1. 2015 Pennsylvania Inter-Agency Nutrient Management Annual Conference November 13 and 20, 2015 State Conservation Commission Updates – Technical and Administrative Frank X. Schneider Director, Nutrient and Odor Management Programs

2. Nutrient Management Technical Manual – Version 9.0  Approved by SCC / September 2015  Released October 1, 2015  Webinar to discuss changes held October 13, 2015  Can review webinar at http://extension.psu.edu/plants/nutrient- management/educational/technical-manual- webinar/version-7.0-technical-manual-update http://extension.psu.edu/plants/nutrient- management/educational/technical-manual- webinar/version-7.0-technical-manual-update

3. Tech Manual - Plan Submission Date  Changed that the NMP must be approved before the Crop Year begins (CY 2016 Guidance) to the NMP needs to be approved before any manure applications can occur.  Additionally, have added suggested timeframes for when NMPs should be submitted for review depending on when the 1 st planned manure application will occur.  CAFO NMPs will still need approved before October 1 st, as that is a requirement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

4. Tech Manual - Plan Submission Date  Updated language:  The plan must be approved before any manure is applied or transferred (exported), for the crop years identified in the plan. If the plan is not approved manure may not be applied or transferred (exported) until plan approval. Any manure applications or manure transfers (exports) made during a crop year, when there is not an approved plan, are not in compliance with the law. In layman’s terms “no manure application or export without an approved plan” is the bottom line. It is very important to remember that the review and approval process can take up to 180 days, so we cannot stress more the need to plan ahead so that the NMP is submitted in time to be approved before manure is planned to be applied or transferred (exported).  For CAOs and VAOs the plan should be submitted at a minimum 4-5 months prior to the planned 1 st manure application or manure transfer (export), to give time for the plan review and approval process. For those CAOs and VAOs that plan fall manure application, the plan should be submitted 4-5 months prior to application, so plan submission should be before May/June. For those CAOs and VAOs that do not plan fall manure application, the plan should be submitted 4-5 months prior to spring application, so plan submission should be before October/ November.  For CAFOs, the NMP must be approved before the beginning of the crop year (October 1), to remain in compliance with the CAFO National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. CAFO NMPs should be submitted at a minimum 5-6 months before the start of the crop year the plan is to cover, as to allow time for public noticing and the plan review and approval process.

5. Tech Manual - Over-allocation of Manure  We heard from many, including the NMAB and the PAFB, that the guidance in Version 8.0 for over allocation of manure took “flexibility” away.  We recognized that for certain operations, primarily large dairy CAFOs, that the guidance in Version 8.0 was not ideal  The language on the next two slides is updated guidance for Version 9.0.

6. Tech Manual - Over-allocation of Manure  Guidance was updated which states: “Over allocation of the manure in one or more manure groups in a nutrient management plan is permitted as long as the following conditions are met: Planned application rates on any one field/CMU from two or more manure groups must be planned as multiple applications so as to ensure that those multiple applications do not exceed the appropriate (nitrogen or phosphorus) balanced rates for that field/CMU. Planning different application scenarios for a particular field/CMU is not permitted in the approved plan. For example: o Including planned applications rates for multiple manure groups in the plan to allow the operator to choose between them is not allowed. Notes to the operator such as, “Application planned on corn fields for the fall may be moved to the spring and application planned for the spring may be moved to the fall,” or “if liquid manure is not applied then solid manure can be applied instead” are not permitted. o Including rates of 4,500 gallons, 6,000 gallons, and 7,500 gallons from one manure group in the plan to allow the operator to choose between them is not allowed. The planned application rate should be what the operator realistically plans to utilize.

