June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC)

Meeting

June 22-23, 2011

Sheraton National Hotel

Arlington, VA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011

Call to Order and Welcome

Dr. Steven Balling, Committee Chair

Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

Ms. Alicia Kaiser (FRRCC DFO) called the meeting to order at 8:39 a.m. and noted this will be the first 

FRRCC meeting with web conferencing capabilities. 

Dr. Steven Balling (Del Monte Foods), Chair of the FRRCC, welcomed the Committee members and 

other participants to the meeting. He stated that the goal of this meeting is to continue the progress made 

by the workgroups in developing recommendations on water quality issues for the Agency. The intended 

meeting outcome is a more developed focus that will lead to development of clear recommendations for 

EPA.

Opening Remarks

Larry Elworth, Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator, EPA

Mr. Larry Elworth (EPA) reported three updates to the Committee. First, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) have made available for comment guidance on Clean Water Act jurisdiction 

(“Waters of the United States”). Mr. Elworth will make this product available to the Committee. Second,

a decision by the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (National Pork Producers Council v. EPA) defined 

the permit application responsibilities of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and clarified that

those who actually discharge pollutants (and not CAFOs with the potential to discharge) need a permit. 

Third, the Senate Agriculture Committee marked up and passed HR-872 (Reducing Regulatory Burdens 

Act of 2011), a bill dealing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit decision (National Cotton 

Council v. EPA), obviating the need for a Clean Water Act permit for pesticide application for aquatic 

uses. This bill concerns an issue that EPA has been dealing with for years. The U.S. Senate outcome is 

pending. 

Mr. Elworth also commented that legislation recently passed in Washington concerning what Ron Shultz

(Washington State Conservation Commission) discussed at the last meeting in regards to Puget Sound. 

This new legislation establishes a collaborative process at the county level with alternative options to deal 

with water quality and agriculture. The idea is labor intensive; however, there is no promise of funding in 

the legislation to accomplish the work. 

Mr. Elworth proffered additional meeting objectives and some ideas for developing recommendations. 

The Committee is broad in terms of expertise, scope, and perspectives, but there are some outlooks that 

are not represented on the Committee. Therefore, the panelists that present at today’s meeting will offer 

additional water quality issue perspectives and should be used by the FRRCC members as “sounding 

boards” for Committee ideas. He suggested that each workgroup summarize and examine key 

observations and recommendations, and then pull these together in a workgroup report. The workgroup 
2 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

reports will be combined into a 5 to10 page executive summary, which will be made available to the 

public. Once a draft summary is synthesized, Committee members should consider how best to present it 

to the Agency. In the past, the FRRCC has drafted letters or reports, but this time a meeting with senior 

leadership may prove more prudent.

 

Abby Dilley, FRRCC Facilitator

Ms. Abby Dilley summarized the meeting agenda and the timeline for completing the recommendations 

and preparing the workgroup reports. Additional stakeholders will present today and workgroups will 

meet and report back to the Committee. This will elucidate any workgroup overlaps and provide the 

opportunity for integration and coordination between workgroups. After the second day of the meeting, 

workgroups should have a clear plan for fine-tuning their recommendations and be able to produce a draft 

document of these recommendations for the October FRRCC meeting.

Stakeholder Panel

Agriculture and Environmental Stewardship: Integrating Science and Policy

Dr. Andrew Sharpley, Professor, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas

The response of science to water quality and environmental issues involves nutrient management 

planning, a system response to management changes, and the use of models in this management. We 

need to learn where and how breakdowns occur and how partnerships and resources play a role in 

outcomes. 

As background, the current nutrient cycle is fragmented. The system was more sustainable when it was 

developed, and its development was based on transportation infrastructure and rural economies and not on 

the nutrient needs of local agriculture. These needs have changed over time and so the system no longer 

works effectively. Local agricultural nutrient needs have to be incorporated, with specific regard to 

balance of nutrients. There currently is a nutrient balance dilemma, which began prior to 2000, when 

application was based on nitrogen (N), with phosphorus (P) application generally being two to three times 

what was needed. Recently, however, P-based management has been implemented because of fresh water 

quality concerns. Managing P in manure application has left farmers short on N in the applied manure, 

creating a nutrient balancing dilemma. 

Nitrogen moves through the soil rapidly, while P is less mobile and more surface bound. Therefore, the 

excess P applied prior to 2000 has been built up in the soil and the surface loss of P needs to be 

controlled. Erosion and runoff have led to increased P concentrations in the water, where there is a

greater sensitivity to P levels compared to soil. The differences in mobility of the nutrients need to be 

accounted for and considered as a whole system, not as single components. 

In regards to policy, in 1997, Maryland implemented a law restricting soil P thresholds for manure 

management, which was poorly received, and this led in 2000 to the adoption of a risk assessment-based 

manure management approach. 

The risk assessment-based manure management approach is used in 47 of the 50 states, and therefore is 

considered a success. The P needed and lost from the soil, however, can vary widely depending on the 

local soil differences and land types, and varying distances from streams and water sources. These 

differences led to the 80/20 rule, which states that 80 percent of P runoff comes from 20 percent of the 

land area in a watershed. Many states targeted this 20 percent of land and decreased manure application 

in these areas. There is political disparity among the states, however, in regards to the interpretation of 

the science, which often leads to policies that do not improve the water quality. The bigger issue is that 

these tools were made to educate farmers and the public; they were never meant to be used as a 

management solution.
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 3

In a nutrient management lawsuit between Arkansas and Oklahoma involving how rules change when 

water crosses state lines, it was mandated that there be a soil P threshold, which limits what and how 

much P can be applied. This resulted in less poultry litter being applied to pastures and 33 percent of 

poultry litter being exported out of the watershed. This litigation required scientists to work with lawyers 

and develop a science-based tracking tool and management solutions. This lawsuit demonstrates not only 

how science defines policy, but also how policy can define how science is presented. Now, 75 percent of 

the poultry litter is being moved out of the watershed. The removal of these nutrients has placed an 

economic strain on farmers who must now buy supplemental fertilizer. In addition, the reduction of 

nutrients in the watershed may lead to poorer soils growing less ground cover, which can lead to more 

erosion. 

The Illinois River Watershed Partnership grew from the Arkansas/Oklahoma dilemma, and involves

educational programs, riparian buffer establishment, and volunteer stream water quality monitoring. 

Dr. Sharpley used Lake Erie as an example of conservation management. In 1985, there was a decrease in 

P levels in Lake Erie due to a voluntary effort using conservation tillage; however, the levels increased 

again in 2005 and created algal blooms. This increase was attributed to the adoption of no-till mulch. 

When nutrients are added to this soil, they enter into runoff easier because they are never incorporated 

into the soil by tilling. From this example, we have learned that weather can exacerbate trends (heavier 

rainfall induces greater nutrient runoff), the response of an environment to management changes takes 

time, and adaptive management (moving to partial tillage, alteration of the season when fertilizers are 

applied, and the use of winter cover crops) may result in reduced nutrient loss.

From the fertilizer dealer’s and farmer’s perspectives, spring fertilizer costs more and the spring workload 

is larger, while both labor and equipment are abundant in winter. Researchers have to help farmers 

overcome this position by looking at this bigger picture.

In regards to legacy effects and response to watershed management, the coastal plains have great variation 

in water age and residence time. It can take up to 30 years for water to get from top to bottom in a 

watershed, meaning it could be 30 years before the effect of an implemented change is observed. These 

lag times increase with scale, and taxpayers do not want to wait that long to find out if the measures are 

effective. The use of models, which are designed to represent reality, in the development of total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) can inform decisions, provided the data input discrepancies are not large

(large discrepancies can significantly alter model output). Agencies (e.g., EPA, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture [USDA], and U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]) and modelers need to come together on data 

input and models. With respect to models, it is important to use the correct models to meet defined goals, 

to keep in mind that models have some inherent uncertainty, and to recognize that models must be used at 

the same scale for which they were developed. When used correctly, models can produce succinct and 

clear policy guidelines. 

