V (A). NY Tributary Strategy – Agriculture
V. (A) 1. The New York Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program
The New York AEM program was codified into law in 2000. Its goal is to support farmers in
their efforts to protect water quality and conserve natural resources, while enhancing farm
viability. AEM has become the primary program for agricultural conservation in New York,
using a voluntary approach to meet local, state and national water quality objectives. It has
become the umbrella environmental program for addressing agricultural point and nonpoint
source issues for all local, state and federal programs.
The core concepts of the program is that it is voluntary and incentive-based, addresses specific
farm needs and reduces farmer liability by providing approved protocols to follow. AEM is
meant to addresses watershed needs, be locally led and coordinated and provide a confidential
method of planning and assessment. The assessment process also increases farmer awareness of
the potential impact of farm activities on the environment.
The AEM Program relies on a five-tiered process:
1. Tier 1 – Survey current activities, future plans and potential environmental concerns.
2. Tier 2 – Document current land stewardship; identify and prioritize areas of concern.
3. Tier 3 – Develop a conservation plan addressing areas of concern tailored to the farm’s goals.
4. Tier 4 – Implement the plan utilizing available financial, educational and technical assistance.
5. Tier 5 – Conduct evaluations to ensure the protection of the environment and farm viability.
Using the AEM as the baseline program for implementing BMPs, the USC counties will
integrate their local goals with NY and CBP objectives to help attain nutrient and sediment load
reductions. They will participate in those initiatives (e.g., precision feeding, rotational grazing,
cover crops, buffers) described in this section that best support the needs and types of agriculture
in their county. With this approach we believe we will be successful in meeting federal, state
and local objectives.
1
V. (A) 2. Funding the AEM Program in the NY CB Watershed
Since 1994, the State’s Agricultural Nonpoint Source Grant Program, through the State
Department of Agriculture and Markets, and Soil and Water Conservation Committee (SWCC)
has allocated cost-share funds to support farmers in their efforts to protect water quality and
natural resources that are in the public’s interest. These funds, along with Federal Farm Bill
funding have supported the bulk of the agricultural support for this watershed. There is virtually
no dedicated funding stream for agriculture in this watershed, with the funds being captured
through some form of competitive approach. The following list includes all agricultural partners
and comprises the majority of funding sources for agricultural planning and implementation:

NY Agriculture and Markets Nonpoint Source Grant using NY Environmental Protection
Fund and EPA 319

NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation “EFarm Program”, funding CNMP development
and support.

USDA NRCS Farm Bill Programs, including EQIP, WRP, AMA and others

USDA FSA Farm Bill Programs, including CRP and the NY CREP

Special Congressional earmarks, such as those supporting the AEM Strategy development
through the NYS DAM and planning and intensive rotational grazing under the “Graze NY”
program

Specific grants obtained through RFPs, such as the USDA NRCS Conservation Innovative
Grants and the EPA Targeted Watershed Initiative

An additional approach is to support agricultural positions through the NY Environmental
Protection Fund as a line item for the USC counties. This concept is already successfully
working for the Finger Lakes and Lake Ontario region in NY. It would be a key funding
source to provide long-term stability and AEM capacity directed at the most important
component in this tributary strategy, namely agriculture.
V. (A). 3 County AEM Strategies: the basis for Agricultural Planning for the NY
Tributary Strategy
In 2004 the NYS SWCC initiated a process for each county to develop an AEM Strategic Plan
that would describe how the county would, usually on a watershed basis, communicate the goals
of AEM to farmers, assess and prioritize farms and implement agricultural BMPs. The goals
2
were to ensure that a consistent AEM message was developed statewide, all aspects of the AEM
process were adequately reviewed and implementation efforts would be enhanced through
coordinated planning efforts.
All of the counties in the NY CB Watershed follow the AEM program. At this writing 14 out of
the 19 counties representing over 97% of the NY CB Watershed have specifically
acknowledged the need to address the nutrient and sediment reduction goals developed by the
CBP. Their plans will be the basis for developing implementation efforts. Because much of
implementation is done autonomously at the county level, and in the spirit of the AEM
voluntary approach, this Strategy presents overall nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the
entire NY CB Watershed and challenges each county to implement sufficient measures to meet
those load allocations. This will also allow each county, through its own AEM Plan, to address
local needs, state needs and Bay needs using its own unique approach. We will however
provide Basin and subwatershed discussions to help describe the NY landscape and stimulate
new initiatives.
V. (A) 4. Status of Agriculture in the NY Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Basin
Total Ag
Alfalfa
Pasture
(all
numbers
are
in
Distur.
Hay
Hay
Consev
Conven.
All
stream
w/nutr.
wo/nutr.
Till
Till
crops
in
crops
crops
wo/
pasture
w/man.
w/man.
man.
Nurs.
Cows
Beef
(K’s)
(K’s)
acres)
Chemung
289,295
31,390
77,304
388
74,683
34,900
1,479
58,624
6,908
3,619
19 K
31K
Susq.
