U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                  Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal
                      Advisory Committee (FRRCC) Meeting

                              March 29 - 30, 2011
                            Sheraton National Hotel
                                 Arlington, VA

                             Draft Meeting Summary

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Call to Order/Discussion of Meeting Agenda and Committee Process
Alicia Kaiser, FRRCC Designated Federal Officer (EPA); Dr. Steven Balling, FRRCC Chair;
Lawrence Elworth, Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator (EPA); Abby Dilley, Facilitator (Resolve)

Ms. Alicia Kaiser (Office of the Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator, EPA), Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC), called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m. She noted that because the meeting is subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), it is open to the public and there will be time designated for public comment. In addition, there is a notetaker present, Beverly Campbell from SCG, to capture the meeting presentations and discussions for public record.  The summary of the meeting will be posted on the FRRCC Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/frrcc/), along with the presentations and handouts, following the meeting. She asked that members use their microphones and state their names when speaking for the record. She explained that there would be a working lunch and participants can purchase a box lunch from the hotel in the hall by the registration desk. Ms. Kaiser then reviewed the contents of the meeting folder, which included the agenda, the list of FRRCC members, the draft work plan with a timeline for moving forward from the fall meeting, the discussion group assignments, a proposed draft discussion group agenda and framework for the discussion groups, George Boggs' (Whatcom Conservation District, FRRCC member) comments on the draft discussion framework, a draft issues matrix for the discussion groups, some ideas for discussion group deliberations, and a meeting evaluation form. She also reminded participants who had not signed in at the registration desk to do so during the break.

Dr. Steven Balling (Del Monte Foods), FRRCC Chair, welcomed the members to the meeting.  He reminded the FRRCC members of their ultimate goal by reading the charge to the Committee:  to make recommendations to EPA on the most effective approaches to addressing water quality issues associated with agricultural production. The efforts on water quality issues related to agricultural producers are diverse, and this will be apparent in today's presentations. The goal of today's meeting is to move forward in the discussion groups and build on the work of the previous meeting. The discussion groups -- science, partnerships, and resources -- are the three areas selected by the Committee members to consolidate their thinking.  Each member signed up for one of these groups and the assignments were provided in the folder. There will be five presentations at today's meeting, including an evening presentation on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation programs.  During tomorrow's meeting, the discussion groups will determine the next steps that should be taken to move toward achieving the Committee's overall goal.  He noted that the FRRCC members' workload would increase to prepare for the June 22-23, 2011 meeting.

Mr. Lawrence Elworth (Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator, EPA) thanked the members for attending the meeting.  At the fall meeting, the Committee identified the three discussion groups as a way to structure the discussion.  He hopes that the FRRCC ultimately will provide effective, straightforward recommendations on what EPA can do to improve interactions with agriculture and make water quality protection and improvement a reality.  He asked the members to be frank, forthcoming, and as creative as possible in their discussions. He challenged them to look for new solutions and different approaches.  Noting that the Committee is comprised of a diverse, intelligent group of people, he asked that each member speak from his or her own experiences, and not as a representative of an organization.  Mr. Elworth added that the FRRCC members did not have to reach consensus on the recommendations and he encouraged the Committee to include alternatives, options, and different points of view in the report to EPA. He noted that it will be helpful for the Agency to understand where there is agreement and where the approaches diverge.

The presentations at today's meeting will follow-up on the presentations at the last meeting. They are intended to provide the members with a broad view of water quality issues in different regions across the country, specifically the Great Lakes (Michigan), Bay Delta (California), and Puget Sound (Washington).  EPA wanted to expose the Committee to the many diverse water quality issues across the Nation so that the FRRCC could identify common issues and themes that surface regardless of the location. This exposure adds credibility to the Committee's recommendations because it makes it clear to the public that the FRRCC looked at many different issues in formulating its advice to EPA. The evening presentation on USDA's conservation efforts was included on the agenda because there are some nuances in the programs that might be of interest to the Committee.

Ms. Abby Dilley (Resolve), FRRCC Facilitator, asked the members to introduce themselves. Following the introductions, she stated that goal of this meeting is to build on the discussions that took place at the October meeting. Some ideas for the discussion groups, included in the meeting folder, were gleaned from the October meeting summary. The discussion groups should extract lessons learned from the various examples that were discussed in October, as well as the ones presented and discussed at this meeting. They should identify what currently is working and what is not working, and the discussion should be focused around how best to provide advice to EPA on enhancing water quality in the nexus with agricultural production.

She suggested that the groups also spend some time formulating questions for the afternoon and evening presenters that relate to the specific discussion group themes.  This morning there will be presentations by Patty Birkholz, Director of the Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Tom Christensen, Regional Conservationist, Central Region, USDA, on water quality issues in the Great Lakes. Following the break, the discussion groups will receive their charge and instructions for the breakout session, which will continue through lunch.  After each discussion group reports the highlights of its deliberations back to the Committee, there will be an opportunity for the members to provide feedback. The afternoon also will include presentations on West Coast water quality issues (Bay Delta and Puget Sound) by Mike Machado and Ron Shultz. There will be an opportunity for public comments at 4:45 p.m., followed by a short dinner break before the evening presentation on USDA's conservation programs by Rob McAfee.

Wednesday's agenda includes a morning breakout session of the discussion groups and time to report back to the Committee. The meeting will conclude with a plenary discussion that will cover the themes starting to emerge from the discussion groups, any information needs of the groups, and the steps to be taken before the June meeting to build up the momentum and identify potential recommendations. She reiterated Mr. Elworth's earlier comment that the Committee does not need to reach consensus; it is charged with identifying and analyzing options and insights that will be most beneficial to EPA in achieving the goal of protecting and improving water quality as it relates to agriculture.

Ms. Dilley stated that the dialogue is primarily among the members seated around the table. There will be time for public comments at 1:30 p.m., before the meeting adjourns at 2:00 p.m. She asked individuals who wish to make a public comment to sign up at the registration desk.  Each public comment will be limited to 3 minutes; comments also may be submitted in writing.

Ms. Dilley encouraged full participation during the plenary and discussion group sessions to take advantage of the diverse expertise of the members.  She asked the members to address the issues in a productive, collaborative manner. Noting that there may be some strong opinions on certain issues, she reminded the members to respect each others' opinions and to follow the facilitator's rule:  disagree without being disagreeable. Explaining that the breakouts are intended to be working sessions for the FRRCC members, she asked other attendees to refrain from taking part in those discussions.  In closing, she reminded the members to use their microphones, to raise their tent cards when they would like to speak, and to silence their phones and other devices.

Updates from the EPA Agricultural Counselor
Lawrence Elworth, Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator, EPA

Mr. Elworth provided the FRRCC an overview of some of the ongoing activities at EPA that relate to agriculture.  Although not all of these efforts relate to water quality, they are significant issues. He explained that this will be a quick presentation so if a Committee member would like additional information on any of these efforts, they should let him know.

There are two basic facts in Washington right now. One is the continuing resolution, and the other is the fact that there has been an increase in the number of hearings on Capitol Hill. Mr. Elworth commented that those who went through the Federal Government shut down during the Clinton Administration probably are less distracted by the current discussions than those who are dealing with it for the first time.

The EPA Administrator has been in more hearings than any other member of the cabinet. Many of those were appropriations hearings but there have been oversight hearings as well. The EPA Administrator recently spent 3 hours at a hearing before the entire House Agriculture Committee. One of the issues raised at that hearing was whether EPA would grant the E15 waiver for ethanol on 2001 and newer vehicles. EPA actually granted that waiver and began working on rulemaking for labeling to go on pumps and various other activities that happen at the state level. As soon as EPA granted that waiver, however, the Agency was sued by a coalition that included the livestock industry, the petroleum industry, gasoline retailers, environmental groups, and the American Snack Food Association.  Last week in Fresno, the Agency heard serious concerns from the livestock industry about the effect that the increased ethanol blend will have on the cost of livestock feed. E15 is not yet available in the marketplace for a number of regulatory reasons.

The topic of dust also was raised at that hearing.  The issue of concern is EPA's regulation of both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter (PM10); in particular, people are worried about what compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will mean for dust in farming areas. EPA has held meetings across the country in various locations -- Riverside, Spokane, Des Moines, St. Louis, and Denver -- to hear the concerns of the agricultural community. The Administrator has stated repeatedly that EPA will not act until the Agency hears their concerns; EPA is in the middle of a 5-year review of this issue.  The current science would justify retaining or altering the standard, but there will be plenty of opportunity for comments before the Agency moves forward.

There has been a lot of press about what EPA is doing to regulate milk spills. The Agency has been working with the milk producers, making sure that there has been no enforcement of existing rules. EPA is in the process of submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a rule that would exempt milk producers from any regulations under the Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule. EPA has been working on this for a couple of years, and it should be completed within a month.

There has been enormous discussion recently about the Pesticide General Permit. The Administrator was questioned on it extensively by both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees. In short, the current Pesticide General Permit does not cover terrestrial applications of pesticides or spray drift, and it does not alter the existing exemptions for irrigation return flow or for agricultural stormwater. In response to questions from Representative Crawford at the hearing, the Administrator clarified that the permit does not cover what is happening in rice fields. There is a great deal of discussion about what should and should not happen with this legislation. Mr. Elworth stated that there is legislation on the suspension calendar tomorrow in the House that would obviate the need for a permit under the Clean Water Act for aquatic application of pesticides. The vote will probably take place on Thursday. There has not been a hearing or legislation introduced on the Senate side since last year. Some are concerned that this legislation will affect agriculture and impact aquatic pesticide applicators. EPA is in the process of providing a preview of the draft final permit to assist states in developing their own permits and to allow the regulated community to become familiar with the permit's requirements before it becomes effective. The Agency hopes to clear the permit with OMB on Wednesday or Thursday. In the meantime, EPA has asked the Sixth Circuit for an extension of time beyond the 2 years originally requested. Mr. Elworth explained that the court issued a mandate that anyone applying aquatic pesticides had to have a permit. The Agency asked the court for a stay for 2 years to implement the permit so that EPA would have adequate time to work with the states. In the process, the Agency also found out that it had to consult with the National Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. Because those consultations have not been completed, EPA asked the court for additional time. Mr. Elworth found out late last night that the court granted the request for an extension, so the Agency now has until October 31, 2011 before that mandate will go into effect.

Those FRRCC members involved with pesticide issues, especially those in California, are aware that EPA has been working with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under a court order, to develop biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for a range of pesticides. There has been much consternation on EPA's part about the science underpinning the decisions by the NMFS. On behalf of USDA, the U.S. Department of Interior, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Administrator Jackson has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the underlying science for these biological opinions and provide their expert feedback to EPA. The Agency also has had a number of meetings with NMFS, mostly in California and the Pacific Northwest, on ESA issues and the process. There is considerable concern that there is not adequate opportunity for the states to present their ideas on what would be useful for determining a legitimate, intelligent, and viable way to protect endangered species. Grower groups are concerned that there has not been adequate opportunity to review these biological opinions and the reasonable and prudent alternatives that growers and pesticide users are expected to follow. Therefore, EPA has established a working group with the NAS to develop a clear description of the process so that the opportunities for input, what data are useful and available, and how they can be presented are known. The Agency wants to develop a process that allows the public an opportunity to comment. There are a number of court decisions that have taken place, including the decision by the Fourth Circuit that says that the biological opinions are judicially reviewable; this will have a huge impact on the original decisions. In addition, there are a number of lawsuits filed by environmental litigants to cover virtually all pesticide uses, and EPA is being sued for not taking action to cancel the initial pesticide uses under the first biological opinion.