Dr. Sharpley identified the following factors to keep in mind with regard to future nutrient management 

planning: national guidelines for nutrient management, livestock diets and enzyme usage, manure 

treatment and transport, and alternative uses for manure. To manage public expectations, goals should be 

realistic, remedial management should be targeted, change should be documented by robust monitoring, 

and legacy effects should be explained. 

Dr. Sharpley indicated that a combination of mandatory environmental standards and voluntary 

stewardship programs promoted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are necessary to 

achieve the goal of improving water quality. Watershed partnerships and coalitions also will have a role 

to play. Along this vein, the Discovery Farms Program (currently working in Wisconsin [Dennis Frame], 

North Dakota [Ron Wiederholt], Arkansas [Andrew Sharpley], and Minnesota [George Rehm]) involves 

universities working directly with farmers on their farms to address actual problems and implement best 

management practices (BMPs) more individually. This works to tackle local and regional water quality 
4 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

issues and promote farmer interaction, which is a very important component of finding and implementing 

solutions. 

Nutrient Pollution and the 2012 Farm Bill: Are There Opportunities to Do Better?

Patricia Sinicropi, Director, Legislative Affairs, National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Excess nutrients in our waters create public health concerns, as well as ecological and economic impacts

such as: (1) high nitrate levels that are linked with cancer in drinking water, especially for infants and the 

elderly; (2) harmful algal blooms that are toxic to humans in recreational waters; and (3) hypoxic zones 

created by nutrient overload which hurt commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing. In fact, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that there are $80 million of 

economic losses each year attributable to unusable water resources. 

With hypoxic zones scattered all along coastal areas, it has been demonstrated that agriculture is the 

dominant source among various nutrient sources (including sewage, atmosphere, and agricultural land). 

The nitrogen deposition from agricultural sources (manure and fertilizers) saturates the landscapes far 

more than wastewater. The Clean Water Act requires that nutrients be removed from storm water

sources, but this probably will have little effect on water quality. On average, the cost of installing a 

denitrification system for an agricultural operation is less expensive than retrofitting storm water systems

and wastewater treatment plants.

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), managed by NRCS, makes reports at the 

watershed level. In the first report, released last year, CEAP determined that there was inadequate 

nutrient management in the hog sales and agricultural area of the Upper Mississippi River Basin 

(UMRB). To reduce nutrient loss, 62 percent of cropland requires additional treatment, and only 14

percent of the total acreage currently has good management practices. On the upside, the CEAP report 

finds that conservation practices can reduce both N and P nutrient runoff. The use of cover crops is the 

single most effective conservation method to reduce nutrient runoff. In fact, land in long-term conserving 

crop cover, albeit not always a realistic option for farmers, sees total nitrogen loss reduced by 81 percent, 

while total phosphorus is reduced by 97 percent. Models show that if the 36 million acres of undertreated 

land in the UMRB were nutrient managed, there would be a 43 percent total N and 51 percent total P 

reduction.

In 2007, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) determined that a 45 percent reduction from 2005 levels 

of nutrients transported to the Gulf of Mexico was needed to shrink the hypoxic zone from 22,000 km to 

5,000 km and avoid an ecosystem disaster. CEAP modeling suggests that this goal is achievable if 

agricultural sources begin aggressive nutrient management practices.

The 2012/2013 Farm Bill will make an attempt to address nutrient management practices in this more 

aggressive way. Policy improvements include: prioritization of nutrient control in nutrient-impaired 

watersheds, incorporation of conservation compliance measures for better nutrient control, and better 

monitoring data. Although this will not be easy to achieve, a 2001 survey found that the public would 

support giving more taxpayer funds to farmers using anti-pollution practices. As a result, it is possible to 

make significant progress with this 2012/2013 Farm Bill.

“Independently Applicable” Numeric Nutrient Criteria; Some Science and Alternatives

Tom Hebert, Bayard Ridge Group LLC

As Senior Advisor to the Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council, Mr. Tom Hebert discussed “how the 

rubber meets the road” in regards to the Clean Water Act and water quality criteria. 

The underpinning of the Clean Water Act is that waters in counties need a designated use. The default for 

this, in many people’s minds, is fishing/swimming; however, that does not have to be the case. The Clean 

Water Act requires criteria to be used that will determine designated water uses in regards to pollutants 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 5

and specifically for particular water bodies and pollutants. In determining such criteria, there are 

“numeric” criteria (e.g., no nutrients in excess of 0.034 parts per million [ppm] total P) or “narrative” 

criteria (e.g., no nutrients in excess of that appropriate to achieve the warm water fisheries conditions of 

this water body). Making decisions on the designated uses and criteria for these uses drives the Clean 

Water Act.

EPA’s current Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) position is that, working with states and the Clean Water 

Action Plan (which contains a NNC strategy), all states must determine NNC (for N and P) for all state 

water bodies. The states must then apply the NNC, regardless of observed water body biology or instream impairment. In determining water body quality, qualitative measurements (e.g., how healthy the 

water body looks) cannot be used, and only the quantitative NNC is applicable.

To better understand this, the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program conducted a 2010 

study and found that total N and P in 90 percent of agricultural streams across the country were above 

background levels. “Background level,” however, is defined as “pristine water,” which is not a condition 

required for fishing and swimming purposes. The use of “pristine water” in the definition sets the states 

up for failure.

Another issue, though independent, is that it is impractical to scientifically identify exactly when biology 

will respond to lower nutrient levels. In addition, there has been no demonstrable cause and effect made 

in regards to the biological significance of “pristine.” Waters may be able to handle more nutrients than 

“pristine” would allow and still biologically function. Another issue is that nearly all water bodies are 

impaired, as they do not attain the “pristine” label. A final issue is the attainability of such standards. In 

Florida, the cost of attaining such standards amounts to $750 each year per household, which is 

substantial. 

The Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council (ANPC) is concerned because when they modeled the 

Mississippi Valley and removed all the crops, replacing them with grass (which puts the system back to 

its original land use), the models never saw P drop below 0.066 ppm, which does not inherently make 

sense. With “pristine” water as the reference condition, nutrient levels cannot be realistically attained.

EPA’s SAB found that there is “...uncertainty associated with estimated stressor-response relationships 

that would be problematic if this approach were used as a ‘stand alone’ method because statistical 

associations do not prove cause and effect.” The SAB also pointed out that the NNC approach will work 

if it is not used in isolation, but as part of a larger weight-of-evidence approach. 

The states’ alternative approaches include using NNC only after verification that nutrients are the cause of 

a deleterious effect, focusing directly on reducing nutrient load, focusing on balancing biological and 

environmental response variables, using monitoring to set NNC for designated uses, setting criteria for 

response variables (i.e., chlorophyll a or dissolved oxygen), using non-nutrient indicators of water 

quality, and setting controls for only the problem nutrient. The ANPC supports these alternative 

approaches, as well as the SAB’s weight-of-evidence approach. 

Discussion of Stakeholder Panel (Dr. Sharpley, Ms. Sinicropi and Mr. Hebert)

Dr. Janis McFarland (Syngenta Crop Protection) questioned if there are models in use based on biological 

cause and effect by designated use for N, P, or sediment total suspended solids (TSS). Mr. Hebert 

responded that those models cannot be calibrated appropriately because of the lack of statistics that link 

nutrient loads to biological conditions. That is not to say, however, that they are not being developed. 

