and make meaningful strides in restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
And, not so coincidentally, it night help Pennsylvania farmers avoid crackdowns and residents prevent hits in the pocketbook.
President Barack Obama has issued an executive order calling for stronger action to clean up the bay. LancasterCounty is in the cross hairs.
As part of that accelerated marching order, Conewago Creek, with its two-dozen tributaries, has been tabbed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as Pennsylvania's "discovery watershed."
The watershed covers three townships in northwestern LancasterCounty.
Two similar experiments will be tried in Maryland and Virginia, but only the Conewago is under way.
Initial funding for the three-year project totals $1.5 million, but more is expected to be funneled into the effort as it gathers steam.
An ambitious grass-roots watershed group has joined forces with local officials, PennState and a gaggle of federal and state agencies to attempt a from-the-bottom-up approach.
At least 15 entities are aboard the public-private partnership, known as the Conewago Creek Collaborative Conservation Initiative. Together, they'll try to restore an entire watershed, not by edict or mandatory regulations, but with a voluntary communitywide plan.
The hope is that communities will be infused with a sense of shared responsibility and roll up their sleeves.
The diversity of partners means the technical advice, manpower, money and rapport with landowners are already aboard.
The partners will be working with a nod toward what's happened with Lititz Run. There, WarwickTownship officials, farmers, residents and groups such as the Donegal Chapter of Trout Unlimited have made huge progress in restoring the stream.
"We don't have to reinvent the wheel. We have to take what happened in WarwickTownship and transfer it to the Conewago," Kristen Saacke Blunk, director of PennState's Agriculture and EnvironmentCenter and head of the Conewago project, said.
SouthLondonderryTownship in LebanonCounty already has begun rallying the troops.
"We welcome this involvement," township supervisor Rugh Henderson said. The township formed an environmental advisory council to encourage residents to make their properties, regardless of size, better able to store water and reduce fertilizers and pesticides.
"We have two dozen natural areas. We have wildflower gardens. We're ready," Henderson said.
To that end, the Conewago project is holding a seminar for watershed residents and municipal officials on how to protect water quality in backyards. It will be held at 9:30 a.m. Saturday, April 10, at the Lebanon Ag Center on Cornwall Road in Lebanon.
An unprecedented level of monitoring will be deployed in waterways in the Conewago watershed so that even minute improvements in water quality can be shown to each participating landowner, proving they are making a difference.
Gauges will keep close tabs on such vital signs as dissolved oxygen, sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, flow and water temperature.
Every farmer, each municipality and all 3,000 homeowners will have to want to do something on their land to make it healthier.
As Don McNutt, the Lancaster County Conservation District's administrator, said, "Anybody in the Conewago watershed is part of the problem — and part of the solution.
"Storm water needs to be treated as a resource rather than just blowing it out through pipes into these 24 streams."
Added Mike Hubler of the Dauphin County Conservation District, "It's everybody's watershed, and you have to do it down to the lowest common denominator — and that's the individual landowner."
For the homeowner, perhaps it's plugging a gutter into a barrel to catch rainwater, planting a rain garden or checking to see if the septic tank is working properly.
For township supervisors, it might be pushing for more-than-required storm-water controls with new growth.
"It's got to be a whole community approach to be successful," Blunk said.
"There are going to be things just about anybody can do that can make a difference."
Clearly, much will be expected of farmers.
Perhaps they'll fence off livestock or give up a little ground from crop fields to allow plantings of filtering trees and shrubs along creeks. Or perhaps they'll sign up for a slew of experimental cutting-edge farming techniques that are being freed from laboratories or demonstration plots to be tried here.
Among them are:
• A device that can be used in no-till farming that injects dry manure into the ground, where it won't smell, run off the fields or release ammonia, a greenhouse gas.
• Feed for cattle and poultry that uses less protein so their manure contains less nitrogen.
• Bag digesters, consisting of a cover placed over manure lagoons to capture methane, a greenhouse gas.
