2.  The Grange recommends that all setback requirements in section 91.1 be measured from the center of a stream, not the stream bank since the stream bank is not as easily defined.

3.  The proposed regulations (91.36a) require Water Quality Management Permits to be prepared by engineers. We believe that an engineer should also review and approve these permits to avoid conflicts.

4.  The Grange also recommends that permit applications must be reviewed and action taken within a reasonable and specific time frame.  If DEP has not responded to the applicant within that time parameter, the application should be deemed approved.  DEP should also be required to state in writing why an application is denied and recommendations on how to correct the problem.

In her letter to the State Conservation Commission [letter and previous testimony attached to email], she also acknowledged the Grange’s general support of the regulations proposed by the Commission, and added 9 points:

1.    The definition of surface waters is too broad and includes intermittent streams, wetlands, and natural seeps.  A more specific definition is needed to determine setback requirements in the regulations.

2.    Throughout the regulations consistency is needed when using the term nutrients.  Our belief is that the regulations should specifically refer to nitrogen and phosphorus and not nutrients generally.

 3.    All regulations should be based on sound science, and scientifically developed conservation and nutrient management plans should take precedence over                 emotion.

4.    The new 100-foot setback from private wells should be reconsidered because private wells are sometimes placed on property lines. Farmers should not be hindered because a neighbor places a well at the property line.  The setback should be exempt if an adjacent property owner places a new well within 100 feet of a working farm.

5.    The 150-foot setback from surface waters should also be reconsidered when discussing importing farms.  We do not want to hinder importing farms unnecessarily.

6.    Phosphorus-based regulations of nutrients should be phased in so farmers are given a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance.  Also, P indexes should not be necessary for pastures.

7.   The Commission should provide cost share funds for changes and amendments to update nutrient management plans, all soil and manure testing, for cover crops, and alternative technologies.  These funds should be available regardless of debt.

8.  Annual manure testing is too excessive.  Once a consistent result is determined, farmers should not have to continue testing until changes are made to the farming operation.

9.    Since fall cover cropping in the northern tier may be difficult, the regulations should describe other practices that will be accepted for fall applications on low residue fields.  Also, any winter manure application requirements should be specifically outlined in regulations.

The Grange is a family fraternal organization dedicated to the betterment of rural America through community service, education, legislation and fellowship.  The Grange includes members of all ages from their Junior Grangers (ages 5-14), Youth Members (ages 14-35) and Regular Subordinate (Local) members (age 35 and up).  The Grange represents approximately 16,000 rural Pennsylvanians across the state.  It is the oldest agricultural organization of its kind in the United States. The National Grange (Patrons of Husbandry) began in 1867 and the PA State Grange was chartered in 1873. 

November 4, 2004

State Conservation Commission

Agricultural Building, Room 405

2301 North Cameron Street

Harrisburg, PA  17110

Comments on Proposed Rulemaking, State Conservation Commission

25 PA Code CH 83, Nutrient Management

The Pennsylvania State Grange has already testified on the nutrient management regulations on October 13, 2004.  (See attached testimony)  We would like to applaud the State Conservation Commission again on the Nutrient Management Package.  We are generally supportive of the regulations and believe that the Commission has been responsive to the needs of the agricultural community.  However, we would like to add the following comments to our testimony:

1.                  The definition of surface waters is too broad and includes intermittent streams, wetlands, and natural seeps.  A more specific definition is needed to determine setback requirements in the regulations.

2.                  Throughout the regulations consistency is needed when using the term nutrients.  Our belief is that the regulations should specifically refer to nitrogen and phosphorus and not nutrients generally.

3.                  All regulations should be based on sound science, and scientifically developed conservation and nutrient management plans should take precedence over emotion. 

4.                  The new 100-foot setback from private wells should be reconsidered because private wells are sometimes placed on property lines.  Farmers should not be hindered because a neighbor places a well at the property line.  The setback should be exempt if an adjacent property owner places a new well within 100 feet of a working farm.

5.                  The 150-foot setback from surface waters should also be reconsidered when discussing importing farms.  We do not want to hinder importing farms unnecessarily. 

6.                  Phosphorus-based regulations of nutrients should be phased in so farmers are given a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance.  Also, P indexes should not be necessary for pastures.

7.                  The Commission should provide cost share funds for changes and amendments to update nutrient management plans, all soil and manure testing, for cover crops, and alternative technologies.  These funds should be available regardless of debt.

8.                  Annual manure testing is too excessive.  Once a consistent result is determined, farmers should not have to continue testing until changes are made to the farming operation.

9.                  Since fall cover cropping in the northern tier may be difficult, the regulations should describe other practices that will be accepted for fall applications on low residue fields.  Also, any winter manure application requirements should be specifically outlined in regulations.

Thank you again for the opportunity to further delineate our comments on the proposed nutrient management regulations. 

Sincerely,

Brenda J. Shambaugh

Legislative Director

PA State Grange

1604 North Second Street

Harrisburg, PA  17102

(717) 234-5001

(717) 234-7654 – fax

Brenda@pagrange.org - e-mail

Good evening.  My name is Brenda J. Shambaugh and I am the Legislative Director for the Pennsylvania State Grange.  The Grange is a trade association representing 20,000 members from rural Pennsylvania.  Our membership includes farmers and rural landowners who may be impacted by the proposed Nutrient Management and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Regulations.  I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express my organization’s views concerning these proposals.