Mr. Douglas Young (Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center) asked Dr. Sharpley to highlight successes 

that resulted from the Discovery Farm Project in Arkansas. Dr. Sharpley responded that the program is 

still developing in Arkansas. The Wisconsin program is furthest along, and they have found that some 

NRCS programs work better than others there; some programs would work better if they were more 
6 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

flexible. There has been success in Arkansas in gaining interest and support from the farming community 

and Farm Bureau, which are allowing the program to gain momentum. 

Dr. Balling asked Ms. Sinicropi to clarify her earlier statement, “Treatment of erosion alone can 

exacerbate the N leaching problem.” Ms. Sinicropi replied that the tile drainage systems put in place to 

send water to the subsurface for erosion control, are carrying water soluble N below the soil surface and 

out to waterways. These systems control P very well (reducing erosion reduces P), but they do not reduce 

N, because a N flush actually occurs. Dr. Sharpley added that measures taken to control one element can 

exacerbate what happens with other elements. While tile drainage and conservation tillage are needed to 

reduce erosion, these N systems need to be managed to ensure proper timing and application methods to 

minimize excess nutrients entering the system at times when leaching will occur.

Mr. Hebert said that while conservation tillage can stop surface erosion, it can actually increase N

infiltration. Drainage tiles are needed to farm the land, regardless of nutrient movement. There is a 

complex interaction between N, P, and TSS, which is not understood completely. Dr. Sharpley added that 

conservation tillage is an essential part of farming and should not be abandoned, but it is important for the 

farmers to become more familiar with the issues associated with this effective management strategy. 

Ms. Sinicropi mentioned that practices that work with tile draining systems that have N 

collectors/absorbers are expensive. She further commented that wetlands are bioreactors that can be put 

at the edge of a field to absorb excess water and N. Tile drains are there and will remain, but hopefully 

we can develop technologies and practices to better manage the N drainage. 

Mr. Lawrence Clark (Farm Pilot Project Coordination) said that NNC should be done by states, and not 

by the Federal Government; however, this will require the assistance of many helpers and volunteers at 

the state level. In regards to the 20/80 rule, Mr. Clark questioned whether there are functional 

mechanisms that might be of use with regulatory programs and asked how the efforts can be focused 

geographically. Mr. Clark also requested Ms. Sinicropi to comment on the resources available to state 

agencies. Ms. Sinicropi responded that there are not enough resources at the state level, and the resources 

that are available are decreasing. One program that gets overlooked is National Program 106: 

Aquaculture, which helps states meet Clean Water Act regulations. The funding for this program, 

however, is either static or declining. States do not have the personnel and funds needed to undertake this 

complex criteria development. 

Mr. Clark wondered what resources (e.g., human, financial, and technical) are realistically available. 

Ms. Sinicropi answered that the Clean Water Act generally is not high on the environmental radar screen 

because the perception is that it was successful in improving water quality and there is no longer a serious 

concern. The unintended effect of this perception is that resources are directed elsewhere. 

Dr. McFarland commented that, in the area of science, data gaps need to be considered. She asked 

whether science gaps could be prioritized. Dr. Sharpley commented that linking models together is 

highly important. There is a great deal of information out there to drive these models, and it needs to be

used; however, the privacy of landowners must be protected. Currently, legacy effects are a black box in 

models. In regards to BMPs, expert guesses are difficult to make, so these data need to be addressed. 

Different states also have different standards and actions.

Mr. Hebert added that more work is needed to understand the interaction between P, N, and sediments. 

Specifically, data gaps that need to be addressed are: (1) N-use efficiency—hard science answers are 

needed and that information must be delivered effectively to farmers; (2) economics—the costs of 

improvements have no economies with them (i.e., CEAP report), and it is not clear if they are achievable 

at this time (e.g., the cost of cover crops).

Mr. Thomas McDonald (JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding) observed that there is movement away from 

local control to a national standardized approach, and this raises concern. Improvements should be made 

where they are needed, but because the environment varies greatly from state to state across the United 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 7

States, it is dangerous to have one standard. Monitoring and assessment are appropriate and necessary, 

but determining what measures should be taken to improve water quality becomes tricky, especially from 

the agricultural standpoint. Academia is good at identifying problems, but they are not always as good at 

determining how best to address them.

Dr. Sharpley agreed that researchers tend to discuss things at length, and, in many cases, more research is 

not the answer; rather, what is needed is the application of existing science to address the problem. 

NRCS initiatives focus on getting practices on the ground with farmers; these initiatives are focused on 

watersheds and on willing collaboration with farmers. Approximately 10 percent of these program funds 

are going towards monitoring to document the impact of these practices. Although this has been 

successful, there are many farmers who are reluctant to enroll in monitoring programs.

Ms. Sinicropi stated that there is enough evidence to know that nutrient runoff from agricultural lands is a 

problem, which now should be addressed aggressively. National policies and priorities should be based 

on what is known to be effective in addressing the problem. The next Farm Bill provides a good 

opportunity to make this happen.

Mr. McDonald did not agree with Ms. Sinicropi’s comment that we now know what works. If that were 

true, the practices would be implemented already. He posed the question: where are the stumbling 

blocks? Ms. Sinicropi replied that appropriate measures (combination of voluntary measures and 

regulations) are being taken in some areas (e.g., 1985 erosion control and wetland loss being addressed).

However, we are not scaling it up. We know that nutrients are the problem and that agriculture is the

most significant source. Adequate resources should be devoted to addressing this problem.

Ms. Peggy Beltrone (Exergy Integrated Systems) stated that choosing elected county officials is difficult, 

and that when elected, they are faced with some difficult decisions that impact their fellow citizens. The 

official has to decide how to allocate the money. Should she fund these programs and then fire five 

accountants or have only one sheriff on duty instead of two? People think this is an agricultural problem, 

but they forget that farmers allow most of the populace to live in cities because they grow and provide the 

necessary food. Most local governments have limited funding and do not want to pay for these programs, 

but taking steps to reduce nutrients and improve water quality is everyone’s problem because the farmers 

grow our food. Ms. Sinicropi agreed that the entire population is in this problem together and if we rely 

solely on the Clean Water Act approach, then more problems will develop. Agricultural and urban 

policies need to work together. Taxpayers are asked to support schools, police and fire departments, and 

more, so expecting them to support programs for nutrient and wastewater management, especially in this 

economy, is asking a lot. 

Mr. Eugene Thilstead (EPA Region 6) informed the Committee that the webinar was not working 

properly, but he could hear the proceedings. Ms. Kaiser responded that EPA would post the presentations

on the web after the meeting.

Following the panel discussion session, Dr. Balling noted that the three workgroups (Science, 

Partnerships, and Resources) need to take stock of the timeline and figure out what tasks must be 

completed before the next meeting. He explained that the questions to be considered and answered 

during the first workgroup session are: (1) What should be shared with the other workgroups? (2) What 

questions need to be asked of other workgroups? (3) What further information is needed for individual 

workgroups?

Review and Discussion of Committee Workgroup Session

Science Workgroup

Dr. Jennie (Hughes) Popp (University of Arkansas), speaking on behalf of the Science Workgroup,

identified questions in three areas: 
8 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

(1) Modeling—How are models developed, used, and linked? What are the data gaps associated with 

models right now? 

(2) Data collection—Where does this need to occur and when? At what scale does data collection need to 

occur and how should concerns of privacy be handled? Also, are BMPs being handled correctly on the 

ground? 

(3) On-farm studies—Because all farming is local, what site-specific information is needed? 

Putting all three of these questions together in the context of policy, Dr. Popp stated that the ultimate 

question is: What is the best policy and what will it cost farmers? Dr. Balling noted that Dr. Popp’s 

question focuses on the best use of resources in regards to science; it will be interesting to see how this 

fits in with the other workgroups. Ms. Dilley suggested that the workgroups be clearer about resource 

questions so workgroups can find collaboration areas.