There has been some concern that EPA was going to take what has been happening in the Chesapeake Bay and apply it to the rest of the Nation; others have been concerned that the Agency would take the nutrient criteria being applied in Florida and expand it to the entire United States. The EPA Administrator was very clear several weeks ago in testimony before the House and Senate Agriculture Committees that the Agency has no intention of doing this. In fact, EPA believes that the best way to deal with nutrient issues is at the state level. The states have the resources and the ability to set priorities; they also have the best knowledge of what is available at the state level, watershed level, and farm level. Any work to be done on nutrients probably will be done by the states in concert with the NRCS and the Conservation Districts. EPA's role is to support the states as much as possible, both through the Regions and the work in EPA Headquarters with USDA.

With regard to the Chesapeake Bay, the total maximum daily load (TMDL) was published for the entire Chesapeake Bay at the end of December 2010. There were two other associated events that happened around that time.

One event was the release of a report by the Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council, prepared by LimnoTech, entitled "Comparison of Draft Load Estimates for Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed."  The report compared the Chesapeake Bay Program watershed model (used by EPA to create the new TMDL) to the first draft of a model used by USDA's Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). Mr. Elworth explained that CEAP is a multi-agency effort to quantify the environmental effects of conservation practices and programs and develop the science base for managing the agricultural landscape for environmental quality. The CEAP findings will be used to guide USDA conservation policy and program development and help conservationists and the agricultural community make more informed conservation decisions. The LimnoTech report concluded that some of the modeling for establishing the TMDL could be improved; it also suggested that different models should be used. Mr. Elworth indicated that EPA has asked its technical advisory committee for the Chesapeake Bay to figure out a way to do an independent review of the study.

The second event was a lawsuit filed by the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau that challenges EPA for implementation of the TMDL in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

A third event, which happened around the time the TMDL was published, was the distribution of a letter from USDA Deputy Secretary Merrigan and EPA Deputy Administrator Perciasepe to the state agricultural and environmental secretaries of all six Chesapeake Bay Watershed states. The letter asked the states to confirm their interest in pursuing a certainty program that will provide certainty to farmers who implement practices that protect water quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (referred to as "assurance" in the legislation introduced).  EPA hopes that this will be a constructive framework that states can use in providing producers incentives and recognition that accelerate the adoption of conservation practices and advance the objectives of the state Watershed Implementation Plans. In simple terms, if a farmer in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has a conservation plan that addressed the water quality concerns on his farm and was on a schedule with implementing it, then regulators will accept that this farmer has done what he could do to protect the Chesapeake Bay. If there were ever a need to require additional nutrient reductions, this farmer would not be asked to implement additional measures. EPA hopes that this addresses the farmers' concerns that the "bar" will be raised again sometime in the future, and that it will serve as an incentive for farmers to move forward in implementing conservation measures. A similar approach has been taken in Florida with the Florida Watershed Restoration Act.  EPA believes that this type of approach is best accomplished at the state level.  Mr. Elworth encouraged the FRRCC members to take a closer look at this novel approach.

In January, EPA published the proposed water quality standards (numeric nutrient criteria) for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. The Agency was sued shortly after the standards were published. Mr. Elworth asked FRRCC member Daniel Botts (Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association) if he would like to make a comment on what is happening in Florida. Mr. Botts confirmed that immediately after the numeric nutrient criteria were published, five different lawsuits were filed, one of which includes the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association. He noted that there was one piece of the proposed rule that he thought was positive; specifically, the alternative criteria process, which defines a way to allow some of the watershed work that has been done in Florida to continue. This would not be possible under Florida law. He mentioned that the five lawsuits were consolidated into a single suit, and the index to the record alone is 324 pages long in small type and spreadsheet formation. Given the size of the record that must be reviewed by the judge, it will take considerable time for a decision to be reached. There also is language in the proposed appropriations bill to defund any activity associated with implementing the numeric nutrient standard in Florida. There is legislation pending in Florida to prevent the Department of Environmental Protection from implementing anything associated with the numeric nutrient standard; this legislation is likely to pass and be signed by the Governor. It is clear that there is little to no cooperation in Florida on this issue.

Mr. Elworth said that he would be happy to answer any specific questions about any of the issues mentioned in his update. In response to a question concerning the extension for the mandate to implement the aquatic pesticides permit, Mr. Elworth explained that he heard late last night that the court has granted the request for an extension, so the Agency now has until October 31, 2011, rather than April 9, 2011, before that mandate will go into effect.

Mr. Elworth asked if there were any issues on which the Committee would like additional information.  He agreed to provide a copy of the letter from Bob Perciasepe and Kathleen Merrigan to the FRRCC members.

Tom McDonald (JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding, FRRCC member) asked about the Fifth Circuit Court decision on the CAFO Rule.  What happens next?  After the decision is rendered will EPA have to republish?  How will the permit move forward?  Mr. Elworth said that this is something the attorneys are looking at right now so he would have to consult them and then get back to the Committee with an answer.

Mr. Elworth asked Dr. Ann Sorensen (American Farmland Trust, FRRCC member) to introduce the first two presenters, who will be speaking about Great Lakes water quality issues. Dr. Sorensen stated that the first speaker is Tom Christensen, who is the Regional Conservationist in the Central Region for USDA's NRCS. He supervises the 15 State Conservationists in the central region, and he is based in Washington, DC. He has worked with NRCS for more than 30 years in eight different locations, including North Carolina, New York, Idaho, and Illinois. His last 13 years have been spent in the headquarters office in Washington, DC.

The second speaker is Patricia Birkholz who was recently appointed by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder as the Director of the Office of the Great Lakes. She has completed two terms in the Michigan Senate, three terms in the Michigan House of Representatives, and she chaired the Senate Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee, where she provided leadership on a variety of key Great Lakes issues.

Private Lands Voluntary Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin
Tom Christensen, Regional Conservationist, Central Region, NRCS, USDA

Mr. Christensen provided a brief history of the NRCS. Hugh Hammond Bennett was the founding father of the NRCS. He was the first Director of the Soil Erosion Service, which later became the Soil Conservation Service and is now the NRCS. Mr. Christensen showed a photograph of Mr. Bennett at his home in McLean, Virginia. The photograph was taken in 1960, the year he passed away. He explained that many of Mr. Bennett's philosophies and approaches greatly inform NRCS' work today, including:

   oo Can't do conservation work from behind a desk or truck windshield.  There is a major initiative underway to streamline NRCS processes, and there is a goal of getting staff out in the field at least 75% of the time.
   oo Good science must be the foundation for conservation. Conservation practices and technical tools have to be founded on good science.
   oo Can't treat natural resource concerns in isolation -- soil, water, air, plants, and animals -- plus humans must be considered in conservation solutions. There must be an interdisciplinary process to developing conservation solutions.
   oo Focus coordinated action on a watershed or landscape scale ("random acts of conservation" are not as effective as ones focused on a geographic basis). Conservation activities must be a system of practices in the context of the overall watershed or landscape.
   oo Local leadership is critical to success -- local leaders know the issues best and how to fix them (Soil and Water Conservation Districts [SWCDs], Resource Conservation & Development [RC&D]).

The elements of NRCS' private lands conservation approach include:  local leadership, voluntary approach, sound science and technical standards, high quality resource information, site specific and personalized, watershed or landscape perspective, progressive implementation, and adaptive management.

The decision-making process used when working with individual and groups of landowners is the Conservation Planning Process. This process entails looking at all the resource conditions and needs in the context of the operation in the watershed. The Conservation Planning Process results in the landowner's selection of systems of conservation practices that are used to address resource concerns. NRCS has a field office technical guide and a menu of about 170 conservation practices from which landowners can make selections. Many of these practices are adapted to local conditions, and they are predicated on sound science founded on trials, demonstrations, and practical application. In recent years, the conservation practices have been subjected to a public review before they were adopted by NRCS.

The country has reaped many benefits from conservation programs and practices. Through partnerships and the efforts of landowners there have been tremendous benefits across soil, water, air, plants, and animal resources. More recently NRCS is recognizing the energy benefits of conservation efforts. There has been phenomenal growth in conservation tillage. Chief White mentioned recently, in the context of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, that conservation tillage now is considered the norm by many producers. As a result, producers do not recognize it as conservation in surveys and it gets underestimated. Considerable progress has been made in reducing erosion and sedimentation. Wetland gains now outnumber losses on agricultural lands, and more recently, there have been significant gains in enhancing wildlife habitat on private lands.

The NRCS has learned that conservation works and it can improve the economic bottom line, which is important for the sustainability of agriculture. Watershed and site-specific conservation planning are needed to aid decision-making and achieve success. NRCS now is doing a better job of targeting critical areas with available resources, which improves effectiveness and efficiency. Technical assistance is critical to planning, implementation, and follow up. Effective adaptive management, after implementation, is vital. NRCS' new nutrient management standard recognizes the importance of adaptive management. NRCS also has learned that leadership and partnerships must be effective and sustainable to achieve success.

NRCS has a number of major landscape initiatives operational in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, including:  Bay Delta, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Illinois River Sub-basin and Eucha-Spavinaw Lake Watershed, Lesser Prairie Chicken Initiative, Longleaf Pine Initiative, Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative, New England/New York Forestry Initiative, North Central Wetlands Conservation Initiative, and Sage-Grouse Initiative. These initiatives reflect NRCS' efforts to target some of its resources toward a particular landscape and a suite of resource issues. For example, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is focused on nonpoint source issues as well as wildlife habitat. Additional funding from EPA has allowed NRCS to do this additional targeting for the Great Lakes Initiative. There is a wide variety of initiatives; some are species-oriented and focused on habitat and some are focused on water quality issues. Mr. Christensen presented a map that showed the geographic location of the various NRCS priority landscape initiatives. He noted that there about eight or nine additional initiatives that are in various stages of development; they have not been rolled out yet due to lack of sufficient funding. One of the new initiatives under development focuses on migratory birds in the northern plains.

With regard to the Great Lakes, about 75 million acres in eight states flow to the Great Lakes. Nearly one-third of the drainage area is agricultural land. There are more than 126,000 farms comprising nearly 24 million acres, including 16.7 million acres of cropland and 6.7 million acres of hay/pasture. The average farm size is less than 200 acres, with less than 10% of the farms greater than 500 acres. Major crops in the basin include corn (5.5 million acres) and soybeans (4.5 million acres); there also is some specialty crop production. The major livestock types in the area include dairy cattle and hogs.

Under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), EPA provided $34 million to NRCS in FY 2010, and the NRCS is hoping for some additional funding in FY 2011. This additional funding has been targeted primarily on near-shore and nonpoint source pollution issues, but also on wildlife protection and restoration as well as invasive terrestrial species control issues. The money is being allocated through five NRCS funding mechanisms:  Conservation Technical Assistance Program, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), Emergency Watershed Protection Program - Flood Plain Easements, and Farm and Ranchland Protection Program.

There are a number of challenges associated with working in the Great Lakes Basin. There is a wide range of land covers/uses (forest, agriculture ranging from cash crops to orchard and specialty crops, developing and undeveloped lands). In addition, agricultural land is being lost to other uses. Another challenge is that the climatic conditions limit the window for establishing cover crops after harvest. The colder, wet soils also hinder adaptation of no-till planting. Fine particles in sediments transport phosphorus and remain in suspension. Because of the cold, wet weather, the timing and method/placement of nutrients are critical. Management of agricultural drainage water is another challenge.