646,807
81,421
211,775
1,064
159.459
61,781
14,127
107,604
2,952
6,624
85 K
97K
Total
936,102
112,811
289,079
1,452
234,142
96,681
15,606
166,228
9,860
10,243
104K
128K
Precise and accurate baseline data is very important for this strategy because the Bay Model uses
these numbers to estimate nutrient and sediment loads. If the agricultural acres and livestock
numbers are overestimated then we will be given larger load allocations than are actually
present. All indications are, unfortunately, that agricultural operations are in decline in our
watershed and the Bay model may be overestimating our nutrient loads by using older data (2002
Ag census). One goal of this strategy will be to continue to improve the baseline data so that as
3
accurate a description of agriculture in the watershed is available. Agricultural information
presented will be the best available at the time.
Dairy and beef are the two most prevalent agricultural enterprises in the watershed. Although
there may be more cattle than milk cows, 82 of the 84 confined animal feeding operations
(CAFO - those farms with more than 200 animals) are dairy farms. Many of the row crops and
hay operation also help to support the dairy and beef operations. It does appear that small horse
farms are becoming more numerous.
EXPAND AFTER COLLECTING MORE
INFORMATION?????
Status of Agriculture in Chemung River Basin
There are about 1900 farms in the Chemung Basin in NY, representing about 26 % of the land
cover. Forest (69%) and urban/suburban (5%) account for the remaining landscape. Farms are
relatively small, with only 13 reaching CAFO size. Review after data developed
Watershed
County
Estimated
number
1
farms
Farm
of
Planning
assessments
completed
2
CAFOs4
Dairy
Beef
projects
for
next
five
years3
Canisteo R.
Cohocton R.
Alleghany
70
0
20
0
Steuben
500
95
78
7
Livingston
4
0
0
0
Ontario
1
Schuyler
60
19
90
0
Steuben
525
90
60
3
Yates
9
0
0
0
Cowanesque R.
Steuben
8
8
1
Tioga R.
Steuben
5
8
0
Chemung R.
Chemung
380
31
155
2
Schuyler
60
4
14
0
Steuben
300
22
10
0
all
1908
269
443
13
Chemung Basin
4
1
Number based county on percent of county in the CB Watershed and 2002 Ag Census; may
include many small farms or “farms” that are actually land parcels rented to other farmers
2
Includes Tier 1, 2 and 3a planning projects
3
Includes Tier1, 2, 3a and 5 planning projects
4
All CAFOs are dairy except for one 1000 hog operation in Chemung River, Chemung County
Status of Agriculture in Susquehanna River Basin
There are about ????? farms in the Susquehanna Basin in NY, representing about 22 % of the
land cover. Forest (69%) and urban/suburban (5%) account for the remaining landscape. Finish
after data developed
Watershed
County
Estimated
Farm
Planning
number of
assessments
projects
farms1
completed2
for
CAFOs4
Dairy
Beef
next
five
years3
Cayuta Cr.
Catatonk Cr.
Owego Cr.
Nanticoke
Tioughnioga R.
Otselic R.
Chemung
5
0
0
0
Schuyler
20
7
0
1
Tioga
1
5
0
Tompkins
6
3
0
Tioga
32
30
1
Tompkins
1
3
0
Cortland
1
2
2
Tioga
35
40
2
Tompkins
8
11
1
Broome
15
Tioga
3
20
0
Broome
20
100
1
Cortland
67
80
14
36
2
16
3
5
17
1
Madison
32
13
Onondaga
22
0
Chenango
65
1
40
2
5
Cortland
7
20
2
4
18
0
Broome
5
69
1
Chenango
48
132
6
Oneida
0
Madison
Chenango R.
Madison
Unadilla R.
Otsego Lake
28
204
Chenango
101
30
2
18
2
0
15
2
8
2
17
1
0
108
3
9
98
1
44
0
Madison
50
2
Oneida
0
Otsego
40
64
1
80
2
13
Otsego
Susquehanna R.
5
61
Herkimer
Herkimer
8
Delaware
125
Herkimer
26
30
20
3
69
120
2
Headwaters
Mainstem
Susquehanna R.
0
Otsego
60
80
3
Schoharie
0
Broome
46
82
6
Chenango
15
57
3
3
10
0
Broome
10
93
0
Tioga
40
160
4
0
Mainstem Great
Bend
Delaware
Susquehanna R.
15
Lower Mainstem
Susquehanna
Basin
1
723
71
all
Number based county on percent of county in the CB Watershed and 2002 Ag Census; may
include many small farms or “farms” that are actually land parcels rented to other farmers
2
Includes Tier 1, 2 and 3a planning projects
3
Includes Tier1, 2, 3a and 5 planning projects
6
4
All CAFOs are dairy except for one 1100 sheep operation in Owego Creek, Cortland County
V. (A) 5. Load Reduction Strategy from Agriculture
We envision a combination of traditional “baseline” county agricultural implementation efforts
augmented by additional “CB inspired” projects and new special initiatives. Most activities will
have multiple benefits, addressing local and state needs while also providing downstream
reductions. County AEM Plans will help describe priority areas.
The USC uses the concept of a “Multiple Barrier Approach” for implementation. This concept
fits well with the planning and implementation efforts proposed for our agricultural efforts. The
Multiple Barrier Approach begins with reductions at the source and here we suggest the primal
beginning is with mass balancing on farms. This planning tool will provide the information
helpful for selected appropriate BMPs and focus work on the most cost–effective measures.