Mr. Elworth noted that there is an enormous amount of scientific detail on which a great deal of time can 

be spent. The balance and intersection between scientific observations and policy should be considered 

and those can be translated into recommendations.

Ms. Dilley noted that scientific data searches, analysis, and considering partnerships should be examined 

in detail. However, at some point the workgroups will have to “jump off the diving board” and make

effective recommendations. Dr. Balling agreed that there is considerable scientific information, but he 

was concerned about making data quality decisions because it is not their area of expertise. The 

workgroup needs to look at policy issues and direction, and make some decisions.

Resources Workgroup

Mr. George Boggs (Whatcom Conservation District), speaking on behalf of the Resources Workgroup, 

remarked that the workgroup had developed a four-page outline, but it needs to be honed down to a list of 

questions. To target the discussion, the workgroup members were asked to respond to the question: If 

there is only time and money for one thing, what would it be? The workgroup agreed that, with limited 

resources, selected people should be targeted and low-hanging fruit should be picked. The 80/20 concept 

resonated with the Resources Workgroup and with the mindset of focusing on individuals. The 

workgroup members identified the need to educate farmers on what they can do, and that scientists/NRCS 

will help. It is important to consider resources and farmers’ limitations. The overarching theme of the 

workgroup discussion was the education of regulators, consumers, and farmers. This currently is not 

happening because there is a perception that there is no future in farming, but knowledge needs to be 

imparted that jobs and opportunities are available.

Mr. Clark explained that to achieve success, it must be self-sustaining. Farmers must want to be 

involved. Although subsidies help, funding is not always stable; therefore, it requires thinking outside the 

box to make this happen. Mr. Boggs agreed that sustainability is a large issue and the paradigm of cheap 

food does not accommodate the support needed to achieve these environmental goals. He reiterated that 

education (of farmers and urban dwellers) is vitally important to support legislation.

Mr. Lee McDaniel (Harford Soil Conservation District) wondered if the workgroup discussed the issue of 

equity between farmers who are just outside an important watershed and not getting funding, and 

neighboring farmers within said watershed who are receiving funding. Mr. Boggs replied that we are all a 

part of the solution as well as part of the problem. There are, however, only so many resources available 

and decisions must be made.

Mr. Hebert stressed that it cannot be an “either/or” situation. Everyone will have to work with the 

resources currently available. In the 2002 Farm Bill, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 9

(EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) were almost lost; only when these programs 

became nationally available were they able to be sustained. Smart targeting of money is necessary and it 

must be accepted that we cannot ask farmers to implement solutions that cause them to lose money. This 

does not have to be a lose/lose situation.

Mr. McDonald remarked that in Maryland there is a general fund for everybody to participate, but there 

also are specific targeted watersheds. Mr. Elworth noted that this already is being done through the 

Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI); however, there may be some ways to make it 

more effective. Mr. Boggs added that this is a work in progress. Some disillusioned environmental 

groups think that things are not progressing as they should and too much money is being spent on 

infrastructure. He noted that it is not just farmers voting on the Farm Bill. Fairness is important, and it 

will require education to ensure fairness. National support is essential and progress must be demonstrated 

for this to happen.

Dr. Balling questioned the alignment between various programs, the NRCS specifically, but also the 

USGS and the programs under the Clean Water Act. What is expected of the agricultural community 

under the Clean Water Act and what resources are being applied to get us there? Mr. Boggs agreed that 

the Resources Workgroup thinks alignment is very important. Mr. Boggs also reiterated that resources 

are limited and they should be marshaled. There needs to be a uniform national playing field with regard 

to expectations. USDA has reduced the number of people in the field, which has further drained available 

resources. This Farm Bill is very important—it should provide help with nutrient management instead of 

compel farmers to meet the requirements. The Bill should offer farmers help, education, and possibly 

financial support in implementing nutrient management measures.

Dr. Balling reiterated his question concerning the state of alignment between various programs. Mr. Ray 

Vester (E & M Farms Partnership) responded that they are not aligned. In general, there is fragmentation 

and lack of communication across the board. With the 80/20 rule, accurate monitoring is needed, and 

because every agricultural area is different, the biggest problem areas need to be addressed first. For the 

nutrients problem, there cannot be a nationalized “save the country” program. Tough spots need to be 

attacked first and education needs to follow. If several farmers who are proactive get on board, other 

farmers will follow. Farmers are not overly impressed by degrees and titles, and they do not want 

government officials telling them to change; if one of their neighbors, however, implements something 

that works, they will try it. With regard to offering the farmers funding to implement nutrient 

management measures, this will not happen. The Farm Bill has been reduced by $19 billion since its

inception. 

Mr. Clark questioned, in regards to resource restraints, whether other models for achieving conservation 

around the globe have been examined. Mr. Boggs replied that he had not reviewed the conservation 

efforts of other countries. He added that, in regards to program alignment, there is poor alignment among 

programs in Washington State. Achieving alignment does not require legislation, and it would show 

leadership if problems and gaps could be identified. With respect to examining conservation models from 

around the globe, Mr. Vester pointed out that farmers in Europe are held in high esteem and are respected 

by local governments. There is heavy subsidization of farmers in Europe; therefore, farmers make a good 

living and are well educated. 

Mr. Elworth remarked that federal agencies can no longer afford to fund programs that are off-target and 

ineffective. There are many factors that lead to an area being considered critical, and it remains to be 

seen what approaches should be implemented in these areas.

Mr. Hebert mentioned that, with respect to farmers, Australia is on the other end of the spectrum from 

Europe. He added that there are some states where NRCS works with the state’s Water Quality Agency 

and the Department of Agriculture and still maintains the program viability. EPA and USDA should find 

these states, learn how they function, and create a model that could be used in states. 
10 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

Ms. Martha Noble (National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) commented that program alignment can 

be attained and one way to do it is through EQIP. EQIP has a component focused on helping farmers meet 

regulations. A great deal of EQIP money was spent for CAFOs. CSP devices can identify resources of 

concern (e.g., water quality) and then farms that want CSP money could be targeted. How can these 

farms be identified? How many resources should be used to make that identification? Targeting is 

needed and it will take time and money. It will be difficult, however, to get money from the Farm Bill to 

make it work.

Partnerships Workgroup

Mr. Young, speaking on behalf of the Partnerships Workgroup, said that the workgroup labored under the 

axiom “if you don’t have what you want, use what you got.” He noted that the key decisions to be made 

are: (1) EPA’s exact role in making sure the data being developed are consistent and understandable, 

(2) the resolution of partnership directions and what role EPA should play, and (3) how solutions should 

be implemented. Further elaborating on this third decision, Mr. Young stated that it is necessary to look 

at market methodologies, nutrient management and EPA’s role in this, and drainage. The workgroup 

identified the following attributes of successful partnerships: (1) they should be driven by a local farmer; 

(2) they should be market driven; (3) whole farm effects and environmental issues should be known 

before implementing measures across a watershed; (4) EPA should maintain a low profile; (5) the 

measures must be economically viable; and (6) a central coordinator is needed for continuity. 

Ms. Suzy Friedman (Environmental Defense Fund) added that the three ways partnerships are helpful to 

EPA are: (1) data gathering, (2) resolution of issues, and (3) implementation focus. She stressed the 

importance of providing clear, specific examples for the recommendations to EPA. One such example is 

the metrics of a protocol, which is a science issue, and leveraging this into the marketplace. Another 

example is nutrient management and drainage. Maintaining production goals also needs to be addressed. 