7. Tech Manual - Over-allocation of Manure The standard whole farm note in the NMP Summary must be included in every NMP. The purpose of this note is explained in the Nutrient Management Plan Whole Farm Notes section of the NMP Summary Section of this Technical Manual. Planners may plan additional options for fields/CMUs beyond what is in the submitted plan. If the operator decides to utilize one of the additional planned options in place of the planned application rate in the approved plan, the operator should have the plan writer make the substitution(s) in the already submitted/approved plan and submit this as a plan update. Note that plan updates are also required if the operator applies the planned manure group at a rate greater than the planned application rate. However, plan updates are not required if an operator applies the planned manure group at a rate less the planned application rate. If lower rates are applied, additional nutrients (particularly nitrogen) will most likely be required to achieve the expected yield.”

8. Tech Manual - Common Best Management Practices - Basic Operation and Maintenance Guidelines  Added as Supplement 20  The purpose is to provide basic operation and maintenance (O&M) guidelines for common Best Management Practices (BMPs) that may be used in Act 38 Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs) to provide adequate manure and stormwater management to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater.  Some operations obtaining NMPs, such as horse operations, are often not familiar with common agricultural BMPs and the required O&M associated with them.  Nutrient Management Specialists writing and reviewing NMPs can provide these basic operation and maintenance guidance lists to these operators for the existing or planned BMPs on their operation.

9. Tech Manual - Common Best Management Practices - Basic Operation and Maintenance Guidelines  BMPs chosen from this list, that are to be included in the submitted NMP need to be site specific to the operation. Planners are not to include the whole list.  It is understood that design packages and existing operation and maintenance guidelines provided for BMPs by the PA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) or a Professional Engineer supersede the general operation and maintenance bullets listed in this supplement  Likewise, when issues arise, the Act 38 program only recognizes the PA Technical Guide as the official source of information and guidelines for BMPs.

10. Manure Stacking  We are seeing instances where manure stacking pads are not properly identified.  We are told that these stacking areas are temporary, but later come to realize that they are used more frequently or for a longer period of time.  If manure will be stacked, other than the crop field exemption, for more than a few days in the farmstead area, that stacking pad is considered a manure storage and must be planned and treated accordingly, even if the stacking area is not a concrete structure.

11. Tech Manual Moving Forward  Regularly scheduled Technical Manual Updates will occur on a two year cycle. This was approved by the SCC on September 15, 2015  The next update will focus on removing “user guide” information on how to complete the NMP Spreadsheets and transferring that into a true Users Guide

12. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #1 – Manure Spreader Calibrations We are seeing continued issues with this section of the NMP being incomplete or incorrect. For each planned manure application rate listed in the NMP, the equipment and settings used to obtain that calibrated rate must be recorded in the table. The “Manure Spreader Calibration Notes” table provides an accessible reference for the farmer or other applicators to use to find the appropriate equipment and settings used to achieve the various manure application rates included in the NMP Actual manure spreader calibration data is required to be included in the NMP

13. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #1 – Manure Spreader Calibrations The following data, recorded during the spreader calibration event for each planned manure application rate included in Appendix 4: Crop and Manure Management Information is required to be included in the NMP Summary: Manure Spreader Calibration Notes table: Planned manure application rate Manure spreader used (make, model, etc.) Spreader settings Tractor used (if applicable) Tractor or Truck settings (speed, gear, rpm, pto, etc.) - listing MPH only is not acceptable If manure spreader calibration is impractical at the time of plan development due to situations such as the operation being new and there is no manure to use to calibrate their equipment, the planner should indicate in the chart that calibration of equipment will be completed as soon as manure is available. It is not acceptable for existing farms to not have a manure spreader(s) calibrated.

14. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #2 – Manure Group and Analysis Requirements A number of NMP are being submitted that include improper manure grouping and inadequate manure sampling and analysis. The Act 38 regulations state that “...manure tests are required to be taken annually for each manure group generated on the operation.” The Technical Manual list four exceptions to this requirement: Small Quantity Manure Groups Small Quantities of Mortality Compost Exported Manure Not Used for Agricultural Production Under Building Storages

15. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues #2 – Manure Group and Analysis Requirements A manure storage facility that is emptied more than one time per year cannot be considered as a single manure group A single manure analysis cannot represent more than one manure group. A recent example involved an operation with three storages that were each emptied twice per year; spring and fall. In this case the NMP must include six manure groups and require six separate manure analysis samples each year to correspond to the six manure groups. Plan writers and conservation district staff should be conveying the annual manure sampling requirements for all manure groups to the operators they are working with during site visits, annual status review inspections, etc…

16. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #3 – Soil Tests A number of NMPs are being submitted that have too many acres for the soil test they are combining, or are combining unlike fields onto the same soil test Soil tests are required at least every 3 years The Field or Crop Management Unit (CMU) is defined as “The portion of cropland, hayland and pasture, including a field, a portion of a field, or group of fields, on an agricultural operation that has a unique management history (same rotation and manure history), similar production capability, and that will be managed uniformly as a distinct unit.” It is recommended that the nutrient management plan be developed on a field-by-field basis. Grouping of fields is permitted in a nutrient management plan only if the regulatory requirement are met. If several fields are grouped into a CMU in Appendix 4, each of those fields must have an identical cropping history, i.e., same crop, same fertilizer applications (rate and analysis), same manure applications (type, rate, and analysis), and the same overall management through each crop year of the crop rotation on the operation. In summary, these fields “will be managed uniformly as a distinct unit.”

17. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #3 – Soil Tests Representative soil samples should be obtained using accepted soil sampling methods as outlined in Part 1, Section 2, “Soil Testing” in the Penn State Agronomy Guide. It is recommended that a single soil test sample not represent more than 20 acres. If a single field is larger than 20 acres, a single soil test sample may be used to represent this field. One soil test sample can represent multiple fields grouped in a CMU as long as the sample does not represent more than 20 acres and that the criteria for grouping of fields into a CMU are met.

18. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #4 – Stormwater Management Section We are seeing continued issues with this section of the NMP being filled out improperly. Stormwater issue section is to review of the adequacy of existing runoff control practices on cropland and pasture included in the plan. We continue to see specialists using inappropriate statements and trying to address other items on the operation in this section of the plan. Only CRITICAL RUNOFF PROBLEM AREAS (CRPAs) in cropland or pasture land should be addressed in this section of the NMP. Farmstead areas (barns, barnyards, silage storage areas, manure storage facilities, etc…) must be evaluated and documented in Appendix 6 – Manure Management. This is where any potential issues are described and then the BMPs that will correct the issue(s) “Boilerplate” or “canned language” is not acceptable. Specific areas evaluated must be described, whether or not any CRPAs were identified and the appropriate BMPs must be listed to address the CRPAs. See Appendix 7 of the NM Technical Manual and/or contact your SCC Regional Coordinator for clarification.

19. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #5 – Manure Management Section The Manure Management Section is to review the existing manure management practices on the agricultural operation. The purpose of this on-site review is to evaluate and document the adequacy of manure management areas, conditions and practices to prevent surface or groundwater pollution from storm events up to and including a 25-year, 24-hour storm intensity. We continue to see specialist using inappropriate statements and trying to address other items on the operation in this section of the NMP. This is where any potential issues are described and then the BMPs that will correct the issue(s) “Boilerplate” or “canned language” in not acceptable. Specific areas evaluated must be documented along with any inadequate practices and BMPs to address them. See Appendix 6 of the NM Technical Manual and/or contact your SCC Regional Coordinator for clarification

20. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #6 – Soil loss and Runoff Potential We have seen far too many NMPs that contain the same soil loss and runoff potential figures for every field on the operation. This is incorrect and will not be accepted Erosion Prediction or soil loss numbers must be taken directly from the farm conservation plan (Ag E&S plan) or calculated using the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) Runoff Potential is based on soil type and PA County Drainage Class Tables

21. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #7 – Farm Description We are seeing continued issues with this section of the NMP being incomplete or incorrect. The NMP must include an agricultural operation identification sheet which includes a brief description of the operation (Appendix 2) The Operation Description should include:  Animal types and numbers  cropland, hayland and pastureland acreage  farmstead acreage  crop rotation (crops, sequence of crops, and number of years for each crop)  manure group management, including atypical manure (contributing animal groups, collection, storage and handling procedures)  mortality composting management.

22. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #8 – Winter Applications Must Run the winter matrix for all fields planned for winter manure applications. This requirement applies to importing operations applying manure under a NBS. Must run Part B of the P-Index for all fields planned for winter manure applications, even if none of the 4 items in Part A are triggered. This requirement applies to importing operations applying manure under a NBS.

23. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #9 – Animal Concentration Areas (ACAs) We are seeing continued problems with ACAs and sensitive areas not adequately being identified and addressed. This is very evident in pastures. In general, the evaluation of the adequacy of ACA practices and conditions should consider the ability of the current practices and management to “keep clean water clean and to collect, handle and treat contaminated runoff water before discharging” into surface water or groundwater

24. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #9 – Animal Concentration Areas (ACAs) The following practices and conditions related to each identified ACA or “potential ACA” must be evaluated:  Location and Sizing  Manure Collection  Upslope and Roof Stormwater  Contaminated Runoff Water  Animal Access To Streams Refer to Supplement 20 (Common Best Management Practices - Basic Operation and Maintenance Guidelines) for possible information that can be added to the operator on how to operate/maintain identified ACAs

25. Top 10 Planning and Review Issues  #10 – Over Allocation (Application) Of Nitrogen and Phosphorus We still are seeing plans and nutrient balance sheets submitted that show an over application of Nitrogen and/or Phosphorous, if they would be implemented as planned. The regulations do not allow the delegated CD or SCC to approve these plans.

26. Questions

27. 2015 Pennsylvania Inter-Agency Nutrient Management Annual Conference November 13 and 20, 2015 State Conservation Commission Updates – Certification and Manure Haulers/Brokers Michael Aucoin Conservation Program Specialist / Cert. Programs

28. NBS WRITTEN FOR ACT 49

29. Who Can Write NBS For Act 49? Only Broker level 2s under the Act 49 Commercial Manure Hauler and Broker Act.

30. Why Can’t Act 38 Specialists Write NBS for Act 49 ?  Act 49 language does not give the authority to Act 38 specialists to operate under Act 49.  An applicant for Level 2 commercial manure broker certification shall be required to attend appropriate nutrient management plan writing certification courses related to nutrient balance sheet development and then pass a proctored nutrient balance sheet examination administered or approved by the Department.

31. Act 38 NBS / NBS For Act 49  If a NBS is going to be written as part of a NMP then an Act 38 specialist may write those.  If manure was exported to an Act 49 broker level 2 and the broker is sending that manure to an importer, only the Act 49 broker can write those NBS. The Broker can not hire an Act 38 specialist to write those NBSs.

32. UNDERSTANDING SIGNATURES IN APPENDIX ONE OF THE NMP

33. Understanding What You Are Signing Specialist Signature I affirm that the information contained in this nutrient management plan is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on information provided by the operator; that this plan has been developed in accordance with the criteria established for the program(s) indicated above; and that I have presented the final completed plan to the operator and discussed the content and implementation of this plan with the operator, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Specialist Signature Date

34. Operator Signature I understand and agree that I will implement the practices, procedures and record keeping obligations as outlined in this plan in order to protect water quality and address the nutrient needs of the crops associated with the operation. I agree that if I use a commercial hauler or broker for the application or export of manure, that only haulers or brokers that hold a valid certification issued by the Pa Department of Agriculture, under Act 49 of 2004, will be used. I affirm that all information provided in this nutrient management plan is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and reflects the current and planned activities of the operation; and that, if this plan was completed by a nutrient management specialist, I have reviewed the final completed plan and the specialist has discussed the content and implementation of this plan with me, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Operator Signature Operator Title Date

35. Questions

36. 2015 Pennsylvania Inter-Agency Nutrient Management Annual Conference November 13 and 20, 2015 State Conservation Commission Updates – Odor Management Karl Dymond Odor Management Program Coordinator