Secondly, precision feed and forage management and yield reserve will be important because
they can reduce the importation of nutrients onto the farm and into the watershed. Once the
nutrients have reached the farm implementation across the landscape will be important. This
step starts with comprehensive nutrient management planning and all of its components, leading
to such BMPs as conservation tillage, cover crops, land retirement, wetlands and tree planting.
The last barrier is at the stream edge and here stream fencing and buffers come into play.
The following discussion presents the potential for 17 BMPs to help reduce nutrient and
sediment on farms. To the degree possible we have included the criteria used by the CBP for
their Version 4.3 Watershed Model. These descriptions will also help the reader understand the
following table, which summarizes the “best practical estimates” for implementing agricultural
BMPs, based on meetings with knowledge agricultural experts and farmers. These estimates will
be used to begin implementing our strategy, with the full knowledge that we will change our
course as we need to as new information, initiatives and funding sources develop.
Reductions at the Source
Source control begins with understanding the nutrient budget on the farm; mass balancing
(difference between nutrients entering the farm through feed, fertilizer, fixation etc. and the
7
amount leaving the farm through sales of milk, meat, animals, crops, manure etc.) can
determines excess nutrients based on all nutrient inputs and outputs, which provides information
for several planning purposes:





Development of a mass balance program for farms would provide an important
baseline for all planning and many implementation projects.
Mass balancing can help target BMPs that address a documentable nutrient excess
Mass balancing has an outreach potential because it shows nutrient loading in a
different manner that may be more understandable to farmers.
Mass balancing on farms can be used to develop a mass balance for a watershed.
Mass balancing can be used as a tool for documentation in nutrient trading.
The USC and Cornell University are conducting mass balances on 19 farms under a pilot project
to streamline how to develop a more extensive approach. Because this process is a precursor for
precision feeding and an aid for targeting many BMPs, we expect it to be a key planning tool.
An important next step is to determine the number of farms to be balanced and the schedule.
These numbers will be dependent on the extent that certain practices, such as precision feeding,
are implemented.
There are two important BMPs that reduce the amount of nutrients imported into the farm, yield
reserve and precision feeding. Comprehensive nutrient management can also fit this category,
but we will discuss that BMP in the next section.
1. Yield Reserve. Yield reserve is a reduction in nitrogen applied to cropland beyond the
nutrient management recommendation. This BMP involves a 15% nitrogen rate reduction below
levels specified in a nutrient management plan and is available for cropland only. Based on
research, the nutrient management rates of nitrogen application are set approximately 35%
higher than what a crop needs to ensure nitrogen availability under optimal growing conditions.
Therefore, this BMP requires that a nutrient management plan be developed for the farm prior to
final enrollment in the program. Significant research indicates diminishing crop response to
increasing rates of nitrogen application.
Some research has also revealed exponentially
increasing rates of nutrient loss as nutrient application rates increase.
The practice may
negatively impact crop yields somewhat, therefore requiring financial incentives, but this yield
impact is expected to be less than 15%. The reduction efficiency of this practice may be refined
8
through additional future research. Based on available research on nutrient loss associated with
application rate as well as crop nutrient budget estimates, the present reduction efficiencies for
the practice are conservatively estimated at 15% for TN loss. Therefore, the modeled nitrogen
rate would equate to 85% of the 135% NMP nitrogen uptake, or 114.75% of crop uptake [135%
x (1.00 - 0.15)].
Nitrogen loss is minimal early as crop growth accelerates and jumps
exponentially after the growth flattens out near the end of the growing cycle.
University
nutrient recommendations (the basis for nutrient management) attempt to minimize excess
nitrogen while attempting to ensure that the plant has what it needs at all times during the growth
cycle. Yield reserve works under the premise that a farmer will not suffer a yield loss in most
years (based on the long term average) and for those few years where yields drop slightly, the
"crop insurance or cost-share risk payment" is designed to offset it. In addition, the reduction in
production inputs (nitrogen) may offset any one-year yield loss. Our estimate for NY is that
possibly 10% of all acreage under comprehensive nutrient management planning might
meet this BMP criteria.
2. Precision Feeding and Forage Management. Nutrient management planning on dairy farms
with a focus on nutrient source reduction is vital for the economic sustainability of the farms as
well as improvement in water quality in the CB Watershed. Significant reductions in nutrient
imports can be accomplished with changes in ration formulation, feeding management and
forage production and storage practices. This approach increases the efficiency of converting
feed nutrients consumed into milk, thus increasing farmer income while decreasing nutrient
loading to the environment. “Precision Feeding” helps not only to reduce nutrients in runoff, but
also reduces volatilized ammonia, an important atmospheric pollutant.