When specific recommendations are described, the following two issues must also be considered: 

(1) What are EPA sidebars (policy, legal mandates, etc.)? (2) What are the various sources of money that 

can be utilized? Mr. Young noted that market-driven metrics work with the Sustainable Agriculture 

Initiative (SAI). He noted that the market often can do a better job of driving change to improve 

environmental conditions than regulations.

Dr. McFarland asked if the tile drainage questions are driven by data gaps or because they are known to 

be problematic in high-priority areas. Ms. Friedman responded that new scientific data on tile drainage 

and general drainage are continually becoming available, and those reports are being reviewed. Mr. Clark 

added that the Midwest is responding well to tile drainage management and discovering new ways in 

which to manage drainage. Dr. Ann Sorenson (American Farmland Trust) commented that according to 

the NRCS webpage, there is a USDA group actively looking at agricultural drainage. There also is an 

advisory group with representatives from land grant universities and the Agricultural Research Service 

(ARS) working on the drainage issue. Ms. Friedman confirmed that the USDA group’s work is focused 

on a couple of specific practices. Mr. Hebert reminded everyone that North Carolina State initiated much 

of this study on the management of drainage, risers, and tiling drainage.

Dr. Lori Berger (California Specialty Crops Council) thought that looking at how other countries are 

handling these issues would be a good point of reference and could help the workgroup put things in 

better context.

Mr. Boggs observed that drainage is an example of targeting particular contributions. Focusing efforts 

and bringing assistance to these targeted areas is important. Education and partnering with land-grant 

universities has not been mentioned. Curriculum to support the management of drainage would be 

beneficial. Ms. Friedman felt that land grant university education and technology assistance need to be 

revitalized. 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 11

Stakeholder Panel

Environmental Stewardship in Virginia’s Poultry Industry

Hobey Bauhan, President, Virginia Poultry Federation

As farmers and farms are aging, they are being converted to poultry operations and other uses. The

Shenandoah Valley is the largest region of poultry production in Virginia, and poultry contributed more 

than $980 million to the Virginia economy in 2010. Many jobs are created by the poultry industry within 

poultry farms and companies that process poultry products (e.g., Perdue), as well as outside the industry. 

The Shenandoah Valley is part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (CBW) and so poultry farms have been 

under close scrutiny; however, they are not new to nutrient management. Nutrient management plans 

have been studied and implemented since the early 1990s and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University (VA Tech) has received funding to study P, converting manure to energy, and markets for the 

manure. With regards to marketing the manure, there is less P in chicken litter now than in the past 

because the chickens are being fed an enzyme that causes them to better use the P in their feed. Another 

study at VA Tech is looking at the transport of litter regionally. The transport of litter to farmlands that 

need P (farms with poor soil and low P) can be difficult, and there actually is not enough P in poultry 

litter to fulfill the needs of farmland. It is sometimes easier to utilize commercial fertilizer.

Poultry litter also can be used for energy, exemplified by Fibrowatt LLC, which has power plants that run 

on poultry litter. With various combustion, pyrolysis, digestion, and other technologies converting poultry 

litter to energy, commercialization of these technologies should increase over the next 5 years.

Collaborations have been helpful. For example, the Waste Solutions Forum, which includes members 

from USDA, EPA, and VA Tech, established a steering committee focusing on poultry litter management

and initiated some projects. The Forum received funds for a pilot project associated with the VA Tech 

poultry litter research. Efforts are under way to commercialize the results.

Organic sources of poultry litter increased substantially after the increase in petroleum prices (needed to 

make traditional fertilizers). In fact, farmers have little trouble getting rid of their poultry litter under free 

market forces because it is so valuable. 

Although local volunteers and education are very helpful in poultry litter and water quality management, 

efforts are ongoing to create some bills and regulations at the state level. Currently, permits are needed 

for poultry litter production and transfer.

Virginia recognizes the importance of restoring the CBW, and has made plans for proper resource 

management. The states are looking at farms on a farm-by-farm basis and creating specific incentives.

For example, if nutrient management is needed on a specific farm, the state will ensure that those 

measures are implemented. 

With states leading the way and a firm reliance on solid scientific data, voluntary approaches should be 

emphasized as much as possible, as they tend to work much better than regulations. Cost sharing also is 

very important because farmers often work on thin margins to implement these costly practices. 

Agriculture and Water Quality

Michael Plumer, Consultant, Conservation Agriculture

The Illinois farm community is examining agricultural sustainability and water quality issues, such as:

(1) sediments, (2) nutrients (N and P), (3) agriculture and sustainability, (4) lack of water quality farm 

research, (5) regulations without basis or applicable research, (6) need to target priority watersheds, and 

(7) conservation programs.
12 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

Thanks to technology, the U.S. corn yields have been on the rise. N and P used in fertilizers in Illinois 

have been steadily declining since 1975. This trend also has been observed nationally, because farmers 

cannot afford to apply excess fertilizer. In fact, Illinois has seen a 37 percent drop in applied anhydrous 

ammonia (N). This can be reduced even further if there is a conversion from fall fertilizer application to 

spring application. It cannot be overlooked, however, that applying fertilizer in the spring rather than the 

fall results in higher costs, has higher risk of coverage, and wet springs can delay fertilizer application and 

crop planting.

Conservation practices can increase operating costs (for example, requiring the purchase of special 

equipment to get through wet fields in the spring). Illinois farmers have implemented various nutrient 

management measures, including buffer strips, zone sampling nutrient management plans, sidedressing N, 

wetland/wildlife in place, and riparian management areas. These practices can be costly and difficult to 

maintain, and create unused land for farmers. There can be 5 to 6 acres of unused farmland that reduces 

the farmers’ income and increases farm maintenance expenses. Many older farmers do not like the 

conservation practices and it can be difficult to help these farmers because Illinois conservation programs 

are laden with rules, making them hard to implement. 

Economical solutions are needed to help farmers, such as cost sharing and access to specialized 

equipment. Management knowledge also is essential, because implementing a new system is generally 

high risk for farmers, so they tend to remain conservative. In the mid-1980s, 30 percent of Illinois 

farmers went bankrupt and this has not been forgotten by the farming community. Policies need to be 

practical and supported by sufficient data. 

Farmers and the Illinois EPA launched a grassroots effort to increase education and research for the 

voluntary adoption of conservation practices in Illinois. Funded by farmers and the agricultural industry, 

and supported by dealers, suppliers, and communities, the educational program to reduce nutrient loss is 

called Keep It for the Crop 2025 (KIC 2025). Illinois EPA approved KIC 2025, which was initiated in 

April 2011. KIC 2025 has to replace the Illinois Department of Agriculture’s Fertilizer, Research, and 

Education Council that already is in place. This is a difficult process that has led to the KIC 2025

program being blocked by the Illinois legislature. Farmers, however, are funding themselves anyway and 

they are planning to start the program without the legislature. The farmers are concerned about water 

quality and believe they should be consulted regarding how to address nutrient management. 

Incentives and Market-Based Approaches to Farming and Conservation

Robert Bonnie, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Environment and Climate, USDA

There is an interest in market-based approaches for farmers to address water quality issues. NRCS has 

been focusing efforts on priority landscapes and working with farmers and ranchers. Examples of this 

include work in the CBW, the UMRB, and the California Bay Delta. In fact, in the CBW, $600 million 

will go to targeted conservation. 

Regarding wildlife, the NRCS is proud of the Sage Grouse Initiative (the sage grouse is a candidate for 

endangered species listing). Farmers are interested in being involved with the NRCS on this initiative

because financial and regulatory incentives are provided to farmers. 