An additional challenge faced by the NRCS in working in the Great Lakes Basin is conducting outreach to people who have not participated in USDA conservation programs in the past. The 2008 Farm Bill has given the NRCS some tools to enhance these efforts, such as the cost-share rate, but this still has been a challenge for the NRCS. The intensity of technical assistance needed has been another challenge; nutrient management, for example, requires ongoing technical assistance.

About $5 million of the funding provided by EPA through GLRI went into Conservation Technical Assistance to aide with outreach to new or reticent landowners. Both the technical and financial assistance have been focused geographically, as well as on the suite of practices. The applications from landowners applying for assistance are ranked according to state and local priorities, and the NRCS is trying to be focused with its assessment of the results.

For the nonpoint source issues, NRCS, in concert with EPA, decided to focus on five major watersheds (St. Louis River, Fox River/Green Bay, Saginaw River, Maumee River, and Genesee River).  GLRI financial assistance is limited to core practices (e.g., nutrient management, cover cropping) effective for addressing the resource concern. Core practices for livestock include management of animal manure and limiting or eliminating animal access to surface water. There also is a suite of core practices for nonpoint source pollution that relate to reducing sediment and associated contaminants from running off the edge of the field (e.g., grass filter strip).

The core practices selected can target specific resource issues, such as wildlife habitat. For one project, NRCS worked with one of the tribes in upper Michigan to focus on barriers to fish movement. The fish passages contracted with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community will replace 12 culverts and open up 70 miles of streams to fish, including native brook trout. Because WHIP is a relatively small component of the overall effort, NRCS is convinced of the need to focus this funding so that it achieves tangible results. Another habitat project targets bird species (i.e., Goldenwinged Warbler and Bluewinged Warbler) habitat issues. This effort is focused in the State of New York.

With respect to invasive species, the most effective approach is to control invasives at the "fringe," where the population is still at a controllable level. NRCS has used some of the Conservation Technical Assistance funding to do demonstration projects just outside of Chicago, along the shore of Lake Michigan. These are highly visible projects that can be transferred to other areas.

One approach that NRCS could have taken to allocate the $34 million from EPA would have been to look at the land mass of a particular state in comparison to the total land mass that drains into the Great Lakes. With this approach, Michigan would have received an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of the funding. NRCS decided that a better approach for allocating the money was to look at targeted watersheds. This is why Ohio and Michigan received similar allocations; there was a focus on two watersheds in those states -- the Saginaw Bay Watershed in Michigan and the Maumee Watershed in Ohio. Among the five NRCS programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) has the most funding. A map showing the areas where the $34 million of EPA funding had been obligated in the past year was presented. This map showed how NRCS is using this funding in a focused way. A second map, which depicted the allocation of NRCS' normal programmatic funding, showed much broader activity in the states surrounding the Great Lakes.

Looking to the future in the Great Lakes Basin and beyond, NRCS needs to be strategic about conservation assistance. There is a limited supply of technical and financial assistance so NRCS wants to use the right amount, in the right place, at the right time.  NRCS is becoming much more cognizant about the importance of adaptive management and the need to work with producers to optimize the benefits of applied conservation systems.

One of the watersheds of particular interest to NRCS is the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB), which includes the Maumee. This watershed has some problems associated with harmful algal blooms (HAB) related to nutrient issues (dissolved reactive phosphorus).  The HAB problems could be related to:  no-till planted Roundup Ready-soybeans, fall/winter (surface) applied fertilizer, soil compaction leading to more runoff, manure application, or more land being farmed due to high crop prices. Conservation systems can effectively address all of these causes.

NRCS is working with a broad partnership to enhance the level of nutrient management in this particular watershed. NRCS is increasing the level of conservation in the WLEB through nutrient management, with an emphasis on the "4 Rs" -- right source (less prone to loss), right time (close to crop needs), right place (beneath the soil surface), and right rate (based on soil tests and crop need). Many producers do one or two of these things but only a limited number do all four of them in combination. This could be attributed to cultural or institutional issues, or perhaps a lack of technical assistance. The NRCS is convinced that enhanced nutrient management is a large part of the answer to improving water quality in the WLEB. NRCS is interested in a system of practices -- nutrient management AND residue management, filter strips, subsoiling, and cover crops). NRCS also is interested in looking at new technologies (e.g., crop reflectance, corn stalk nitrate testing).

One of the efforts instituted to enhance technical assistance is the establishment of Strategic Watershed Action Teams (SWATs). These teams accelerate conservation activities through outreach, conservation planning, practice implementation, and follow-up. NRCS has about $20 million in the Farm Bill for this technical assistance, and the funding is being concentrated on approximately nine of the landscape initiatives, one of which is GLRI. There are six SWATs in the GLRI-funded watersheds. In the next week or two, NRCS will be rolling out to the State Conservationists an additional $1.1 million in the Great Lakes; $366,681 will be added to this funding through the 25% match by partners through Contribution Agreements. This will add more than 30 staff years of technical assistance in the Great Lakes area over the next 2 years.

Mr. Christensen offered several conclusions:  (1) agricultural conservation practices deliver environmental benefits for the Great Lakes Basin; (2) inherent soil vulnerabilities in the Basin create a complex environment for agriculture conservation; (3) water quality, particularly related to sediment and/or nutrient loading, is the most critical conservation concern in the Great Lakes Basin; (4) systems of conservation practices are needed to manage complex nutrient loss pathways; and (5) targeting the most critical areas delivers the largest benefits.

Development has had a major impact on the loss of agricultural land in the United States.  By 2050, there will be 2.4 billion more people to feed, and at the same time the 2007 National Resources Inventory (NRI) indicates that U.S. cropland acreage dropped by 63 million acres between 1982 and 2007 -- from 420 million acres to 357 million acres. Thirty-six percent of the land developed in this country was developed during that time period. To close the gap between current food production and future food demand, food output will need to increase by 70% over the next 4 decades. This calls for new collaborative responses and a continuing and even stronger commitment to private lands voluntary conservation. Chief White refers to the 70/30 rule -- 70% of the contiguous United States is private lands, and the success of conservation will depend on what happens in that 70%.  The historic local, state, and federal partnership, complemented by the private sector (both nonprofit and for profit) will remain at the core of facilitating voluntary actions by U.S. farmers and ranchers. Private lands conservation is needed to continue producing high-quality food and providing essential ecosystem services in the Great Lakes Basin.

Discussion

Mr. Lee McDaniel (Harford Soil Conservation District, FRRCC member) noted that the GLRI is a multi-state initiative; however, there is another country involved as well. What is happening north of the border?  Mr. Christensen replied that he had a meeting with NRCS' Canadian counterparts a few months ago, but that discussion was not focused on the Great Lakes so he did not know any specifics about the efforts in Canada. He offered to follow up to get more information on Canada's conservation efforts in the Great Lakes.

Dr. Janis McFarland (Syngenta Crop Protection, FRRCC member) asked Mr. Christensen to elaborate on how the initiatives are prioritized and selected. How are the watersheds prioritized? Mr. Christensen responded that NRCS worked with the State Conservationists and State Technical Committees to develop a list of priority watersheds. This list was discussed at the state level and with EPA so that the selections would correlate with EPA's priorities. The ultimate selection was made by Chief White in consultation with NRCS staff. The number of initiatives selected also depended on the amount of funding available.

Dr. Richard Bonanno (University of Massachusetts, FRRCC member) asked Mr. Christensen to describe adaptive management. Dr. Bonanno said he views it as working with producers to develop and apply a system of practices. As more is learned, this knowledge is used to make changes that improve performance, while remaining consistent with the economics of the producer's operation. Dr. Bonanno then asked for input on how NRCS measures success. Mr. Christensen stated that the conservation practices are developed and implemented on a cost-sharing basis. These practices should yield results that can be incorporated into decisions. Observation and technical assistance are necessary to determine success (i.e., the practices lead to nutrient reduction).

Dr. Larry Sanders (Oklahoma State University, FRRCC member) asked about NRCS' consistency in considering comparative advantages of other partners. He noted that NRCS has a spotty history of working with the Cooperative Extension Service. Mr. Christensen responded that there may be some effort at the state level to do this, but it would be left to the discretion of the states. He pointed out that the partner must provide the 25% cost share required.

Mr. Boggs stated that Mr. Christensen identified how EPA contributed significant funding that complimented the NRCS program. He asked if NRCS sees other roles or activities for EPA that would support NRCS' efforts. Mr. Christensen replied that EPA can play an important role in monitoring and evaluation. For a Mississippi River Basin study, for example, EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are sharing the cost of monitoring to obtain the data to feed the models; EPA also will be involved in assessing the outcomes. Another role for EPA could be to provide funding to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) for development of conservation plans. NRCS cannot provide funding to NGOs, so EPA could fill this important role.

Mr. Lawrence Clark (Farm Pilot Project Coordination, FRRCC member) asked about the status of the National 590 Nutrient Management Technical Standard, which is being revised. What are the issues driving the changes?  Mr. Christensen replied that the public comment period closed about a month ago. He did not know the timeline for the release of the final standard but he expected that it would be finalized soon. The standard has been updated to promote enhanced nutrient management planning activities at the state level, and it delivers the minimum requirements for nutrient planning associated with USDA programs. Focus has been added regarding erosion control, efficient nutrient use, adaptive nitrogen management tactics, tile drainage, and better management of nutrient application.

Dr. Sorensen stated that two CEAP reports -- one on the Mississippi River Basin and one on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed -- indicate that critically undertreated (conservation treatment) areas contribute disproportionately to the water quality problems in these areas. What can be done to identify and address these areas? Mr. Christensen responded that NRCS has identified the watersheds and the next step is to identify the most vulnerable areas within each watershed. NRCS is starting to work on that.

Mr. Elworth asked what EPA can do to make the $34 million of funding more useful to NRCS. Mr. Christensen responded that the GLRI has been a positive experience for NRCS. The effort did not detract from other NRCS programs and activities, but rather it complemented and enhanced those efforts. In his opinion, NRCS has been very satisfied with the relationship with EPA.

Agriculture Producing Solutions -- Great Lakes
Patty Birkholz, Director, Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Ms. Birkholz explained that she was filling in for Cameron Davis, who could not be here. She noted that Michigan received more GLRI funding than any other state in the Great Lakes region. Given that Michigan is almost completely surrounded by Great Lakes waters, it is the state that probably is most impacted by what is happening in the Great Lakes.  Therefore, Michigan is very grateful for the GLRI funding and is trying to use it well.

One of the major topics of her presentation was a partnership relationship that was very successful. It made good use of science and the resources available in Michigan, and will serve as a great model for going forward.

Michigan was one of the states that was hardest hit in the economic downturn, but the state is doing better now and the economy is slowly improving. Michigan has a new governor, Rick Snyder. He is one of the former owners of Gateway, and consequently, is making efforts to enhance Michigan's information technology capabilities. Governor Snyder wants to be a true partner in this effort because he recognizes that the state's natural resources are essential to its economy.

Ms. Birkholz showed a view of the Earth from space and noted that that Great Lakes can be identified easily, even from that distance. They account for more than 20% of the world's fresh water. The Great Lakes are important to the future of the United States as well as the future of the world. Therefore, our country and the states surrounding the lakes need to be good stewards of this significant water resource.

Michigan has faced a number of challenges with respect to the Great Lakes, including a divided legislature, a skeptical public, and the lack of alignment among user groups. These water user groups are quite diverse and include farmers, manufacturers, small businesses, aggregates, fishing folk, the food processing industry, cement manufacturing, and others. Many of these and others have used Great Lakes water without regulation, acknowledgement of usage, or reporting of usage.