The Grange Agricultural and Environmental Affairs Committee is continuing to review the proposed Nutrient Management and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Regulations and may have additional comments after our annual convention later this month.   My remarks this evening are their preliminary thoughts and concerns.

In general, farmers are required to operate under more and more regulations.  Many of these individuals own small and medium farms without business managers and other staff to complete paperwork and accomplish the additional duties required of them.  Farmers cannot farm if they are in their office all day writing reports and filling out forms.  These already overworked and underpaid farmers are feeling the pressure of more government intervention and required regulations.  However, most farmers are already good stewards of their land so they understand some of the environmental concerns addressed in these regulations.  But they believe that laws and regulations have to be realistic.  We ask that any new requirements bring a minimum of paperwork and recording.  

I would like to emphasize that all farmers should not be required to have a nutrient management plan.  We understand that the proposed regulations do not specifically require these plans for all farms, but that is the number one statement I heard from our members when discussing this hearing.  Many of our members are small family owned and operated farms.  These individual are concerned that some believe all farmers should be required to develop and implement a nutrient management plan.  Because so many of our members recognized the importance of this issue, we felt compelled to state our policy and emphasize our opposition on mandatory nutrient management plans.

The Grange is concerned about the minimum property setback requirements for new manure storage facilities or expansions covered in 91.36 (a)(7) of the proposed CAFO regulations.   The term “relevant criteria” is used in the proposed regulations, which iS too open-ended and vague.  A similar problem occurs in section 91.36(b)(2) where the Department of Environmental Protection is given the authority to require setbacks for the spreading of manure around streams.  While we approve of a required setback from streams, we believe that the setback should be pre-determined at 100 feet or a vegetated buffer at 35 feet.   We recommend that both these section of the regulations be more specific and not left to the interpretation of the Department of Environmental Protection employees. 

The new Nutrient Management Regulations (83.351) prohibit the Commission or delegated conservation district from waiving manure storage distance restrictions relating to property line setbacks.  While that authority would be taken away from the Conservation Districts, a neighboring landowner within the property line setback area may waive the distance restrictions.  It seems that we are taking a sound science approach toward waiving the setback requirements and turning it into an emotional decision based on whether or not the neighbor approves.  In this age of technology and decisions based on sound science, it seems these regulations are going backwards, not forwards.  We strongly oppose this section of the regulations.

The proposed nutrient management regulations require a one hundred foot setback from active and inactive wells (83.294).  The Grange believes that this requirement should be amended.  If a well is inactive, we do not believe that the same setback should be required as active wells.  Perhaps a compromise would be a 35 foot setback for inactive wells.  That way water is protected, but it is not an over-burdensome requirement for farmers. 

Setbacks relating to the spreading of manure are discussed in both sets of proposed regulations.  In general, the Grange agrees that setbacks should depend on several factors including the slope and contour of the land, the season, and the cultivation practices used on the land.  All of these activities should be taken into consideration when determining setback requirements.  The bottom line is that setbacks cost farmers money.  They should be regulated as sparingly as possible.  Every time a farmer is told that he cannot farm his land, it means less money in his pocket.  We accept the 35 foot buffer and 100 foot setback as I stated earlier, but we also believe that those amounts should be considered as maximum amounts and should not be left to interpretation.

Under the proposed nutrient management regulations, nutrient management plans or nutrient balance sheets will be required for farmers who import manure.  Also, increased record keeping and spreading restrictions will be required for the importing farmer.  The Grange is concerned about the negative affect this proposal will have on infrequent importers.  These folks will help out a neighboring farmer on limited occasions.  They should not have to obtain a nutrient management plan or go through the time consuming paperwork involved in spreading imported manure.  We believe that there should be a threshold under which a farmer can import manure and not be covered under these regulations.

Again, thank you for allowing the Grange to discuss the proposed nutrient management and CAFO regulations.   I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

November 4, 2004

Environmental Quality Board

Rachel Carson State Office Building

15^th Floor

400 Market Street

Harrisburg, PA  17105-2301

Comments on Proposed Rulemaking, Environmental Quality Board, 25 PA code, Chapters 91 and 92, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Other Agricultural Operations

To Whom It May Concern:

The Pennsylvania State Grange has already testified on the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) regulations on October 13, 2004.  (See attached testimony)  We would like to applaud the Environmental Quality Board again on the CAFO Package.  We are generally supportive of the regulations and believe that the Board has been responsive to the needs of the agricultural community.  However, we would like to add the following comments to our testimony:

1.                  The proposed regulations differentiate between indoor manure storage facilities and outdoor manure storage facilities in section 91.36.  The proposed freeboard requirements are appropriate for outdoor facilities, but are not pertinent for indoor facilities.

2.                  The Grange recommends that all setback requirements in section 91.1 be measured from the center of a stream, not the stream bank since the stream bank is not as easily defined. 

3.                  The proposed regulations (91.36a) require Water Quality Management Permits to be prepared by engineers.  We believe that an engineer should also review and approve these permits to avoid conflicts.

4.                  The Grange also recommends that permit applications must be reviewed and action taken within a reasonable and specific time frame.  If DEP has not responded to the applicant within that time parameter, the application should be deemed approved.  DEP should also be required to state in writing why an application is denied and recommendations on how to correct the problem to.

Thank you again for allowing the Grange to submit these supplemental comments.

Sincerely,

Brenda J. Shambaugh

Legislative Director

PA State Grange

1604 North Second Street

Harrisburg, PA  17102

(717) 234-5001

(717) 234-7654 (fax)

Brenda@pagrange.org (e-mail)