CEAP assessment conclusions in the CBW and UMRB watersheds (and one more assessment to be 

concluded soon from the Great Lakes region) mirror each other: (1) voluntary practices work to get the 

right management practices done on the right priority areas, (2) much work still needs to be done, and 

(3) agriculture is a valuable use of land, so farmers need to be kept on this land. The actual data and 

modeling being done here will hopefully fill in some science gaps. 

Of note, the Secretary for Environment and Climate is interested in creating new incentives for farmers to 

help with nutrients and wildlife. With these incentives, there should be regulatory certainty, such that 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 13

farmers can be assured that rules will not change and that they will get rewarded as promised. The 

concept of regulatory certainty has been applied to endangered species protection and has worked well. 

The idea is to create something similar for water quality. It would be beneficial to work within existing 

laws, as well as partner with states and farmers, to make this happen.

The Secretary for Environment and Climate also is interested in environmental markets. The idea is to 

use tools like CEAP to measure the benefits of conservation practices. The Office of Environmental 

Markets and the Office of the Chief Economist at USDA are looking into technical aspects and 

methodologies for this (e.g., currently working in the CBW on this). There could be benefits for 

municipalities. Regarding greenhouse gases, much work has been done to have individual landowners 

measure gases (e.g., NOx) that can affect water quality. Projects are being funded that include: dairy 

farms, fertilizers, feed lots, and rice production. The experience and lessons learned from these projects 

will benefit landowners and the environment. 

Discussion of Stakeholder Panel (Mr. Bauhan, Mr. Plumer and Mr. Bonnie)

Ms. Dilley confirmed that there were no questions from webinar/phone participants. Mr. McDaniel asked 

about documentation of the conservation practices on Illinois farms. Mr. Plumer responded that there 

currently is no documentation. Mr. McDaniel remarked that farmers are not documenting because there 

is no cost-share benefit or credit being given to them for doing so. Reports may show that there is no 

treatment even when there is, because there is a lack of documentation. Mr. Bonnie confirmed that this is 

a large problem in the CBW and they are trying to figure out how to encourage data sharing.

Dr. Larry Sanders (Oklahoma State University) asked Mr. Bauhan if he had any thoughts on the contract 

model, in which large corporations with extensive financial resources (e.g., Perdue) pass off 

environmental costs to those without such resources. Mr. Bauhan disagreed with this statement and 

pointed out that the contract system for poultry and livestock production is mutually beneficial, noting 

that it is a low margin industry. Nobody (i.e., farmers or corporations) is experiencing much monetary 

gain, but at least contracted farmers are guaranteed an income. He mentioned that 80 percent of growers 

have litter sheds and practice nutrient management, so these corporations are positive overall.

Dr. Balling asked Mr. Bonnie to identify priority areas for nutrient management. Mr. Bonnie responded 

that the CBW, Great Lakes, and UMRB are all high priorities and now they are looking at the Tennessee 

and Ohio Valleys. The initial focus was on places that are of the most value and are the most topical. He 

noted that priority decisions will become more important as we move to other areas (e.g., the West, where 

data are not as robust). Dr. Balling asked if the priority areas are determined by which ones are the most 

impaired or by which ones are impacted most by agriculture. Mr. Bonnie explained that there is 

considerable cropland and public interest in the Great Lakes, UMRB, and CBW areas, and because NRCS 

has a role in helping farmers manage their land, these are priority areas. In moving beyond these initial 

target areas, priority setting is becoming more difficult.

Dr. Popp asked Mr. Plumer if NRCS is partnering with the State of Illinois to help make their

conservation programs more effective. Mr. Plumer replied that there is no leniency or flexibility in the 

Illinois programs so farmers are afraid to use them. The local NRCS offices in Washington, DC, have 

great field staff that help and the regional office is good, but the state is inflexible and this makes things 

very difficult. Mr. Bonnie mentioned that the NRCS Chief wants more people out in the field and is 

working on streamlining to get more people out there with the landowners. Dr. McFarland asked 

Mr. Plumer about the science that needs to be done to better understand the costs of BMPs. She asked 

about the Virginia Poultry Association funding the equipment and whether there can be a monetary input 

to help with equipment sharing, and also whether the checkoff programs work and whether they should be 

applied to more industries. Mr. Plumer responded that checkoff dollars are available in Illinois; however,

the governor uses these checkoff funds. Consequently, the soybean and corn growers are paying for all 

the research through checkoff programs.
14 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

Dr. McFarland asked about the cost of maintaining buffer strips and other conservation practices, and said 

that a maintenance analysis is needed for research purposes. Mr. Plumer answered that costs are not 

reported; the farmers just keep them in place and maintain the buffer strips. 

Mr. Daniel Botts (Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association) asked about the intended use of checkoff 

funds. Mr. Plumer shared that although there is some university involvement and verification, private 

consultants are usually hired because of their lower overhead cost compared to universities. 

Mr. Clark asked about targeted nutrient reductions and what is being used as a benchmark. What is the 

level of funding from the Illinois EPA? Are there numeric goals/zones established? Mr. Plumer reported 

that the Illinois EPA does not provide funding. N and P are targeted nutrients. Collected monitoring data 

show that N is the problem, not P. Mr. Plumer added that there are no numeric goals/zones, and that they 

are doing narrative nutrient criteria.

Dr. Sanders asked if there is research being conducted on how conservation affects water quality. Are the 

costs of conservation practices too high for producers? Mr. Plumer responded that producers often do not 

understand conservation practices (e.g., no tillage, cover crops) and they think the risk is high. Good data 

on tile drain land in Illinois are not available and more information is needed. There are some overflow 

data available. Soils with increased organic matter often are considered “young soils” and are managed 

via tile drainage; because there is a high degree of mineralization in these soils, the data become 

convoluted and confusing. 

Dr. Sanders followed up with a comment on the Extension Service (i.e., universities reach out via 

teaching and research, and “extend” resources to solve public needs through non-formal programs). One 

way that programs have paid off and worked in Oklahoma is through partnerships among the Farm 

Service Agency (FSA), the Extension Service, and NRCS. Mr. Bonnie commented that adding staff for 

technical assistance is impossible. Mr. Bonnie commented that adding staff for technical assistance is 

impossible. Partnerships and collaborations are very important right now because of the economy. Mr. 

Omar Garza (Texas/Mexico Border Coalition) commented that most of the listed partners/collaborators 

were State of Illinois entities; he noted that no federal or local collaborators were listed. Mr. Plumer 

responded that the partners listed are not state agencies; they are all local producers and groups. He 

emphasized that farmers pay little attention to things that are not local.

Mr. McDonald questioned if poultry producers can be proactive by moving nutrients out of the CBW and 

away from sources with the goal of improving water quality. Perhaps incentives could be used to 

encourage this. Mr. Bauhan explained that Virginia poultry litter is regulated through its entire life cycle. 

Farmers accepting litter must be able to accommodate the P from the litter. There is no requirement to 

move the litter out of the CBW because it is regulated; he added that subsidizing litter transfer from the 

Shenandoah Valley to other locations would not be economically viable. Mr. McDonald pointed out that 

if poultry litter is transferred from the Basin, new commercial fertilizer will have to be used. Mr. Bauhan

agreed and added that there is no regulation of commercial fertilizer application in Virginia.

Following the panel discussion, Ms. Dilley encouraged the workgroups to identify overlaps between the 

groups and to focus on developing two or three recommendation areas. She noted that a discussion of this 

workgroup session would commence in the morning.

Public Comment

Ms. Kaiser called for public comments and there were none. 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 15

THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2011

Ms. Kaiser called the meeting to order at 8:08 a.m.

Dr. Balling commented that the workgroups needed to report their progress to the Committee and identify 

some specific recommendations.