When the Michigan Senate began looking at the Great Lakes Compact adoption about 8 years ago, the Senate viewed this as a real challenge. Michigan is a strong property rights state, and many people thought that Michigan would never adopt the Great Lakes Compact. Because the Compact required adopting Water Withdrawal Laws, this made its adoption even more of a challenge. The Compact required that the Water Withdrawal Laws be adopted within 5 years of the Compact adoption. Ms. Birkholz believed that the best approach was to adopt the Great Lakes Compact and the Water Withdrawal Laws together at the same time, so that the state could deal with the Withdrawal Laws in concert with the Compact. Ms. Birkholz introduced Mr. Scott Piggott (Michigan Farm Bureau), who was involved with the Compact adoption, explaining that Mr. Piggott would be present for the remainder of the meeting to answer any questions because she was unable to attend Wednesday's session.

Agriculture's role in the Compact and the 2008 water legislation was very important. The law stated that water content of products (e.g., processed food, such as Gerber baby food) is not a diversion of water. The law also included provisions to protect the role of the Michigan Legislature. It was important to the Farm Bureau and others that the Compact uphold the riparian doctrine, and seasonal use provisions also were important. Another issue was the utilization of a water use assessment tool and how it would be implemented. The farmers wanted there to be no fees and no new rules associated with the Compact, and they wanted existing uses grandfathered. The law actually exempted the farmers from any fees for the first few years. In addition, the agricultural groups (Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development) needed to play a role. The farmers also wanted additional reporting time and an allowance for transferring grandfathered uses. The Michigan Legislature was able to accommodate all of these requests.

Another requirement of the law was the establishment of a water resources advisory council; therefore, the Groundwater Advisory Council was established in law. Its members had to be appointed by the Governor, the Majority Leader, and the Speaker of the House. The Council also had to include representation from all the user groups. It was required to meet regularly, report to the Senate Standing Committee, and coordinate with the House Standing Committee. The Council was charged with offering the Michigan Legislature a solution for dealing with water withdrawal in the future.

Passing the Compact required a great deal of groundwork by many user groups, including the Farm Bureau, businesses, large utilities, USGS, and others. Most of the people on the Council had never worked together before and there was even some animosity among different user groups. Because of the strict timeline before them and the regular reporting requirement, they began working together to accomplish their assigned task.

The Council's work resulted in a tool called the water withdrawal tool, and the tool was specifically incorporated into law. The tool is based on the health of Michigan's streams, with the determinant being the health of the fish. Ms. Birkholz said that she explained this to the media and the public by stating that "if the fish die, then we are taking out too much water to maintain a healthy ecosystem." The tool is designed to avoid adverse resource impact -- to prevent the fish from dying and to avoid law suits.

Before this law was passed in Michigan, water users were not required to report, so there were no official records. The well drillers were the only ones who knew the location and the depth of the wells, as well as the withdrawal rate. All of this information was stored in handwritten notebooks retained by the different drillers; there was no consolidation of the data among drillers and none of the data was entered into a database, which made it very difficult to access and search the data. Even the Public Health Department did not know the locations of the wells in the state because there was no reporting requirement. A water withdrawal recording law was passed, which was the first step taken before tackling the water withdrawal issue.

A great deal of information was needed for implementing the Water Withdrawal Law tool. Information on all the streams in Michigan had to be collected and entered, and Michigan State University provided considerable technical assistance in gathering and entering the information.

On October 1, 2008, the tool was available for evaluation and the water accounting began. On February 1, 2009, the water accounting was reset based on scientific data and a new, more refined definition of adverse resource impact. In July 2009, the online registration and the assessment tool were implemented. Now, anyone in the state can go on the site, plug in his or her coordinates and property information, and provide data on how deep he/she wants to drill and the expected withdrawal rate. Within minutes of entering the information into the system, the applicant will receive a "yes," "provisional yes," or "no." A "provisional yes" response means the applicant would have to provide additional hydrogeological data for consideration.

Ms. Birkholz stated that science-based decision making is critical to moving the economy forward, and policy makers play a role in helping the public understand its importance. She noted that Michigan's water withdrawal assessment tool won three national awards. The first one was from the Council of State Governments, which makes four regional peer-reviewed awards each year recognizing innovations in government. The second award was bestowed by the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) in 2010, and the third award was from the Renewable Resource Foundation for innovation in using science and science-based decision making.

One of the continuing challenges is the cost of updating the tool. It takes money and support to keep the tool up to date. In addition, there are saboteurs who would like to see the tool die a natural death. The seed corn planters in Southwestern Michigan, who use a lot of water, have hired a lobbying firm to try to repeal this law. With the downturn in the economy, the size of the staff working on the Water Withdrawal Law has declined from 10 full-time staff members to 4. This has made it difficult to keep the tool updated, which gives the saboteurs an opportunity to act. As the Director of the Office of the Great Lakes, Ms. Birkholz is working with some foundations to raise enough money to ensure that the law remains in effect and its implementation continues to move forward. The tool offers a good solution for Michigan, but the state cannot rely on a scientific-based tool if it is not updated regularly. Because this now has become a national model for partners working together collaboratively to address environmental challenges, it is critical that the state continue to support the tool and its implementation.

Ms. Birkholz pointed out that water withdrawal is only one of the issues facing the Great Lakes. The states are dealing with 184 invasive species, including the Asian carp. They also must continue to look at diversion requests and wetlands management issues. Michigan's Wetlands Law was revised almost a year ago, but the new legislature is unhappy with it and is considering a revision. Other issues include: Part 201 legislation implementation, areas of concern, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), nutrients in the Great Lakes, and CAFOs. She closed her presentation by stating that this approach has worked but it takes a great deal of effort by many different people to bring the partnership together, to keep it moving forward, and to ensure that science is integrated into the decision making and problem solving. She thanked the FRRCC for the work it is doing and expressed her regret for not being able to attend Wednesday's session.

Discussion

Dr. Bonanno asked if, like Massachusetts, Michigan claims to own all the water in the state. Ms. Birkholz replied that some of her constituents might believe that, but she did not. There are some maps that show the state boundaries for the Great Lakes; for example, with respect to Lake Michigan, Michigan owns a little more than half-way across the lake to Wisconsin. Dr. Bonanno noted that Ms. Birkholz focused her presentation on the withdrawal of water and the quantification of it. He asked her to relate that to the discharge side -- what is going back into the lakes. Is there a correlation there? Ms. Birkholz replied that she thinks there is a correlation, although she is not a scientist. Everyone needs water to live and in Michigan, the water also is an important part of the state's economic engine. To meet both of these needs, Michigan needs a clean water supply. With respect to pollution and nutrient runoff, the Great Lakes states need to do a better job. Many of Michigan's major cities have taken steps to improve their CSOs, but many smaller communities that were planning to float bonds to upgrade their sewer systems have not been able to do so because of the sluggish economy.

Mr. James Ford (Square "O" Consulting, FRRCC member) asked about the recourse for an applicant who receives a "no" response on his/her permit application. Ms. Birkholz responded that if the individual receives a "no" response, he/she can still apply to the department for a permit but the applicant would have to make a strong case for why he/she needs the permit and the department then would have to do a hydrogeological study before a permit could be issued. Since the Water Withdrawal Law has been in place, only two applicants have received a "no" response. Approximately two-thirds of the applicants receive a "yes" response immediately after they enter the data and submit the request on the website.

Dr. Jennie Popp (University of Arkansas, FRRCC member) stated that aquifers do not follow state lines. How does Michigan's Water Withdrawal Law impact its interactions and water agreements with its contiguous states? Secondly, has there been some consideration of the negative economic consequences that could result if an applicant is unable to drill a well? Ms. Birkholz replied that the test for withdrawing water does not include economic consequences. The test is based on whether the aquifer from which the water would be withdrawn would remain stable. The primary goal is to ensure that the aquifers remain healthy. With respect to the question about contiguous state interactions, Indiana would be the primary state; there have been some discussions between the two states but there currently is no formal agreement or memorandum of understanding. Ms. Birkholz stressed the fact that both states have to respect each other's laws. Now that the states within the Great Lakes Basin have to either adopt or update their withdrawal laws to come into compliance with the Compact, many are adopting Michigan's Water Withdrawal Law or something similar.

Dr. Sanders stated that Oklahoma is nearing the end of developing a 10-year comprehensive state water plan, and one of the challenges has been the public misunderstanding of consumptive versus nonconsumptive water use, especially with respect to agriculture. Has Michigan conducted some special scientific studies or education programs to give agriculture due consideration that water withdrawals are not necessarily equated to consumptive use? He explained that much of the water used by agriculture is returned to the watershed. Ms. Birkholz confirmed that Michigan has recognized the need for scientific studies to better inform the state and the public on this issue. It became particularly clear that more scientific data are needed with regard to the corn seed growers in Southwestern Michigan. USGS plans to partner with the state on this study, just as USGS was involved in establishing the Water Withdrawal Law. There definitely is some misunderstanding about farmers and water return. It is not clear how much water is returned to the watershed and the rate at which it is returned. Evaporation and other issues come into play. Ms. Birkholz noted that the state needs to do a better job of educating farmers about the amount of water needed to prevent overwatering and to verify that the aquifer gets recharged. Overuse on one farm could lead to a neighboring farm's inability to withdraw from the aquifer.

Ms. Martha Noble (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, FRRCC member) asked about water quality standards for multijurisdictional situations such as the Chesapeake Bay. Similarly, the Great Lakes region involves a number of states and two countries. How do the water quality standards work in the Great Lakes? Are there common water quality standards for the lakes that must be met by all the states and Canada? Ms. Birkholz replied that there have been attempts to establish a common water quality standard, but she did not feel qualified to comment on the issue. The Michigan Legislature did not really address water quality standards when she was in the state senate, but she expects that this will receive more attention in the future. Both Quebec and Ontario worked closely with Michigan on the Water Withdrawal Law, and have kept up to date on its implementation. They are considering similar laws in those two provinces. Because there was no forum for binational legislators to work together, she founded the Great Lakes Legislative Caucus. As a result, there are more binational discussions taking place and she expects they will continue with the goal of developing an action plan for the Great Lakes.

Mr. Omar Garza (Texas Mexico Border Coalition, FRRCC member) asked about the partnerships that were developed in the process of establishing the Water Withdrawal Law. Michigan's population has become very diverse; for example, Michigan now has a large population of Hispanic farmers. What was done to include these diverse groups into the planning and rulemaking process? Also, in the presentation, Ms. Birkholz mentioned that the Farm Bureau was involved, but were there other groups, such as the Soil and Water Conservation Districts and less traditional organizations, included in the planning and rulemaking process? Ms. Birkholz responded that there is a large Hispanic population in Southwest Michigan; many of the Hispanic farmers are involved in raising blueberries and similar crops as well as traditional agriculture. She worked very closely with them in the process of establishing the law. They were involved with the Conservation Districts and Agricultural Extension Service, which were active in the whole process. The Farm Bureau did represent the farming community in the process, but the Farm Bureau interacted with these other groups to represent them as well. The goal was to bring broad representation to the table, but to keep the Council at less than 20 members; therefore, some members represented multiple groups. She noted that the working group she established to start the process and to move it forward, beyond the Groundwater Council, was quite large and very diverse, and most of the members worked well together.