Preliminary research
trial and on-farm demonstration data indicate that N and P intake can be reduced by 15 – 30% on
dairy farms without affecting milk production. Other studies have examined the potential shifts
in whole farm mass that can occur when both alterations in feeding and crop management
practices are implemented on dairy farms. Previous studies have reported that 60-80% of the
total N and P imported onto dairy farms remain after accounting for the quantity of nutrients
leaving in milk. In the long-term, nutrient losses to the environmental can only be addressed by
reducing this imbalance (i.e. decreasing imports and/or increasing exports. We believe that
nutrient excretion can be decreased by 15-30% and whole farm mass balance by 30-40% on
9
many dairy farms in the Upper Susquehanna Watershed through careful management of feed
rations and maximizing the use of home grown high quality forage. PFM would complement
other comprehensive agricultural waste and stream corridor management practices to provide a
multiple barrier approach for nutrient loading reductions.
Our estimate of precision feeding and forage management is very preliminary as we are just in
the beginning stages of developing a precision feed program. The Delaware SWCD is beginning
a 5 farm pilot project in Susquehanna Upper Mainstem and the USC and Cornell are awaiting
notification on a USDA NRCS CIG proposal for a watershed wide pilot project.
Our very
preliminary estimate for NY is that we will be able to implement precision feed and forage
management on 20 percent (this is a placeholder guess) of the dairy cows in the NY CB
Watershed.
Implementation Across the Landscape
3. Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP). There is general agreement that all
farmers should develop and implement a sound nutrient management plan that fits their
operations. In order to be successful not only must there be technical support to develop the
plan, but also long-term technical support for plan implementation. This will require additional
staff to provide this service, either in the private sector, County SWCD or USDA NRCS. There
are three levels of CNMP implementation that must be accomplished for complete success:
a. Developing the plan. Considerable effort is needed to develop a plan that meets USDA
NRCS 512 (?) specifications.
We suggest developing comprehensive nutrient
management plans as a matter of course.
b. Plan support and updates. A plan is only as good if it used and is current. It is imperative
that periodic soil sampling and review by agricultural planners occur that will keep the
plan up-to-date and also keep the farmer using the plan.
An important, yet simple
suggestion to help ensure plans are being used is that each plan include =a farmer
friendly Aerial Map with color-coded spreading schedules that can be placed on the milk
house wall. Continued planning support is usually overlooked and without it we believe
that full nutrient management benefits will not be realized.
10
c. Plan implementation - The complete implementation of nutrient management plans may
entail relatively expensive components such as manure storage structures.
These
structures may be needed especially in NY, with its relatively long winter season, when
nutrient reductions may be most important to achieve. Not only will these practices
increase costs, they will take time to build.
Nutrient management plans describes the optimum use of nutrients to minimize nutrient loss
while maintaining yield. It details the type, rate, timing, and placement of nutrients for each
crop. Soil, plant tissue and manure are used to assure optimal application rates. Nutrient
management plans (NMPs) are developed to address meeting crop nutrient needs in ways that
protect water quality. NMPs are developed to match crop nutrient needs of each field with the
expected crop yield based on soil productivity data or yield history for the site. NMPs
recommend appropriate rates of nutrient application, timing of applications and placement of
nutrients to result in economically optimum crop yields while managing the level of nutrient
loss. Nitrogen application rates have been revised to 135% of modeled crop uptake. The
phosphorus application rate assumptions are under review. Note: The CBP does not have a
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) category, thus we take credit for all BMP
components the CNMP would cover. Our estimate for NY is that 68 percent of all acreage
eligible for comprehensive nutrient management planning will be addressed. At present ??
percent have been completed. We expect the remaining – percent to be completed by 2010.
4. Conservation Plans. Farm conservation plans are a combination of agronomic, management
and engineered practices that protect and improve soil productivity and water quality, and to
prevent deterioration of natural resources on all or part of a farm.
Soil conservation plans are
comprehensive plans that meet criteria of the USDA-NRCS Field Office Technical Guide. Soil
conservation plans help control erosion by modifying cultural practices or structural practices.
Cultural practices may change from year to year and include changes to crop rotations, tillage
practices, or use of cover crops. This BMP does not include reduction credits to cultural practice
changes in conservation plans on cropland or hay land since reductions are already reflected in
land use changes, conservation tillage surveys, and cover crop practices. However, cultural
practice changes are reflected in pastureland reduction efficiencies. Structural practices are
11
longer term measures that include, but are not limited to the installation of grass waterways (in
areas with concentrated flow), terraces, diversions, sediment basins, or drop structures. The
reduction credits attributed to structural practices in conservation plans, also including cultural
practice changes for pasture only, are estimated as follows:
Landuse
TN Reductions
TP Reductions
TSS Reductions
Conventional Tillage
8%
15%
25%
Conservation Tillage
3%
5%
8%
Hayland
3%
5%
8%
Pastureland
5%
10%
14%
We believe that “Conservation Plans” are captured under the Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Planning described under number 3, so we will take credit for a Conservation
Plan for every CNMP completed and thus estimate a 68% implementation rate for this
BMP.
5a,b. Animal waste management systems. These practices are designed for proper handling,
storage, and utilization of wastes generated from confined animal operations and include a means
of collecting, scraping or washing wastes and contaminated runoff from confinement areas into
appropriate waste storage structures. Lagoons, ponds, or steel or concrete tanks are used for the
treatment and/or storage of liquid wastes. Storage sheds or pits are common storage structures
for solid wastes. Controlling runoff from roofs, feedlots and “loafing” areas are an integral part
of these systems. These systems allow for collection and containment of a significant portion of
the waste excreted by confined animals. They are designed for the proper handling, storage, and
utilization of wastes generated from animal confinement operations. Failure to properly collect
and store generated manure results in point source losses of liquid manure to surface water and
excessive nutrient leachate to groundwater.