Ms. Dilley stated that the workgroups needed to make more progress on identifying specific 

recommendations and developing a work plan for today and what must be accomplished before the 

October meeting. She also suggested that the workgroups check the chart (distributed already to the 

Committee members) for overlaps and potential coordination with other workgroups, and to populate the 

chart cells. Ms. Dilley also emphasized that a draft report had to be developed by October. Mr. Elworth 

added that recommendations need to be summarized and discussions need to be incorporated into the 

report as well.

Review and Discussion of Afternoon (6/22/11) Committee Workgroup Session 

Science Workgroup

Dr. Popp, speaking on behalf of the Science Workgroup, reported that problems include a lack of science 

and scientific transparency, a lack of alignment between agencies, and a lack of economics around 

recommendations. Dr. Popp recounted three problem areas: (1) model uncertainties and links between 

models, (2) economic policy development, and (3) communications between science and policy (i.e.,

science needs to be communicated across agencies and to producers). Dr. Popp also added that given the 

limited resources, these needs will be prioritized. 

Ms. Dilley commented that problems must be identified and characterized, and the Science Workgroup is 

doing this well. Solutions also must be generated and implemented and little has been done on that. 

Dr. McFarland commented that a timeline needs to be developed for where and when data should be 

received.

Mr. Elworth remarked that stakeholder involvement is good and should be maintained; stakeholders have 

information that is useful for the regulatory process. Dr. McFarland noted that people want to know why 

they should help and the science behind what is happening. This should be foremost in people’s minds at

the level of implementation, but it is not. Why not? People need to understand the importance and 

impact of these methods. Mr. Elworth mentioned that the public generally becomes interested and 

engages only when actions are actually being implemented. People need to be able to look back at the 

scientific process that led to the actions. Dr. McFarland emphasized the need for states to ensure that 

growers are involved in the process. 

Ms. Dilley asked about EPA’s role. Would the Agency be convening, participating, and/or facilitating?

Mr. Elworth observed that engaging growers can be difficult; it is easier to obtain input when the interest 

of grower groups has been sparked. Mr. Vester affirmed that the best way to reach growers is through 

grower associations. Dr. McFarland said that state conservation experts, extension programs, and people 

at the local level should be involved. 

Resources Workgroup

Mr. Boggs, speaking on behalf of the Resources Workgroup, summarized the three major points of the 

workgroup discussion. The first point is people; this is where the workgroups need to cross, and find 

newer ways of thinking and new paradigms. In regard to science, Mr. Boggs said that the problem is a 

lack of confidence in the scientific process; it is this lack of appreciation that leads to no behavioral 

change in advance of regulatory action. The credibility of solutions is not readily believed. People do not 
16 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

see that solutions for Virginia will work in Indiana, for example. The practices that are selected must 

address the problems, and the scientific community needs to communicate this. Time and money are the 

second and third elements discussed by the Resources Workgroup. EPA has limitations and it cannot be 

the source of all things. Partnerships, like the one with USDA, are vitally important. The pot of money,

however, needs to get bigger to solve these problems, and education is very important to garner taxpayer 

support. 

Mr. Elworth conceded that education is important; however, it takes time, people, skills and resources to 

engage people early on. With the passage of the Continuing Resolution bill, there are fewer funds 

available, so it will be necessary to engage regional people and organizations, in addition to EPA 

headquarters. Mr. Vester concurred that it is useful to educate at the local level; if key individuals are 

educated within a community, information will spread from there to other growers. This bottom-up 

approach is key. Mr. David Petty (Iowa River Ranch) reiterated that a rapport needs to be established 

with the locals and regional people need to interact with these local people. Dr. Sanders added that 

discussions should include the concept of government reduction. Therefore, solutions need to be selfsustaining and rely on local people to monitor nutrient levels, as opposed to monitoring at the federal 

level. Mr. Boggs agreed that when standards are not being met, the value of the water resources needs to 

be established and understood in the community as well as the value of the individual farmers.

Sustainability happens when local people see the importance and want to help, not with the 

implementation of new regulations. 

Dr. Berger questioned whether in developing recommendations, some hard numbers (e.g., costs for 

programs) are needed. Mr. Boggs responded that this report will lay the path for steps that should be 

taken. Dr. Berger stressed that some “ballpark” numbers would be helpful. Mr. Elworth noted that the 

appropriations committee will look at the recommendations and want some numbers. This Committee 

should develop ideas to actually remove more expensive mistakes in the long term. Mr. Elworth asked 

the workgroup to identify some good examples of this. 

Mr. Young questioned how this will all be paid for. In general, the consumer always has to pay for what 

it costs to produce high-quality food. The funds have historically gone from the consumers through

government to researchers, and then the knowledge and information flows to farmers. That paradigm is 

shifting now. Consumers will still pay, but a market-driven future will mean farmers will be developing 

brand value, as opposed to the current paradigm for commodities where everything is the same. There 

will be product differentiation, which will fund those improvements that are necessary to make things 

better. This means finding the practices, on a whole farm basis, that will maximize productivity and 

minimize nutrient loss. Mr. Young is working with the SAI platform and companies trying to develop 

international standards, to figure out how to measure sustainability. SAI is working on a metric or index 

number that informs people what farmers are doing in regards to sustainability; this index then can drive 

the market. Farmers, however, will need help initially in developing better sustainability practices, which 

will become profitable in the long term. 

Mr. Vester agreed and added that before people can be educated about solutions, they need to be educated 

on the problems. The science must be there before anything can be market driven. It takes the average 

consumer a long time before he or she will look at any number on a package other than price (such as a 

sustainability index); therefore, there must be a serious effort to educate the public before such an 

approach can be effective. This education should be supported by state and federal funds. Mr. McDaniel 

commented that the FRRCC has always focused on agriculture, but in regards to resources and 

partnerships, others (e.g., homeowners, wastewater groups, etc.) might have input and should be involved.

Ms. Noble said that the involvement of farmers is important. A USDA program, the Sustainable 

Agricultural Research and Education Program, works well because farmers are involved directly in 

research and trying different farming systems. This program requires farmers to demonstrate these 

practices to other farmers, and discuss the results of these techniques, both good and bad. 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 17

Partnerships Workgroup

Mr. McDonald, speaking on behalf of the Partnerships Workgroup, reported that this workgroup has 

overlap with the other workgroups and will leave funding discussions to the Resources Workgroup. He 

also said that a search has found that EPA has partnered with many groups over the years. Some of the 

partnerships have worked well and some have not. In the area of water quality and non-point source 

water quality, partnerships will be very effective at having an impact because EPA does not have 

regulatory authority over non-point sources. Mr. McDonald added that for partnerships to be productive 

there must be trust among the stakeholders, and the decisions of the partnership must be supported by all.

The Agency and partners with regulatory authority need to set and also be clear about minimal standards 

and ground rules. 

Mr. McDonald identified three key points for effective partnerships: 

1. When there is a lack of understanding, people must get together and be educated to understand 

and identify problems. This requires resources and deciding who should be at the table (i.e.,

environmental community, farmers, EPA, etc.). 

2. The solutions developed must be science-based, and EPA’s role in making this happen must be 

established.

3. When solutions are implemented, education and outreach are important in pulling people together 

to implement them. 

Mr. McDonald questioned how the stakeholders will know if water quality improvements are being made 

in real time. In regards to monitoring and resources, it is difficult to determine which scientists should do 

the monitoring (e.g., those from academia, industry or government) and where resources will be obtained

for monitoring. Mr. McDonald noted that the agricultural sector rallies around solutions they believe in; 

therefore, the buy in of stakeholders is essential for an effective partnership.

Ms. Friedman emphasized the importance of continuing to identify science needs. Are the approaches

being implemented by farmers working? Are the changes being documented? Are there marketplace 

changes? She noted that EPA can facilitate partnerships with universities and industry that can help 

establish communication among stakeholders and agreement on what is the most valuable tool suite.