Dr. Lori Berger (California Specialty Crops Council, FRRCC member) stated that Ms. Birkholz mentioned that in order for this to be sustainable, the state must partner with foundations. Can you elaborate on that? Is this the way of the future? How does one prevent bias and ensure balance with that type of approach? Ms. Birkholz replied that there were a number of groups that helped with the process; USGS was part of the original Groundwater Advisory Council, and Michigan State University UFM helped with the database, so there were some initial partnerships. Now, Ms. Birkholz is looking to partner with 501(c)(3) organizations to help keep the database up to date. Because the Groundwater Advisory Council's work led to the tool and withdrawal law, and because this was the first in the Nation and a number of other states are trying to replicate what Michigan did, Michigan is proud of its accomplishment and those who were involved. As a result, not one of the 501(c)(3) organizations she has approached has turned her down. She is asking each of them to make a small contribution, about $5,000 to $10,000. Most of them want to see the Water Withdrawal Law succeed because it is required for the Compact; however, they do not want to continue to fund what they view as government activities. Ms. Birkholz has assured them that once the economy improves, the state should be able to support the database without such partnerships.

Dr. Janis McFarland (Syngenta Crop Protection, FRRCC member) asked about the redefining of the adverse resource impact with the fish endpoint when the model was refined in 2009. Does this assume a constant regulated water quality from discharge or is it solely related to the water withdrawal tool?  Ms. Birkholz responded that it was solely related to the water withdrawal tool. Dr. McFarland then asked if there would be separate discharge regulations or goals with the adverse impact to fish endpoint to ensure a specific water quality. Ms. Birkholz replied that the adverse resource impact was based on the health of the streams and the health of the fish. For the most part, it was based on levels, but there was some aspect of quality. She suggested that Dr. McFarland pose her question to Mr. Piggott, who can probably provide a more detailed answer. Ms. Birkholz commented that such a law probably will be needed in the future, but Michigan is not there yet.

Mr. Elworth asked about the parties to the Compact. Ms. Birkholz responded that the parties include all eight states and the two Canadian provinces -- Quebec and Ontario -- that border the Great Lakes. The Compact is a large document and its bottom line is that each state/province has to return to the Basin what water is taken out. The Compact also requires the parties to employ strong conservation measures. She mentioned that the Waukesha request from Wisconsin is the first request that will be presented to the Great Lakes Governors when they reconvene. Waukesha is on the Great Divide so some of the water it withdraws will not be returned to the Basin because it will return to the other side of the Great Divide. Based on criticism of its initial request, Waukesha withdrew it so that the request could be refined to include conservation measures, which is one of the central themes of the Compact.

Charge to Discussion Groups
Lawrence Elworth, Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator, EPA
Abby Dilley, Facilitator

Mr. Elworth said that he hopes the discussion group process will help the FRRCC focus on some very specific areas. The substance of the recommendations in the Committee's report will be based on the discussions of these workgroups. He asked the members to think of these discussions as informing the overall recommendations of the FRRCC to the EPA Administrator. That is why this meeting includes substantial time for these breakout sessions. There will be plenty of time for the groups to discuss various issues and then report back to the entire Committee. The FRRCC members will be able to ask questions and serve as a sounding board for the workgroups' ideas. These first few discussion group meetings should be viewed as an opportunity to focus deliberations and begin to define what will be addressed in the Committee's report.

Ms. Dilley mentioned the proposed draft discussion group agenda that was included in the meeting folder. She noted that there will be two discussion group sessions during the meeting -- one today and one tomorrow. Today's session will be an opportunity for the groups to get organized. Each group should identify a facilitator who will keep the discussion on track and someone to take notes to create a record of discussions and capture the important ideas. In addition, each group should designate someone to report the key points of the workgroup's discussion to the entire Committee when everyone comes back together. The notes will remind workgroup members of the discussions as they move forward and help provide background information for those who were unable to attend the workgroup meeting.

She charged each group to use this 2-hour session to develop a scope for the workgroup's discussions and identify the main themes on which the group will concentrate its efforts. She suggested looking at the themes that were identified in the previous meeting summary. Groups also could draw examples from the presentations at this meeting and from their own experiences. What is working well? Why is it working well? What is missing? What else needs to be done? When the groups come back together for the report out, there will be time for interchange among the groups to help refine the focus of the report, which will integrate the three themes (partnerships, science, and resources). She reiterated that each group should report on the scope of what it will address and identify some examples that can be used to support the recommendations. Ms. Dilley noted that there will be two more presentations before the second workgroup discussion session tomorrow. She suggested that it might be helpful for the workgroups to formulate some questions related to their themes for those presenters. For example, the Partnerships Workgroup may want to develop some questions for this evening's speaker, who will give a presentation on NRCS programs, because USDA is an important partner in working with producers.

Tomorrow's discussion group session will focus on developing a work plan. The groups also should identify any additional information they need to facilitate their discussions, what topics they want to address, and tasks to be completed before the June meeting. Ms. Dilley then asked if there were any questions about the process and expectations for the discussions. She noted that there will be several EPA staff members in each of the discussion group sessions to serve as resources.

Mr. Elworth mentioned the handout on ideas for discussion group deliberations that was included in the meeting folder. He stressed that these are just some ideas for the discussion; they are not meant to limit or direct the groups' deliberations in any way. Most of these ideas were drawn from the discussions at the previous meeting. He noted that there is a great deal of overlap between the three themes. It is difficult to talk about resources without looking at the value of partnerships in supplementing resources. Similarly, it is difficult to discuss science without addressing the resources necessary to do the science. In addition, transparency in science requires active working partnerships among the science organizations and the stakeholders. There is considerable intersection, which is why it is useful to report the deliberations of the groups to the overall Committee. He then went through the ideas in the handout.

The Resources Workgroup could look at what types of resources are necessary -- human, technical, financial. At what level are the resources needed (on-farm, local, state, federal)? How important is the term in which resources are available? What are the most effective and efficient ways to build capacity? How are the resources best coordinated and leveraged? Which entities are most effective at coordinating resources? How is accountability incorporated and assured in the use of resources? How are public and private benefits assessed and accounted for in the use of resources? What is the role of novel approaches such as trading, environmental financing, and markets?

The Science Workgroup could examine the science issues in the assessment of environmental problems. How are environmental conditions best monitored? What data are most useful? How is progress documented and verified? What is the value of modeling and how can it be done most effectively? How are the data collected and verified? What are the appropriate roles and methods for independent review? How can transparency and credibility best be assured? What are the science issues associated with the development, testing, and validation of new technology?

The Partnerships Workgroup could address the appropriate roles for partnerships. Where are they most valuable? What results can be expected of partnerships? What are the most critical needs for effective partnerships? What conditions are most conducive for public-private, private, and inter-agency partnerships? How do resources and science issues intersect with partnership development, support, effectiveness, and value? What results can be expected of partnerships? How is knowledge synthesized and effectively communicated for use from one partnership to another? How are organizational and management needs anticipated and met? How is capacity built and sustained?

Just before separating into the discussion groups, Ms. Kaiser noted one change to the group assignments listed in the meeting folder. Ms. Noble will be in the Science Workgroup rather than the Partnerships Workgroup because that is more in line with her new position.

Working Lunch/Discussion Group Breakout Session

The discussion groups met from 11:30 to 1:30 p.m. The Partnerships Workgroup met in the Galaxy Ballroom, the Science Workgroup met in the Stars II Room, and the Resources Workgroup met in the Stars I Room. Each workgroup reported the highlights of its discussion following the breakout session.

Discussion Groups Report Back to Committee
Abby Dilley, Facilitator

Ms. Dilley asked the members to listen to the report outs from the discussion groups and examine the scopes that they have defined for their groups. She encouraged the members to reflect on whether the workgroups are moving in a direction that is productive for the Committee. She also asked members to identify topics that may be missing from the workgroup scopes. In addition, the groups should identify any additional information they might need from EPA and others. They also should formulate questions for EPA that will help inform the development of their work plans during tomorrow's session.

Resources Workgroup
Dr. Robert Burns, University of Tennessee, Resources Workgroup

The types of resources needed fall into three categories:  (1) financial incentive resources, (2) technical assistance resources, and (3) educational resources. Financial incentive resources are directed specifically to giving incentives on the ground for making practice changes. Technical assistance resources are needed to provide technical guidance and assistance on making those practice changes on the ground. Educational resources are needed for educating the agricultural producers.

There was considerable discussion about the limiting factors. The group talked about whether there are enough people trained in the right areas but the group agreed that this will not be an issue if there is an incentivized system to make the practice changes. The group also identified an additional category of a special type of resources, which may be the primary one that is missing now. This additional category is resources for coordination and management of diverse funds that are being delivered. The group recognized that there are existing resources available in the three major categories; for example, there are educational resources through the land grant university system, and financial incentives and technical assistance resources through NRCS. The allocation of these resources needs to be done at the local level, on the ground, with the producers that will make a difference. There needs to be coordination to ensure that resources from federal, state, and local sources are focused on water quality issues. The workgroup had some discussions about how to manage this at the local level and there was general consensus that, if the goal is to improve the water quality in a watershed, it makes sense to focus resources on bringing about changes at the watershed level.

The group also discussed timescale. Dr. Burns referred to the adoption of no till as an example that he had shared with the discussion group. The no till technology worked and in most places there was an economic incentive to apply the technology; there also were clear environmental benefits. Nevertheless, it took 2 decades to get the technology to be widely applied across the country. Therefore, timescale is an important issue. How fast must the changes be implemented? Given that most of these technologies involve changes to cropping and production systems or modifications to parts of those systems on the ground, it will involve a commitment of approximately 5 to 10 years at a minimum. The group recognized that this timeframe does not always fit with political time constraints and the flow of funding, but the workgroup believes that it will require some long-term commitment to make a difference. In the very long-term, the group thinks that the markets must support the changed behavior for the system to be sustainable.

The group examined why practices that currently are damaging to water quality continue to happen. There are two primary reasons:  (1) there is a complete lack of understanding of why the practices should be changed, or (2) there is no economic incentive to change the practice. The group had some discussion about which reason is the primary driving factor and there was consensus that it is the lack of economic incentive. Most farmers understand, for example, that it probably is not good environmental practice to farm right up to the edge of the creek, but many do so because of the economic incentive of larger crop yields. If it is more profitable for a farmer to operate in a way that may not be best from a water quality standpoint, then the economic incentive is likely the primary driver.

The group also talked about how to train and educate farmers. Most group members agreed that the land grant university system, which already is in place, is capable of educating farmers. It seems logical that additional funding for this system would yield more progress with respect to educating farmers on environmentally beneficial practices. Specifically, the group thought it might be helpful to make long-term commitments to fund education focused on water quality improvements. Dr. Burns noted that because of limited resources, most land grant universities are forced to focus on getting resources through whatever grants are available; few have the luxury of focusing on the long-term changes that need to be made.

Dr. Burns then asked if any of the other members wanted to add anything to the report out. There were no additional comments.

Dr. McFarland asked if the group had a broader discussion of the different categories of resources needed for technical assistance. Dr. Burns replied that the group did discuss technical assistance resources; he asked if Mr. David Petty (Iowa River Ranch, FRRCC member) would like to respond to the question. Mr. Petty stated that there is some money available for technical assistance, but there is never enough. Technical assistance also is funded from a different NRCS source. Only the best projects usually get technical assistance funding, and most of these projects probably could get the funding from another source. There definitely is a shortage of funding.