For dry manure, subsequent contact with
precipitation or wet soils under stockpiles can result in significant nutrient leaching. Reduction
efficiencies for livestock animal waste systems are established as 80%, 80%, and 0% for TN, TP,
and TSS respectively. Again we assume that we will fully implement our CNMPs and we
estimate that half of these CNMPs will require “large storage systems” and the other half
“small systems”. Thus our estimate is based on a 68% implementation rate. These will
almost exclusively occur on dairy operations.
12
6. Barnyard runoff control practices and rotational loafing lots. These practices may be
implemented as part of a total animal waste management system, or as a stand-alone practice
(particularly on smaller operations).
Barnyard runoff practices include diversions, rainwater
guttering, and similar practices. Installation of rotational loafing lots is grouped with barnyard
control practices. The reduction efficiencies of barnyard control practices and rotational loafing
lots are established as 20%, 20%, and 40% for TN, TP, and TSS respectively if the practices are
implemented without an animal waste storage system. If the practices are implemented with a
present or subsequent storage system, the reduction efficiencies are 10%, 10%, and 40% for TN,
TP, and TSS. We assumed, that in addition to the practices described in number 5 that
each farm would also need some type of barnyard project.
And based on the 68%
implementation rate for CNMPs, we estimated one project for each of these farms.
7. Barn Relocation. Many barns, especially for dairy, were built before newer technologies
were developed for that industry. Barns may have been built 50, 100 or more years ago. Thus
they were generally located near water, namely streams, to take advantage of that water source as
a drinking water supply for the animals and as a means to cool the milk. Nutrient loading to the
watercourse was not an issue. The location has now become an issue because it greatly increases
the change of nutrient runoff and also many times precludes the implementation of BMPs just by
the sheer location and lack of room.
We suggest a new BMP “barn relocation” should be considered before expending funds on other
BMPs, where these BMPs will in the long term not really be able to address the true problem,
which is the location of the barn. If long-term sustainability of an operation is important and we
believe it is then we strongly suggest that the new BMP be developed. This is not a CBP BMP;
indeed it at present is not describes as a BMP by any agency. The Bradford County
Conservation District in PA has piloted this concept by analyzing the costs of attempting to
retrofit practices on a barn without sufficient room to cost-sharing a new building and
using the old barn for non-animal uses such as storage. We suggest further piloting on 10
13
farms in the basin where the site, owner willingness and other factors would showcase this
concept.
8. Conservation Tillage.
Conservation tillage involves planting and growing crops with
minimal disturbance of the surface soil. Conservation tillage requires two components, (a) a
minimum 30% residue coverage at the time of planting and (b) a non-inversion tillage method.
No-till farming is a form of conservation tillage in which the crop is seeded directly into
vegetative cover or crop residue with little disturbance of the surface soil. Minimum tillage
farming involves some disturbance of the soil, but uses tillage equipment that leaves much of the
vegetation cover or crop residue on the surface.
We estimate that possibly 30% of the
cropland acres in the watershed could be put under conservative tillage with the
appropriate incentives.
9. Cereal Cover Crops. Cereal cover crops reduce erosion and the leaching of nutrients to
groundwater by maintaining a vegetative cover on cropland and holding nutrients within the root
zone. This practice involves the planting and growing of cereal crops (non-harvested) with
minimal disturbance of the surface soil. The crop is seeded directly into vegetative cover or crop
residue with little disturbance of the surface soil. These crops capture or “trap” nitrogen in their
tissues as they grow. By timing the cover crop burn or plow-down in spring, the trapped
nitrogen can be released and used by the following crop. The crops capable of nutrient removal
include rye, wheat, barley, and to a much lesser extent, oats. There is no BMP reduction credit
for legume cover crops such as clover and vetch that fix their own nitrogen from the atmosphere.
Significant amounts of nitrogen may remain in the soil after harvest of summer annual crops
such as corn, soybeans, and vegetables. Nitrate nitrogen is particularly subject to leaching
toward groundwater if substantial nitrogen remains in the soil as crop uptake of the summer
annual crop ceases. Fall nitrate nitrogen levels in soils are more pronounced following years of
less crop nutrient uptake due to drought conditions. The cereal cover crops trap nitrogen in their
tissues as they grow, provided root growth is sufficient to reach the available soil nitrogen.
Proper timing of cover crop killing or plow down in the spring helps release some of the trapped
nitrogen for subsequent summer annual crops.
The BMP also provides some benefit for
sediment erosion control, particularly when established after low residue crops. The BMP is less
14
effective in reducing phosphorus than sediment losses since some phosphorus is transported in
water-soluble forms in addition to particulate forms. This BMP is most effective following
drought conditions.