37. OM Program Website  New PDA – SCC Website: http://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Protect/StateConser vationCommission/Pages/default.aspx http://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Protect/StateConser vationCommission/Pages/default.aspx  Click on Odor Management Program under “More Information” links  Also a link for OMP Public Notices

38. OM Outreach Materials  New  PA Odor Management Fact Sheet (August 2015)  Under “Publications” tab on OM website

39. OM Outreach Materials Page 2

40. OM Common Violations  After-the-Fact Plans  Construction without an Approved OMP/Amendment - §83.741(e) “Operations required to have an OMP under this subchapter shall obtain approval of their OMP prior to commencement of construction of new or expanded facilities”  Appendix 1, Part A. Odor Source Factors, Construction Activities criteria  Notification before Population/Utilization  §83.782(c) “Prior to utilizing a new or expanded facility that is required to implement an OMP under this subchapter, the operation must receive written approval from the Commission, or a delegated conservation district, confirming implementation of the plan” Note – The Commission is the only entity that handles OM at this time, no CD is delegated authority  Planner and Operator Commitments & Responsibilities, Operator Requirements  Plan Approval Letter

41. OM Common Violations  Ownership Changes - Transfers (§83.812)  New Signatures Required Prior To Transfer  Any Operational Changes = Amendment “(a) An approved OMP may be transferred to a subsequent owner or operator of an agricultural operation by notification of the transfer to the Commission or a delegated conservation district, unless the transfer results in operational changes requiring a plan amendment under § 83.811 (relating to plan amendments). However, any new signatures required under § 83.741(i) (relating to general) must be obtained before a plan is transferred to any new operator. (b) If the transfer of the approved plan results in operational changes requiring a plan amendment under § 83.811, the plan amendment shall be submitted for approval of the Commission or a delegated conservation district along with, or before, the notification required under subsection (a).” Note – The Commission is the only entity that handles OM at this time, no CD is delegated authority

42. OM Certification Issues  Planner and Operator Commitments & Responsibilities  Planner Signature & Agreement - §83.741(j) “Penalties. Operators and odor management specialists who sign plans may be subject to penalties for any false information contained in the plans”  Site Visit of the Evaluation Distance Area By a Certified OM Specialist At the Time of Developing the Plan

43. Top 5 OM Planning and Review Issues  1. Naming of Plans – Multiple Sites  Business Name – Site Name format  Must use when > 1 site affiliated with operation  2. Manure Storage Facilities vs Treatment Technology Facilities (§83.701)  A Proposed MSF will always be Regulated  Intent of Construction Activity “exemption” was if no other Proposed Facility, then Treatment Technology is exempt

44. Top 5 Planning and Review Issues  3. Level I Odor BMP Principles (§83.781)  Plan Summary, C. Odor BMP Implementation, Operation & Maintenance Schedule Specific to Site & Management Style of Operator Realistic – can the operator do as you have it written? Detail specific management action that will be taken, and the specific frequency at which it will be taken. Example – X will be done every Y days  Plan Summary, D. Documentation (§§83.791&.792) Odor BMP Implementation Commitment Statement attests to Implementing, thus don’t instruct operator to document that Not Implementing (maintenance related)

45. Top 5 Planning and Review Issues  4. Appendix 1: Operational Information  Part A: Odor Source Factors  Plan Must Identify ALL Existing and Proposed Odor BMPs (§83.781(a)) Helps in creating Baseline for Limited Liability Protection  Proposed Manure Handling Systems Narrative Detail changes to ALL Manure Handling Systems Provide a link from the current, to the proposed, offering a projected change to potential odors.

46. Top 5 Planning and Review Issues  5. Appendix 2: Operational Maps (§83.761(b))  Site Map – Purpose: Identify Operational Details  Show ALL Existing, Currently Regulated, & Proposed Facilities, plus Operational Related Facilities w/n Evaluation Distance Area  Naming of Facilities – Consistency w/ Operator’s naming and w/ Appendix1

47. Questions