The group also discussed the human resource aspect -- the fact that there may not be enough people qualified to provide the technical assistance. Dr. McFarland asked if the group differentiated between the technical assistance for helping to implement practices versus resources for research areas. Dr. Burns confirmed that the group talked about both -- specifically, the difference between the land grant university technical assistance and the NRCS technical assistance. With respect to technical assistance, the group discussed the limiting factor. The group agreed that if there is a market advantage/economic incentive to install systems that protect water quality, then technical assistance would not be the limiting factor. If there is a market-based incentive, then farmers would hire consultants to provide that technical assistance. The group believes that technical assistance is the least limiting of the three types of resources being addressed.

Mr. Ford said the group also talked about increasing the number of sustained technical assistance providers on the land where they can follow farmers' practices from year to year.

Mr. McDaniel asked if there was any discussion in the group about the efficiency of the grant process -- grant writing, review, and acceptance. He noted that much time is spent on this process rather than getting conservation practices on the ground. Dr. Burns replied that the group did not discuss the grant process specifically; they did, however, talk about the fact that there are fewer boots on the ground as a result of changes at NRCS and the land grant Extension Service. The time of the faculty members at land grant universities is focused on writing grants rather than on providing technical assistance because there is insufficient funding to run the organization without infusions of funding from grants. In addition, there are fewer Extension specialists at the land grant universities now than compared to 15 years ago. This issue also came up when the group discussed the term of these projects. The grants have short terms, which makes it difficult, for example, to keep a watershed coordinator funded for multiple years with a 2-year 319 grant. With the budget discussions taking place on Capitol Hill, the land grant universities are expecting to get less funding. These universities compete for grants that may or may not support water quality issues, and they typically do not provide long-term support of the types of individuals needed for the technical assistance required to improve water quality. Mr. McDaniel asked Dr. Burns if he found this to be an efficient way to function. Dr. Burns responded that he was probably too biased to answer the question. He noted that, at his university, they just eliminated 60 personnel in the last round of budget cuts, and they are finding it increasingly difficult to do the work that they have been able to do in the past.

Dr. Balling asked if the workgroup discussed market-based incentives and private infrastructure types of incentives. Dr. Burns confirmed that those were discussed. Dr. Balling noted that as the support from public infrastructure declines, more support is coming from private infrastructure. Dr. Burns thought this was an interesting comment and he agreed with it, but he cautioned that the Extensions, when they had a larger staff, used to work directly with producers at a greater level. Now, the Certified Crop Advisers (CCAs) and Technical Service Providers (TSPs) are working with the producers, but the Extensions are responsible for training this private technical group that works with the producers. Dr. Balling said that he did not mean to dismiss the Extension Service -- the Extension Service and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) are critically important to achieving the goal of improved water quality, but their reach can be expanded through these private groups. Dr. Burns agreed and noted that this has been the model of operation for the TSP for the past 12 years.

Mr. Elworth thought this was an important point. Many believe that there is a standing army of people in the agricultural community that is ready and able to provide these services with ever-decreasing resources to do the technical assistance and work needed to get information to the farmers. This is an issue that EPA has raised with OMB on a number of occasions. There have been policy promises with respect to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and EPA has made it clear that without the technical assistance for the farmers, it will be very difficult to make the necessary changes to meet the TMDL. He equated it to buying a bus without buying gas or providing a driver for the bus and then asking why it does not go anywhere.

Another critical point is that in using a systems approach, adoption of systems takes longer and requires more skills. Mr. Elworth asked about the ability of SWAT teams to deliver the same kind of technical assistance as that offered by people who are onsite for years. EPA has seen projects that took 2 or 3 years to get started because it took that long for people to understand what was to be accomplished by the practices. It also takes considerable time to develop trust between the farmers and those providing the technical assistance. A sustainable approach to conservation requires more than a one-shot approach to technical assistance.

Dr. Sanders asked if the group discussed the need for establishing methods to prioritize resources for use in times when there are limited or restricted resources. He also commented that one of the reasons that we have reached the point where we are is because markets failed. The primary means of resolving market failure is government intervention. Therefore, when one talks about market-based incentives and trying to find market solutions, the Committee members need to keep in mind that those did not work many times. Dr. Burns replied that he did not think the group discussed prioritization. Mr. Ray Vester (E & M Farms Partnership, FRRCC member) said he thought the group did discuss prioritization in that it was decided that the work should start in those watersheds that were in most need of improvement. The group did not get into much detail because that would be difficult at this point. Nearing the end of the session, the group discussed markets and Mr. Vester reminded everyone that in 1972, farmers were told to plant fence row to fence row because there would never be enough food. In 1980, his neighbor was forced to sell when rice was less than $3.50 a bushel. Corn will not always be $7.00 a bushel, even though there are some that believe it will be and that it may go higher. There will come a point when the price will drop because of economic conditions, demand, or other reasons. Just because people need food, it does not mean that they can afford to buy it; if they do not buy it, the price goes down. He agreed with Dr. Sanders' comment that market solutions do not always work because commodity markets change. Right now, many investors are placing their money in commodity markets, but if those funds are pulled out of the market, the prices will drop quickly. Mr. Vester added that it is important to continue efforts to educate farmers and the American public about the importance of conservation and clean water. The public will have to realize that it will have to help pay for the clean water, through higher prices for food. He noted that this is an important part of the funding needed.

Dr. Burns said that it would have been helpful to have Dr. Sanders in the Resources Workgroup because they talked a lot about market solutions but had the least consensus on that topic.

Science Workgroup
Dr. Richard Bonanno, University of Massachusetts, Science Workgroup

Dr. Bonanno thanked Dr. McFarland for serving as the group facilitator and Dr. Popp for serving as the notetaker. He explained that the group had seven points to convey to the FRRCC and the points were framed in the form of questions.

   1. What is good science? Who is credible? Who does EPA listen to?

   2. What is the desired state of the science? All agreed that everyone wants quality science, research that is fact-based, and research of the highest quality. It is not always clear who determines what gets included in the data pool.

   3. What defines impairment of a water body? The group agreed that this is a policy question, but it is one that is key to the ability to do the science. Should we be entirely protective of a pristine state of a body of water? What do we want our water bodies to be? There is a cost-benefit policy analysis that must take place. Do we choose to give up certain qualities of water for the greater good? For example, how important is it for us to preserve the quality of a body of water versus producing enough food for the population to eat? He noted that many people live in or near Washington, DC so that they are close to their work but this has an impact on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed that many are working to protect. What is the cost-benefit analysis of that?  Impairments need to be defined so that science can start being applied to address those impairments.

   4. What causes the impairments? How do we project impairments? How does an agricultural practice translate to an impaired state or an improved state? How certain are we of the cause and effect of that relationship?

   5. How does the knowledge of what helps or hurts translate into best management practices (BMPs) that we ask farmers to employ? How confident are we in our science that farmers will get the predictable effect, either positive or negative, when they apply the practice?

   6. What is the feedback mechanism? What data, as time goes on, go into adjusting the models we created and the predictions? Perhaps this is part of what was defined as adaptive management in the first presentation today.

The seventh point made by the group is actually a quote, which Dr. Bonanno paraphrased:  our job as scientists is to do the kind of work that moves cocksure ignorance into thoughtful uncertainty.

Mr. Elworth thought, with respect to the issue of determining impairment, that the Committee should look beyond a simple "yes" the water body is impaired, or "no" it is not. Is the group thinking about indicators and designated uses of a water body? He noted that the Clean Water Act standards are set at the state level to meet the water body uses. There has been considerable discussion about indicators, particularly in Florida (nutrient level, chlorophyll indicator, etc.). Did the group talk about these issues?

Dr. Bonanno replied that the workgroup did discuss indicators and what is happening in Florida. The group recognizes that there have to be standards. If a policy is based on impairment, it is important to have the right standard and the right information. What number shows that the water is impaired? Dr. Berger added that the group talked about the technical aspects and the regulatory drivers; also discussed were the political boundaries -- county, state, regional, or even international.

Mr. Elworth said that farmers often are expected to rely on new technologies, but without good science it is difficult for them to know if they work, how they work, and at what scale they work. Did the group talk about the role of science in these issues? Dr. Bonanno replied that they discussed cause and effect and how to figure out what works and what does not work. There are many practices that agriculture is expected to adopt for the greater good but it seems that agriculture always has to foot the bill. The workgroup did not discuss the economics of this specifically. He noted that sometimes practices do not get adopted because there is some scientific uncertainty. It takes time to implement practices and in the traditional model, the Extension Service works with a few of the innovative farmers in the area. When the practices they implement work, other farmers in the area begin adopting them. Dr. Bonanno commented that he has asked farmers who they really trust when they are making decisions about their farms. First, they trust their own experience; second, they trust their fellow farmers; and third, they trust the Extension Service. Farmers consider information from their fellow farmers to be credible. Although the workgroup did not talk about this, it is a very important point.

Mr. McDaniel asked if the group discussed how to work with the various agencies involved to develop a single set of numbers. For the Chesapeake Bay, for example, each state has a different set of numbers, as does EPA and NRCS. Also, would the single set of numbers developed for the Chesapeake Bay be the same set of numbers needed for the Mississippi Basin or California?

Dr. Berger responded that the workgroup discussed this issue. The numbers would not be the same for the different watersheds across the country. There is a great need to pool information and make it readily accessible. The data gathered by the various agencies need to be in a more standardized format to improve comparison and searchability. This is essential given the diminishing resources for data collection and management.

Ms. Noble commented that there are different models that can be used for assessing impairment and these models can yield different numbers that appear to disagree. When the information that went into the model and the purpose of the model are examined, however, the differences usually can be explained. This is key; if the differences cannot be explained, then there may be a problem.

Mr. Bill Northey (Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, FRRCC member) stated that the Partnerships Workgroup talked some about the evolution of science. Did the Science Workgroup discuss the fact that in the near future there will be many more tools to do monitoring? How do we access those tools?  How do we implement them? How do they become part of the learning process for figuring out what is happening in a watershed?

Dr. McFarland replied that the group did discuss the benefits of the new tools that make it easier to identify the vulnerable areas in a watershed and to pinpoint the major areas of surface water runoff. The group talked about the need to have that information and research available to help the local communities institute best practices. The group also discussed data management and access to information and how best to make it available to EPA for setting science-based standards as well as to communities for implementing BMPs. Dr. Popp added that there is a need to have common databases. There are water quality databases out there that are supposed to be used nationwide but many are populated only with Florida data. A mechanism is needed to ensure that data sharing becomes more common. Noting the amount of good research being done by EPA, NRCS, and USGS, Dr. McFarland asked how EPA takes into consideration all the priorities of the diverse groups, which are using different levels of science, in identifying research needs to improve water quality. There are many databases that are useful for watershed quality planning. What are the processes that enable EPA to access this information and use it to prioritize some of the work conducted by other agencies to help achieve EPA's goal of protecting our water?

Mr. Elworth replied that a mechanism is needed to connect the people doing research with the people who will be verifying and using the data. Often there are 10 different people doing 10 different research studies and then everyone expects various public and private institutions to have a database that incorporates all of those studies and accounts for the differences in the datasets and pulls them all together. There needs to be a mechanism for researchers who know they are collecting data that would be useful in making regulatory decisions. This has been done for pesticides -- the researcher and the person making regulatory decisions actually talk to each other to ensure that the research answers the necessary questions in a way that the information can be used by the decision maker. If people are doing research on new tools that will reduce nutrient pollution and, in the process of developing them, do not collect the data necessary to verify the tools and include them in the modeling or calculations, then an opportunity to keep up with the latest developments in agricultural science is missed.