Effectiveness is reduced in years when rainfall has allowed excellent
summer annual crop yields that deplete available soil nitrogen and on very sandy soils where
residual nitrate may have already migrated below the early rooting depth of a cover crop. Early
planting of a fall established cereal cover crop is critical in achieving substantial uptake of
nitrogen in the fall. Research indicates that nitrogen uptake and trapping ability diminishes
rapidly when planting dates extend beyond optimum planting dates. To be eligible for level 1
reduction credit, the cover crop must be planted earlier than 7 days prior to the long-term
published average date of the first killing frost in the fall. To be eligible for level 2 reduction
credit, the cover crop must be planted earlier than 14 days following the published long-term
average date of the first killing frost in the fall. No reduction credits should be allowed after
these establishment dates. Cover crops may not receive N or P applications from any nutrient
source and may not be harvested for grain, hay or silage. Based on research, long-term BMP N
reductions for all cropland categories are 45% for level 1 and 30% for level 2 for rye, wheat,
barley, or triticale. P reductions are established at 15% and 7% for levels 1 and 2 respectively
for conventional tillage cropland. Sediment reductions are 20% and 10% for levels 1 and 2
respectively for conventional tillage cropland.
There are no P or sediment reductions for
conservation tillage cropland. Reduction credits for oats are one-half of the above credits for the
level 1 planting dates and zero for the level 2 planting dates. We estimated that with the
proper incentive possibly 30% of the watershed’s cropland acreage could be cover
cropped. We allocated 15% to this category until we conduct some pilot work under a
proposal submitted to the USDA NRCS CIG we will not have a firm idea as to the extent
we can implement this BMP.
10. Commodity Cover Crops. Commodity cover crops differ from cereal cover crops in that
they may be harvested for grain, hay or silage and they may receive nutrient applications, but
only after March 1 of the spring following their establishment. The intent of the practice is to
modify normal small grain production practices by eliminating fall and winter fertilization so
that crops function similarly to cover crops by scavenging available soil nitrogen for part of their
production cycle. This practice can encourage planting of more acreage of cereal grains by
15
providing farmers with the flexibility of planting an inexpensive crop in the fall and delaying the
decision to either kill or harvest the crop based on crop prices, silage needs or weather
conditions. Because fertilizer may be applied in the spring, the reduction efficiencies are reduced
from cereal cover crop efficiencies. The same planting date criteria apply as specified under
cereal cover crops. The reduction efficiency is 25% for level 1 planting dates and 17% for level
2 planting dates for all categories of cropland. There are no phosphorus or sediment reduction
credits for this practice. We estimated that with the proper incentive possibly 30% of the
watershed’s cropland acreage could be cover cropped. We allocated 15% to this category
until we conduct some pilot work under a proposal submitted to the USDA NRCS CIG we
will not have a firm idea as to the extent we can implement this BMP.
11. Land Retirement. Agricultural land retirement takes marginal and highly erosive cropland
out of production by planting permanent vegetative cover such as shrubs, grasses, and/or trees.
Agricultural agencies have a program to assist farmers in land retirement procedures. Land
retired and planted to trees is reported under “Tree Planting”. For this category we will not
estimate any level of BMP implementation but rather report what land has been retired
under programs such as CRP. We will also document land retired when a farm ceases to
operate.
16
A small wetland that treats barnyard runoff draining into the Unadilla River
12. Wetland Restoration (Agriculture). Agricultural wetland restoration activities re-establish
the natural hydrologic condition of a wetland that existed prior to the installation of subsurface or
surface drainage. Projects may include restoration, creation and enhancement acreage. Restored
wetlands may be any wetland classification including forested, scrub-shrub or emergent marsh.
Wetland construction gets a land conversion credit to forest and a 60% N reduction ion 4 upland
acres and a 60% reduction in P and sediments on two upland acres. Preliminary results of work
by Binghamton University researchers and others are showing that wetlands that capture runoff
from barnyards do significantly reduce nitrogen concentrations. The USC has an active and
extensive wetland construction and restoration program that we will describe in more
detail in its own section.
We estimate that we can restore/construct 11,400 acres of
wetlands, including previously completed projects.
17
13. Tree Planting. The tree planting (row crop) BMP includes any tree planting on agricultural
lands, except those used to establish riparian forest buffers, targeting lands that are highly
erodible or identified as critical resource areas. Tree planting is also called afforestation because
it involves growing trees and converting the land use from agricultural to forest. This BMP
results in a landuse conversion from row crop to forest. It is assumed that the density of the
plantings is sufficient to produce a forest like condition over time. Considering that the
watershed is about 69% forested we do not believe this BMP will be of great importance.
We have suggested that 1000 acres of cropland may become forest.
14. Carbon Sequestration or the long-term storage of carbon through the planting of carbon
sinks, such as trees is being considered by the CBP as a BMP. This idea may become more
important in the future. At present we suggest it as a placeholder for further study.
Reductions at the Stream Edge
15. Stream Protection in Pastures. Direct contact of pastured animals with surface water
results in direct deposition of manure, streambank erosion, and re-suspension of sediments and
associated nutrients held in streambeds. There are three unique systems that are variations to this
BMP. The variations include off stream watering: (1) without stream fencing, (2) with stream
fencing, and (3) with stream fencing and rotational grazing. The systems are mutually exclusive,
so reduction efficiencies are not additive.