In addition, tried-and-true conservation techniques will be pushed, such as buffers of trees and shrubs along streams, crop rotation, cover crops and filter strips.
•••
Conewago Creek, which is the boundary between Lancaster and Dauphin counties, has a watershed that encompasses 53 square miles and 3,000 households.
In LancasterCounty, the creek drains Conoy, West Donegal and MountJoy townships. Elizabethtown gets a large portion of its drinking water from the Conewago.
MountGretna is the only borough within its borders, and the dammed stream forms MountGretnaLake. Many horse farms and stables are located there.
From its headwaters on state game lands near MountGretna, the stream empties into the Susquehanna between Falmouth and Three Mile Island.
Like many streams in the area, Conewago Creek is often laden with farm-related nutrients and muddy from bank erosion and runoff. It floods easily.
And like many waterways here, the stream and many of its 25 tributaries are officially designated as "impaired," meaning they can't support the fish and richness of aquatic life they could if they were healthy.
In a broader picture, the silt and nutrients that the waterways send downstream contribute to the pollution and decline of the Chesapeake Bay, the largest, richest estuary on the continent.
Most of the pollution is caused by runoff from agriculture, which accounts for just over half the land use in the Conewago Creek watershed. But housing developments, leaking septic systems, sewage treatment plants and some industrial uses in the watershed also contribute.
•••
Matt Royer grew up on a chicken farm along Conewago Creek on the DauphinCounty side.
One day, he and his father, Hal Royer, were talking about how the stream's health was clearly declining.
Matt Royer began tacking up broadsides in the area, inviting anyone interested in forming a grass-roots watershed group to show up at a meeting.
Anglers, a biology professor from ElizabethtownCollege, the Milton Hershey Foundation — the largest landowner in the watershed — and lots of interested residents did just that.
The Tri-County Conewago Creek Association was formed in 1992 and hit the ground running. Royer is its president. He also serves as staff attorney for the Pennsylvania office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and is on the guiding committee for the Conewago project.
The new group obtained a grant and hired consultants to study the watershed extensively and map what it would take to restore it.
Some 129 projects were outlined, and the group marshaled hundreds of volunteers and signed up farmers for four major improvement projects, from planting several thousand trees for stream buffers to performing bank stabilization work.
That ability to get boots on the ground is one reason the Conewago was chosen for a centerpiece project. Another was the manageable size of the watershed and the fact that the 2008 Farm Bill targeted small watersheds to fund conservation measures. A third was PennState's search for a place to try all the research its staff was tinkering with.
"At the end, we hope to be able to say here's how we did it and here's what it takes to make changes daily," Blunk said.
One thrust of PennState's involvement is to help farmers, landowners and communities obtain dollar value for doing the right thing for the environment.
Increasingly, she said, land-use actions that prevent greenhouse gases are being viewed as having monetary value, called carbon credits, and markets are developing to pay those who hold credits.
Getting money should encourage more landowners to adopt conservation measures, she said.
But the trick is measuring the value.
How much value do you attach to a farmer who practices no-till farming or has a flood plain that recharges aquifers? Or to a homeowner who plants wildlife habitat rather than a carpet of grass that needs constant fertilizing?
To help develop the project's one-community goal, an Internet program will be created with a one-stop clearinghouse of information for everyone in the watershed.
"We want to show information to say (that) when you do a practice, here is an outcome that you can expect," Blunk said.
Otherwise, McNutt said, "It's like telling a farmer he needs to lose weight and not being able to tell him what he weighs or what the diet will be."
Officials working on the project admit feeling the pressure to produce. But they're also clearly energized by the fresh approach and the opportunity to try cutting-edge down-on-the-farm conservation practices.
"It is a little daunting, but it is exciting because it's an opportunity to really make this a great place to live," Royer said.
"It's an opportunity to improve the stream and make it a place everyone can continue to live and work in and make sure agriculture is an important part of the watershed."