Ms. Noble said the group also discussed the need and importance of having long-term water quality monitoring and assessment as part of the package. This is necessary to demonstrate the impact that will be brought about over time by the changes implemented. This also helps detect the impact of a problem that has been developing incrementally over time.

Dr. Sanders stated that there is a broader issue that needs to be included in discussions as the Committee moves forward. If we wait for the best science, we will never be there. We must recognize the need to look at the best science available, and at some point in time, draw a line and make a decision. This is the reality of the political world in which EPA operates. The best science available will give us imperfect answers that will evolve over time into better answers. Waiting for better science to be available will just delay action.

Partnerships Workgroup
Douglas Young, Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center, Partnerships Workgroup

Mr. Young stated that the group had a very good discussion and he attempted to consolidate the notes from the flipcharts. To start with, there has to be a clear understanding of the goal for the partnership if it is to be successful. The goal in this case would be clean water, but this must be accomplished in a way that is economically viable to the farmers and municipalities.

The key elements of a successful partnership are:  (1) trust between the partners and an understanding that the intentions of those at the table are for the mutual benefit of communities; (2) good data that are openly shared and in common reporting units (e.g., lbs of CO2 equivalents/unit of food production is a useful standard that has emerged), and results are made available to everyone; (3) identification of the gaps in the data, the technology, and the implementation process -- if it is not implemented at the farm there is no progress; (4) partners need to have ownership and there has to be accountability; (5) a local focus -- most successful partnerships are initiated and followed through at the local level; (6) partners need to commit resources to the mission (i.e., they have to have "skin in the game"); (7) clear definitions of assignments for each party to accomplish; and (8) the partners must have a common understanding of the challenge to be addressed.

The group then discussed who would be in the partnership. Farmers would be a key partner; farming impacts a large share of the land so if there is to be significant progress on any environmental issue, there has to be substantial buy-in and implementation by farmers. Scientists would be another partner. This partner group would be represented by land grant universities, ARS, and other private entities as well as government agencies -- USDA, NRCS, EPA, state agricultural and environmental regulatory agencies, and local government. There was considerable discussion about how EPA would participate in these partnerships. Some were concerned that, given EPA's regulatory role, other partners (e.g., farmers) may not be comfortable with the Agency's participation. NGOs also have an important role as a partner. In many of the examples discussed by the group, NGOs were successful in initiating the discussion, getting input from the partners, and bringing them to the table.

The next topic discussed by the group was the structure of partnerships. Partnerships need to be local but the group was not certain about who should coordinate the partnership. It is important to look for local leaders. The coordinator's role is to schedule meetings and ensure that the partnership continues to move forward to accomplish its goal. The success of the partnership often depends on the coordinator and the individuals in the partnership. The participants representing the various partner organizations need to have proven ability to contribute toward progress as well as the desire and drive to make a difference.  In addition, they need to have a vested interest (i.e., skin in the game). Three or four members of the group mentioned successful examples of Section 319 priority watershed partnerships. The limiting factor of these partnerships is that the timeframe tends to be rather short, making it difficult to sustain a long-term project. Another example mentioned was the partnership of EPA, USDA, and the dairy industry. EPA is responsible for regulating air quality and when the air quality standard for any of six air pollutants is exceeded, states must inform EPA how they plan to respond. Any farm in a nonattainment region (regions where air quality standards are exceeded) found to be a "major source" of regulated emissions could be required to apply for and comply with an operating permit. Failure to comply could lead to substantial fines (e.g., $35,000/day). Because dairy farmers could not possibly pay these fines, they agreed to work with USDA to formulate an approach, collect the data, develop a process-based model, and build a framework that moves the entire industry forward.

The group also discussed the tools that may come out of partnerships. There will be a proliferation of data available -- in just a few years there probably will be sensors in the creeks and other locations that feed back into a central data collection system. Perhaps in the future, the farmer could get an e-mail that informs him that on a certain date, the nitrogen levels in the stream next to his field exceeded allowable levels. This level of information could really empower agriculture to make well-informed decisions.

In livestock agriculture, ration balancing programs have really dominated decision-making in terms of how to get the most production for the least inputs, which minimizes losses. The process-based model actually does the same thing but it is applied to the entire agricultural system, whether livestock or crops. How can farmers implement technologies and systems to maximize output (carbon) and reduce inputs (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) to minimize losses?

Discussion

Mr. Dennis Treacy (Smithfield Foods, FRRCC member) asked the group to expand on the role of EPA in partnerships. During his career, he has seen EPA struggle over and over with the issue of being a partner and a regulator at the same time. Currently, EPA is in the process of disengaging from many partnerships because the Agency does not think that should be its role in many instances. Could you share with us what the group had to say on this?

Mr. Young responded that this was discussed at length by the group. One role may be for EPA to define an issue and call for help from outside the Agency in developing solutions to address the problem. EPA would agree to learn from those developing and testing the solutions without regulating them for a period of time until there is agreement on the most appropriate solution that is cost-effective for the farmer. This is the role EPA played in the example with the dairy industry and although it was uncomfortable initially, it has proven to be very effective. He then asked other members of the workgroup to respond. Mr. Treacy pointed out that the air agreement on animal agriculture was in the context of an enforcement order from EPA. Mr. McDonald said that the group spent some time talking about defining the problem. As you try to bring partners together around a topic, it helps if everyone agrees on the problem. Too often the agricultural community believes that EPA has defined the problem to be more serious than it is. It would be helpful in solidifying the partners' commitments to the process of working together if there could be consensus on the problem among the partners.

Mr. Elworth encouraged the group to think about some other types of partnerships. One example is where the EPA regions work with the states and NRCS through 319 and other funding mechanisms, where EPA can help make additional resources available for items such as technical assistance or monitoring. Another role for EPA is the development of scientific information, probably working with USDA or USGS. It would be good to know how these partnerships could be useful to the agricultural community. What can EPA do to recognize how partnerships, even ones in which the Agency is not involved, solve water quality problems at the ground level?

Dr. Burns pointed out that this water quality issue is so large that no individual organization or group can solve it alone. It will require partnerships to solve the problems and these partnerships need to be at the local level. Everyone probably struggles with the question of who should coordinate those partnerships. How do we identify a centralized group that brings all the parties together, with or without EPA as a partner? At the end of the day, this may be the most important question that the Committee can answer.  We all know many of the things that need to be done, we know where they need to be done -- at the local level and on the ground, the efforts need to last for a term that is long enough to make a difference, and it will take many people working together. What seems to be lacking are the resources and management to pull these partnerships together in a long-term and meaningful way.

Dr. Sanders stated that there are many specific examples from the last 20 years where regulators at the table who had sufficient latitude to figure out how to achieve the end goal, found it to be very doable provided the people at the table were willing to talk to each other and frame the issue in a constructive manner. The Aplomado Falcon case in Galveston Bay in the 1990s is a good example of how this approach worked. He suggested that the Partnerships Workgroup review some of these examples, which may reveal some additional alternatives.

Referring to earlier comments to consider different types of partnerships, Dr. McFarland stated that it is beneficial when one of the groups involved at the watershed level has experience bringing in volunteers. She mentioned the example of the Iowa Trees Forever group, which planted about 1.5 million trees along stream banks to prevent soil bank erosion and improve water quality by reducing runoff from surrounding farm fields. Thousands of volunteers were used to plant those trees and the local communities were energized by seeing firsthand the benefits of this water quality project. There are many different community organizations (e.g., Future Farmers of America, 4H, AmeriCorps, local schools) that could serve as volunteers for various projects if the members have the necessary skill set. Therefore, the ability of a partner to mobilize volunteers can greatly amplify and synergize resources to accomplish the goal.

Mr. Boggs agreed that lack of coordination is a problem. Poor coordination can send mixed signals to landowners or lead to inefficient use of resources. He asked Mr. Christensen following his presentation this morning if EPA interacts with his advisory committee and he responded that the interaction is intermittent. This is an opportunity for EPA to work with USDA to ensure that the resources are being used efficiently to address the priority issues.

Mr. Elworth thought that was a good point because he and many others probably were thinking of formalized partnerships. For example, EPA has formal partnerships with the states to delegate the operation of the Agency's water program. Looking beyond these more formal partnerships, EPA should take seriously the responsibility of coordinating with other agencies and organizations that are working on the same issues. He then asked if the group talked about EPA's implied responsibility to engage with the people on the ground to understand what is being done to develop a solution when the Agency believes that actions need to be taken to achieve some environmental goal. This is not a formal partnership; rather it is recognition on EPA's part that the Agency has a responsibility to work with these people. Engaging earlier in the process could be very beneficial.

Mr. Boggs agreed that there is a responsibility to work with the people on the ground, but he emphasized that resources also are important. The Agency needs to be in a position to offer resources to those whose behavior it is trying to change.

Mr. Archie Hart (North Carolina Department of Agriculture, FRRCC member) noted that one of the traditional roles of the land grant universities was to train local people on the ground. Because there are fewer resources available for this training, there are fewer qualified people at the local level to address the problem. Therefore, it is important to consider how NGOs, co-ops, and other local gatekeepers can work with government agencies to train the local leadership.

Following up on the issue of local leadership, Mr. McDaniel stated that, for those who are unfamiliar with the Conservation Districts, there are 7,000 Conservation Districts in the United States, and there are 16,000 public officials (either elected or appointed) governing those districts. He suggested that this is a great starting point for identifying local leaders.

Mr. Northey said that the workgroup talked primarily about partnerships for implementing a water quality strategy. Also discussed were partnerships for collecting and sharing data. The group did not spend much time discussing coordination of other activities. Sometimes there are multiple ongoing functions that could be coordinated. For example, there could be a 319 project as well as an effort to create Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) wetlands; these two efforts could be coordinated so that they build wetlands for wildlife habitat but also are effective for nitrogen reduction. The workgroup did not talk about coordination specifically, but definitely touched on the issue indirectly.

Mr. Young stated that he has been working with the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative -- which was formed originally by Nestlé, Danone, and Unilever, but since has been joined by many large international food companies, including PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft, McDonalds, General Mills, and Kellogg's. This group is working together on a pre-competitive basis to raise the sustainability of agriculture to a new level so that farmers can produce more food in a way that is more environmentally friendly. During the last 2 years, the group has worked to establish principles and practices; now, they are working on practical metrics; for example, the units of phosphorus per unit of protein/fat/food production. Given the success of this model, Mr. Young suggested that it might be much easier for the private sector to set the standard rather than different governments around the world. This has the potential to raise the standards above EPA's minimum requirements. If the market can require such practices and standards, and pay the producers for accomplishing them, this would be a great model to follow.

Dr. Balling mentioned that there are numerous private partnerships currently driving sustainable agriculture -- the Stewardship Index, Specialty Crops, Field To Market, SAI, Food Lab, and others. These are all private organizations that are promoting agricultural sustainability and they are driven primarily by consumers and retailers. Many in the private sector are thinking that their regulators in the future will be other private-sector companies and less EPA. This is just starting to slowly filter down to the growers. This may be a future driver for partnerships that do not involve EPA; however, these partnerships probably would look to EPA, USDA, NRCS, and USGS for advice and consultation, but the actual efforts would be driven by the private sector.

Mr. Vester said that the USA Rice Federation already is involved in sustainability, partly because Arkansas produces nearly one-half of our Nation's rice and Walmart, which is a major driver of sustainability, is headquartered in Arkansas. He stressed that to meet the sustainability standards being established by the Federation and others, the producers will need to receive more money for their products.