(a) Off Stream Watering With Fencing – incorporates both alternative watering and
installation of fencing that involves narrow strips of land along streams to exclude livestock. The
fenced areas may be planted with trees or grass, but are typically not wide enough to provide
benefits of buffers. The implementation of stream fencing should substantially limit livestock
access to streams, but can allow for the use of limited hardened crossing areas where necessary
to accommodate access to additional pastures or for livestock watering. The BMP is estimated to
impact the load from three pasture acres for each 208 feet of stream fencing with reduction
efficiencies of 60%, 60%, and 75% for TN, TP, and TSS respectively. Preliminary results
from studies in Delaware County are showing that even higher nutrient reductions may be
18
occurring. Cattle exclusion is also has a very important “BMP” for stabilizing streambanks
by reduce the constant stress on banks from cow hooves. We estimate for NY that 66% of
the pasture acres can be addressed with this practice.
(b) Off stream watering without fencing - requires the use of alternative drinking water
troughs or tanks away from streams. The BMP may also include options to provide shade for
livestock away from streams.
Limited research has been conducted for this practice that
documents changes in livestock behavior resulting in significantly less time spent near
streambanks and in streams. The net effectiveness of the practice must reflect partial removal of
livestock from near stream areas and relocation of animal waste deposition areas and heavy
traffic areas surrounding water sources to more upland locations.
Reduction efficiencies are
30%, 30%, and 38% for TN, TP, and TSS respectively. We will implement this practice
where fencing is not feasible. We do not believe it will be a major practice because most
sites will be conducive to option (a)..
(c) Off Stream Watering With Fencing and Rotational Grazing - combines stream
fencing and alternative watering with cross fencing systems to create paddocks to enable rapid
grazing of small areas in sequence. Once an area is intensively grazed of most vegetative matter,
the animals are moved to another paddock to enable recovery of the pasture grasses. This BMP
is beneficial in removing animals from stream areas, but may be offset by an increased animal
stocking rate per acre. This increases the concentration of animal manure per acre and may
adversely impact the quality of surface water runoff.
Because of the offsetting impacts, the
reduction efficiencies have been estimated to be 20%, 20%, and 40% for TN, TP, and TSS
respectively. If the original grazing operation was not located in close proximity to surface water,
reduction efficiencies of zero are applied. This BMP does not adequately describe intensive
rotational grazing as done in NY; thus most grazing projects will be reported under off
stream watering with fencing, option (a).
In NY there are several extensive grazing
initiatives being conducted throughout the watershed. The Finger Lakes RC&D Council
supports work in the Chemung Basin and several USC Counties (Broome, Tompkins,
Cortland, Chenango, Tioga and Madison) support a Graze NY Initiative in the
Susquehanna Basin.
The USC and Finger Lakes RC&D Council have submitted a
19
proposal to the USDA NRCS CIG to help develop a watershed wide grazing program. We
estimate that 10,000 acres (placeholder suggestion) of rotational gazing will be
implemented in additional to the benefits and credits for cattle exclusion that we will gain
from item (a).
13. Buffers (Agriculture). Although NY is not a signatory state to the CBP Habitat goals for
implementing 10,000 miles of forest buffers, work under this task, beside the nutrient reduction
value, may provide about 300 miles of forest buffer, if fully implemented to help the Bay States
reach their goal.
(a) Agricultural riparian forest buffers are linear wooded areas along rivers, stream and
shorelines. Forest buffers help filter nutrients, sediments and other pollutants from runoff as well
as remove nutrients from groundwater. The recommended buffer width for riparian forest
buffers (agriculture) is 100 feet, with a 35 feet minimum width required. For NY, which lies in
the Appalachian Plateau, (different efficiencies based on geologic region) this BMP is credited at
60% on 4 upland acres for N and 60% for P and sediment on 2 upland acres. This BMP does
meet resistance by farmers, possibly because of the added expense of tree planting and the
potential of shading crops. Because of these concerns we estimated a total of 2,000 acres of
forested buffers would be implemented.
(b) Agricultural riparian grass buffers are linear strips of grass or other non-woody
vegetation maintained between the edge of fields and streams, rivers or tidal waters that help
filter nutrients, sediment and other pollutant from runoff. The recommended buffer width for
riparian forests buffers (agriculture) is 100 feet, with a 35 feet minimum width required. This
BMP is slightly less efficient than forested buffers, reducing N by 41% on 4 upland acres and
reducing P and sediments 60% on 2 upland acres. We believe this BMP is seen in a much
more favorable light and estimate 9,000 acres of grass buffers can be installed. The only
drawback is that grass buffers are not generally allowed under the NY CREP, a $60m
potential funding source.
20
17. Alternative manure uses, including energy production and composting – Although there
are virtually no nutrient savings from energy production, the use of manure for generating heat or
electricity in a biodigesters does provide a new funding source to help farmers meet other
nutrient reducing obligations. It can also produce more manageable manure byproducts. An
important general concept is that the nutrients stay with the mass of the product as it is being
manipulated.
21
Summary Table of Agricultural BMP Implementation Estimates
Practice
Cost/
Yearly
Available
unit
Maintenan
units
to
ce
Establ
Costs
ish
REDUCTIONS AT THE SOURCE
1. Yield Reserve
na
$40/acre
2. Precision Feeding and Forage
TBD
TBD
104,000
Management
dairy
IMPLEMENTATION ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE
3. Comprehensive Nutrient $22/a
$3/acre
Management Plans
cre
4. Conservation Plans
Inclu
Included in
ded in CNMP
CNM
P
5a. Animal Waste Management $200,
Systems – large storage
000/
?
farm
5b. Animal Waste Management $35,0
Systems – smaller systems
00/
?
farm
6. Barnyard Runoff Controls or
$35,0
rotational loafing lots
00/
?
farm
*inclu
ded in
CNM
P
7. Barn Relocation
$100,
na
000
8. Conservation Tillage
$60/a
$3/acre
cre
9. Cereal Cover Crops
na
$40/acre
10. Commodity Cover Crops
11. Land Retirement
na
$928/
acre
12. Wetland Restoration
$4,81
7
13. Tree Planting
$1,28
4/
acre
14. Carbon Sequestration
?
REDUCTIONS AT THE STREAM EDGE
15a. Stream Protection w/
?
fencing and off-stream watering
15b. Stream Protection through ?
just off-stream watering
Estimated BMP Implementation
level
10% of CNMPs or 30,846 acres
10% or 10,000 dairy
BMPs
previously
implement
ed (% or
acres)
Nitrogen
Reduction
(lbs)
based
on
column 4
Phosphorus
Reduction
(lbs)
based
on
column 4
Sediment
Reduction
(tons)
based on
column 4
0
TBD
TBD
TBD
Cost
to establish
Cost
To maintain
na
TBD
1,233,840
TBD
453,612
acres
617,183
acres
68% or
308,846 acres
68% or
419,685 acres
420 farms
68% of 1240 dairy farms, with
half needing large storage
$84,000,000
(minus column 6)
420 farms
68% of 1240 dairy farms, with
half needing smaller systems
14,700,000
(minus column 6)
840 farms
68% of 1240 dairy farms
$29,400,000
(minus column 6)
unknown
10
$1,000,000
na
265,141acres
30% of or 79,542 acres
$238,626
272,414
na
$4,772,520
(minus column 6)
na
na
na
1,634480
$40/acre
272,414
na
71,000
15% of cropland or
40,862 acres
15% of cropland or
40,862 acres
21,000
794,576
11,400
acres
1,000
?
?
1,000
?
236,281
?
?
66% of pasture or
141,769 acres
?
na
1,634,480
$19,488,000
$54,913,800
(minus column 6)
$1,284,000
22
15c. Stream Protection w/
fencing, off-stream watering and
rotational grazing
16a. Riparian Forest Buffers
16b. Riparian Grass Buffers
TOTAL
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
10,000 acres of additional
pasture
or
cropland
for
rotational gazing
2,000 acres
9,000 acres
1. Acreage available based on all cropland and hay land in the watershed
2. Cost, based on Chesapeake Bay Commission estimate = $30/acre farmer incentive, $8.50/acre insurance, $1.50/acre technical
3. Precision Feeding and Forage management estimates are being developed; we expect total nutrient reductions (N and P) to the farms using this BMP to
be in the 25% range.
4. Acreage available is based on total cropland, hay land and pasture.
5. Estimated number of dairy farms at 1240, based on average farm size (84 cows, based on 2002 Ag census totals from 22 counties ) divided into number
dairy cows in watershed(estimated at 104,000). Most, if not all, implementation assumed on dairy farms for this BMP. Assumed half would be storage and
half would be smaller projects.
6. Original estimate was that there was probably at least one smaller project to be done on every farm (using CBP estimate of $35,400 for project), either a
barnyard clean water exclusion or loafing lot, thus the estimate was for all farms that we thought we would be able to reach out to (68% of dairy farms).
7. Barn relocation is a suggested pilot.
8. Cost, based on Chesapeake Bay Commission estimate = $15/acre/year for 4 years as incentive to promote practice and $3/year operating cost.
9 and 10. $40/acre is the Maryland estimate. Implementation estimate based on 30% total cover crop establishment. Assumed 50:50 split between the two
cover crop types. Assumed an “na” for previously implemented because all would likely want to paid an incentive.
11. $928/acre is the Virginia estimate. Land retirement includes land retired under an incentives program such as CRP as well as land retired because
farming ceased. Of the CBP estimated 21,000 acres of highly erodible land, 14,000 acres are already retired and accounted for by the CBP; 7,000 acres
remain. This item should be reviewed.
12. Stream protection will emphasize fencing and off-site watering; an estimate by “project” might be more realistic, based on the average pasture size
(guess – 40 acres). Just off-site watering may be used where this is the only BMP available for a specific site. Lastly Intensive Rotational grazing is a
specific category that includes stream protection. Again a project cost estimate seems more reasonable than per acre.
13a. Cost estimates needed
13b. Cost estimates needed
14. The Upper Susquehanna Coalition wetland program estimates: installation $3,817/acre, incentive payment $500/acre, planning/technical assistance
$500/acre
23