West Coast Water Quality Issues (Bay Delta and Puget Sound)

Before introducing Michael Machado, Dr. Berger provided a few facts about the Bay Delta. About two-thirds of the State of California gets a portion of its water from the Bay Delta, and 50% of agriculture gets water from the Bay Delta. Eighty percent of the fisheries in California are sustained by the Bay Delta, and it is the largest estuary on the West Coast. The Bay Delta is very important to California and the West Coast. She stated that Mr. Machado is intimately involved with water issues in the Bay Delta. Since September 2010, he has served as the Executive Director of the Delta Protection Commission. He is a former state senator and is a graduate of Stanford and the University of California-Davis.

The Delta: the Hub of Water and Conflict
Michael Machado, Delta Protection Commission

Mr. Machado stated that California gets more than 200 million acre-ft of water annually in the form of rainfall and snow. About one-quarter of it is lost to evapotranspiration. The remaining 75% is unimpaired runoff, and it can be used for various purposes and management. Californians use about 83 million acre-ft of unimpaired water annually. This water is from a combination of groundwater mining, reclamation/reuse, and the Colorado River. The interconnected water system (from the Bay Delta to the projects in Southern California) uses about 61 million acre-ft of water annually, of which 62% is devoted to agriculture, 60% to urban use, and 22% for the environment. In California, water equals dollars. Irrigated pasture is worth about $47/acre-ft; if farming cotton, it is worth about $551/acre-ft; if growing fruits and nuts, it is worth about $1,500/acre-ft, and if truck farming, it is worth more than $5,000/acre-ft.

California is a large state -- more than eight East Coast states could fit into the state. California has been fighting over water since Mexico first settled it and established ranchos that fought over access to water. California has one of the more diverse water schemes in the United States. It ranges from a temperate rainforest in the Klamath Mountains in the north to the desert/arid region of Southwestern California. The state's geography puts 60% of California's water supply in Northern California. The water comes through the Sacramento River, which flows south into the Delta from the Klamath Mountains, and from the San Joaquin River, which comes into the Central Valley west of the Sierra Mountains at Fresno and flows north into the Delta. Each year, California experiences a drought for 6 to 7 months, followed by a rainy season that is highly variable. During the rainy season, the precipitation can vary from 25% less than normal to more than 200% of normal. California has had a drought for the past 4 years; precipitation was less than 70% of normal for the past 3 years. This variability is important given the state's population distribution. The San Francisco Bay area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego account for about two-thirds of California's population.

The Bay Delta is an expansive inland river delta. It is the hub of California's water supply. All water exported goes through the Delta; all discharges from agriculture, the cities, and the Central Valley go into the Delta. It is the largest estuary on the West Coast of North America and it is one of the world's few inverted deltas. The fan area moves downstream as the rivers are forced to exit the Central Valley through the Carquinez Straits to the San Francisco Bay and out the Golden Gate to the Pacific Ocean.

It provides drinking water for nearly 23 million people and irrigates 2.5 million acres of some of the country's most productive farmland. The Delta is home to 55 species of fish and 750 species of plant and wildlife. It is a tidal marsh that floods annually in the spring from melting snow.

As California developed with the migration of people seeking their fortune in gold, levees were constructed to provide flood protection and to produce California's second "gold rush," which is agriculture. It transformed the Delta with more than 1,100 miles of man-made channels creating a system of lowlands and wetlands. Today, the Delta is home to diverse agriculture, recreation activities, legacy towns, two inland seaports, and infrastructure that impacts commerce going into the Central Valley, which includes aqueducts, electrical transmission lines, petroleum transmission lines, railroads, and three state highways.

Development in California dramatically altered the Delta and changed its water infrastructure. Multi-purpose dams were constructed to provide flood control and capture the snow melt to make that water available for later use in times of drought. This has had an impact on the water quality of the Delta.

During the twentieth century, the Delta system was altered by two large water storage projects. In 1937, Congress authorized the Central Valley Project, which was constructed with storage of 7 million acre-ft/year to supply 3 million acres of farmland and 2 million Californians -- it diverted Sacramento water to users in the Central Valley. The State Water Project was constructed with storage of 3.5 million acre-ft that paralleled the Central Valley Project. The Central Valley Project was primarily for agriculture and the State Water Project primarily supplied water to urban Southern California water users and the San Francisco Bay area. The water has to be pumped up 1,400 feet to get it over the Tehachapi Mountains; the total distance from the Delta to the Edmonston pumps is 345 miles.

In California, water fuels the economy. Water is captured behind dams, stored in reservoirs, and routed by concrete rivers over hundreds of miles. California has 1,200 major dams, the two largest irrigation projects in the world, and some of the largest reservoirs in the country. This has made California a leading agricultural and dairy producer in the United States. California leads the Nation in milk and cheese supply, and it raises more than 50% of the domestic fruits, nuts, and vegetables, many of which are grown only in California.

Referring to a map that depicted California's water conveyance system, Mr. Machado explained that water is taken from the Delta and sent all the way down into Sacramento; water from the Colorado River is conveyed to supply the San Diego and Los Angeles areas as well as Imperial Valley and Coachella Valley. Twenty-five percent of the state's electricity is consumed to meet California water needs, and the Water Project consumes 3% of the total energy in California.

It has been said that California's water system might have been invented by a Soviet bureaucrat on an LSD trip. While the system has fueled substantial economic growth in many regions, it has significantly changed the character of the Delta. Today, the Delta is a series of static, levee-lined channels that fall under a myriad of jurisdictions, including the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Water Resources, California Fish and Game, and local reclamation districts (26 different agencies). These channels flow between reclaimed islands that are home to farms and communities.

In the past century, California's water policy has evolved into one that has chosen to sacrifice some facets of the environment for the greater economic good. The policy has created a secure, abundant water supply for the people and farms in the Central Valley and in Southern California. The consequence of this policy has been reduced river flows, degradation of the water supply, wetlands have been drained, and dams and levees have altered natural flows. Mr. Machado presented a map that showed the natural wetlands that appeared at the time of statehood compared to what remains today.

Pumping has increased as the population has increased, and this has had a precipitous effect on fish populations. With the substantial population growth in the 1970s, more pressure was placed on politicians to permit regulatory agencies to allow more pumping. At the same time, there was less water coming into the system. This pumping has removed 15,000 cfs of water, which is the equivalent of filling 1,100 Olympic-sized swimming pools every minute. It reverses the natural flows in the Delta, and causes a null zone where contaminants are concentrated in the Delta. This threatens the fish and water quality for agriculture and urban uses. The lack of flows because of upstream diversion from the San Joaquin River reduces fresh water flows in the central and south Delta, causing a dissolved oxygen problem, which is lethal to the fish. The "canary" in the channel here is the Delta smelt.

The lack of fresh water flows to flush agricultural salts out of the system has increased salinization of farmland and in some cases the land has been rendered useless for crop production. The channelization also has reduced the habitat for spawning and protecting fry fish from predators, and dams have blocked the return of salmon to spawning grounds, which has reduced their numbers and resulted in the halting of salmon fishing.

The lack of the flushing action has caused an environment in which invasive plants and species have flourished, which is altering the native habitat. Asian clams are disrupting the food chain; they tend to filter all the nutrients out of the water, which threatens the indigenous fish. Because of this, species of many native plants and wildlife are declining and some have become extinct.

The Delta islands are primarily peat dirt, which oxidizes when exposed to air, and as a result of more than 150 years of farming, many of the islands are 10 to 20 feet below sea level. For the islands above sea level, this requires increased levee maintenance and often leads to levee failure. The islands below sea level require continuous pumping to keep the ground level deep enough for crops to grow and to prevent flooding. Agricultural drainage from the Delta and from Delta discharges inside (pesticides and fertilizers in the waterways) increase the salinity of the water, and DDT can still be found in some areas even though it was banned in 1972.

Other contaminants of concern are nutrients from sewage plants, and selenium and heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Hg, Zn), which come from hydraulic mining during the gold rush era that washed millions of acre-ft of mercury-laden sediment into the waterways of the Delta. There is continued runoff from abandoned mining site tailing deposits. Urban wastewater runoff also contains contaminants. Mr. Machado presented a map showing various water quality hot spots in the state as well as a map depicting the locations of the major wastewater dischargers in and around the Delta.

Subsidence of the Delta islands has raised concern about the integrity of the levees and the possibility of levee failure. This concern has become particularly acute since Hurricane Katrina. There is additional concern because parts of the Delta lie along earthquake faults. Levee failure would result in the inability to continue to export water and salinity would increase because of the incoming ocean water. In addition, there would be substantial cost in closing the levee breach and reclaiming the island. Mr. Machado showed a photograph of a breach in the levee at Lower Jones Tract; it cost in excess of $60 million to reclaim the 20,000 acres flooded by this breach.

Scientists also are looking at the impacts of global warming and sea level rise. This raises the concern of an influx of seawater and the inability to maintain freshwater supplies for export if there is a massive failure of the levees. Mr. Machado presented a series of maps that showed the decline in the snowpack projected between now and 2090. This is due, in part, to the variability of water from nature. With the exception of this year, the snowpack has been rising and migrating south to higher elevation, raising fears that there will be less runoff. There has been an annual decline in runoff from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers. The infrastructure for the water distribution system is in Northern California; as the snowpack migrates south to higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the runoff would come down in areas where there are no dams and no distribution systems. The state could be facing a situation where there would be no infrastructure to capture and distribute the water for agricultural or urban use. In addition, California's infrastructure was designed to last about 50 years, and much of that lifespan has been exceeded.

Because of the lack of storage and lack of access to land for the replenishment of groundwater aquifers, the operation of the Delta has been to provide water in dry years and less water in wet years. Although this operational mode has complicated the problems in the Delta, it was implemented because there is no facility south of the Delta to store wet year water or use it for groundwater replenishment. The increased pumping in dry years and the lack of instream flows and tidal action to flush contaminants heightened the declining ecology from 1970 to 1990. At that point, Congress and the California Legislature enacted environmental statutes that gave the environment standing. The water system was built to supply agriculture, urban population, and industry. With the lower population of the 1970s, there were instream flows; as the population increased, however, the instream flows were sacrificed to meet water demand. Once the environment had standing, water delivery to contractors was reduced and mitigation costs were assessed in an attempt to repair the damage to the ecosystem. The lack of sufficient water supply to provide sufficient instream flows to meet urban and agricultural demands was unknowingly created at the start of the State Water Project. California issued projects for 5.5 million acre-ft greater than existing supplies. Adequate supplies were supposed to be developed but the project was not initiated because of the lack of funding to construct the full project and because full demand had not yet materialized. The rivers that were to be dammed to meet the expected future demand increase were on the north coast, but these rivers were declared wild and scenic when Ronald Reagan was governor of California.

With the decline of the fish in the Delta, there has been increasing concern about the degradation of the ecosystem. California responded by proposing new water quality standards for the Delta that were subject to EPA approval. EPA vetoed the California Bay Delta water quality standard, and also listed the winter-run salmon and Delta smelt. Because there was concern that federal bureaucracy would overtake this large project, agriculture, environmental groups, and state officials came together in 1992 to adopt the Bay Delta Accord. This established CALFED -- a collaboration of state and federal agencies -- to achieve the twin goals of restoring ecological health and improving water management of the Bay Delta system. CALFED was well funded and operated under a rule of consensus. It is no surprise that it failed to achieve consensus, could not account for the dollars spent, and was ineffective as evident by the precipitous demand and decline in pelagic species (smelt, salmon, and steelhead). The consequence was a sharp increase in water exports from 2000 to 2007.