Dr. Sanders questioned the validity of different roles. He remarked that the facilitator of managerial 

issues must be seen as an honest broker without a vested interest. When EPA steps in, this sometimes can 

create problems inadvertently. Mr. McDonald suggested that the best possible role for EPA is to provide

Nonpoint Source Management Program (Clean Water Act, Section 319) funds to a state and let the state 

take the lead role. Sometimes minimal resources are actually required; people just need to communicate. 

Ms. Friedman noted that the workgroup did not determine EPA’s role, but the workgroup members agree 

that the general idea is a hands-off approach in which EPA facilitates and coordinates, bringing people 

and groups together. The Agency then benefits from the information that is developed through the 

partnership. Mr. Elworth said that EPA does not have to be a partner to recognize the value of a 

partnership; the Agency still can gain valuable information. Ms. Friedman added that the workgroup also 

thought EPA could be a source of resources and research.

Dr. Sorenson questioned whether the concept is that all partnerships go through all three stages (defining 

and understanding the problem, identifying the solution, and implementing the solution) or whether 

partnerships can be formed to address the various stages. Ms. Friedman responded that the Partnerships

Workgroup wanted to offer EPA more than simple recommendations and generalities; the workgroup 

explicitly wanted more specifics to engage EPA. 
18 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

Ms. Dilley recounted that the workgroup was looking into examples of partnerships that came together, 

developed a plan and initiated work, but did not have any systems in place to check up on progress and 

interpret what was happening. The lack of these systems makes partnerships fall apart, often leaving the 

problem unsolved. The Partnerships Workgroup hopes to assess what makes partnerships work, how 

long they need to be in existence, how they determine if they accomplished their goals, and whether what 

they intended to accomplish changes over time.

Mr. Petty affirmed that EPA meetings in Iowa did not work, as people there are hostile towards 

government agencies, especially EPA. Alternatively, having EPA attend a cattle meeting to answer 

people’s questions seemed to work well. Inclusion of EPA as a participant, instead of a facilitator, has 

worked very well too.

Mr. Vester asserted that partnerships focused on education and locating funding would be beneficial, and 

such partnerships likely would last given the importance of these two foci. Dr. Berger shared that the Pest 

Management Alliance Program was highly successful in California. It might be helpful to examine this 

successful model, as it had significant outreach and education.

Mr. Elworth asked Bruce Knight, former NRCS chief, for examples of other program models. Mr. Bruce 

Knight (Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC) encouraged the FRRCC to be bold with its 

recommendations for EPA; he said the Committee should not be shy about mentioning budgetary needs.

Investment in partnerships should be a high priority for agencies given the budget reductions they face 

today, and this statement should be emphasized in the recommendations. He also posited that regulations 

must be based on quantifiable science. In regards to examples of successful partnerships, Mr. Knight 

mentioned an effort in Iowa. To achieve zero runoff in Iowa, regions were convinced to put in swales and 

other alternative technologies. This was a highly successful partnership. There have been significant 

improvements in the CBW as a result of the improvements made by agriculture. The Miami Basin in 

Ohio is a good example of nutrient trading mechanisms. The Boone River Watershed in Iowa, with the 

work that has been done upstream, is another good example of a successful partnership. In another 

example, Washington and Oregon were dealing with a water temperature situation and they implemented 

a water temperature strategy that worked well. 

Mr. Knight also suggested that the FRRCC highlight situations where partnerships should have happened, 

but did not. In the case of the Arkansas and Oklahoma water quality situation, had they partnered and 

worked together, there could have been a better, more productive climate there. This is a good example 

of a partnership that should have happened. 

Other examples of successful partnerships include: the USDA, EPA, and farm community working 

together to improve air quality in the San Joaquin Valley, California; New Mexico and Texas working 

together on Tamarix control to increase water quantity; and people in California working together to keep 

sage grouse from becoming endangered. Mr. Knight mentioned that USDA has had challenges in 

advisory committees because it is difficult to quantify environmental attributes of technological 

advancements. Technologies can reduce N and P inputs, which is better than more regulations or NRCS 

cost-share. The challenge is to quantify the benefits of these technologies and aggregate them for the 

models. 

Mr. Elworth asked if anyone discussed doing work on the utility of production systems analysis, in 

regards to environmental impacts. Ms. Noble said that industry can start looking at a system, from an 

environmental framework, to deal with pollution, and some who have done this have seen economic 

benefits. 

Mr. McDaniel commented on measuring the benefits of new technologies. NRCS has some numbers on 

the benefits of various technological developments and fertilizer technologies. These numbers, based on 

technologies, may be more helpful than the numbers that currently are being monitored. Dr. Popp 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 19

remarked that in academia, research has to evaluate processes one at a time, let them build on each other,

and then look at the benefits.

Mr. Garza reminded the Committee that EPA is a regulatory agency and USDA is not; therefore, are these 

two agencies meeting to figure out how they can work together, partner, and bring about changes to 

address environmental problems? Mr. Elworth added that EPA could co-fund projects with USDA and 

the two agencies could identify additional ways to be more effective. He admitted that there is tension at 

times between EPA and USDA, but this is calmed when they concede their actual jobs (i.e., regulatory vs. 

non-regulatory). In collaborations between EPA and USDA, both agencies must make sure that they are 

doing their job or the funding will be pulled. Mr. Knight commented that there is wisdom in these 

different agency roles that can be useful. For example, USDA is the “non-threatening” agency that 

people are willing to talk to, while EPA is the more “threatening” regulatory agency. 

Ms. Beltrone mentioned the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and said that some 

businesses that received SBIR funding should be encouraged to talk about the impacts of their 

technologies on sustainability. This may create an incentive towards sustainability. Mr. Elworth thought 

Ms. Beltrone’s idea was a good one. Dr. Sanders stated that, using the Arkansas and Oklahoma litigation 

example, political situations can impact the EPA relationships. In some cases, people are actually told not 

to cooperate with EPA, pending the political climate. In regards to doing a better job of measuring 

environmental benefits, ecosystem services is the new direction, which will benefit agriculture and the 

public.

Dr. McFarland asked if NRCS looks at regulations on the horizon or just those regulations currently in 

place. Mr. Knight responded that the NRCS prioritization process is complicated. At the federal level, 

NRCS considers where money should flow and which technologies should be developed; at the state 

level, money is pooled and state conservationists must decide on the priorities. Mr. Elworth commented 

that, based on some of his work, new practices put forth from the county level can then get brought up to

the state level. This can be labor intensive; however, bringing it up locally and getting buy-in from local 

people gives the new practice a much better chance of passing at the state level.

Dr. Berger questioned whether the benefits of the State Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) can be 

optimized. Although somewhat successful, the current process is cumbersome, complex and commodity

driven. Mr. Knight pointed out that in California, for example, the process is very difficult as it is quite 

technical and complex. STAC only works when 20 to 30 people come together consistently and work out 

what needs to be done. Mr. Elworth added that learning the entire process at each level, although labor

intensive, may be very helpful. NRCS has various degrees of understanding about flexibility and nonflexibility. Mr. Clark commented that STAC is good at setting priorities. He noted that STAC exerts a 

great degree of influence, but it is vital to have an effective organizational structure established in 

working with them. This is a downfall of many technical committees, but they are hugely successful in 

setting priorities and bringing interests to the table that are not always observed otherwise. 

Ms. Noble stated that STACs have a network (i.e., e-mail listserv) through which they can communicate 

with each other. This network has been great at getting support built at the ground level and then moving 

that support up. In fact, special attention was given by STACs in the Farm Bill to organic farming and 

pollinators, which was started by this network locally and then moved up. Mr. James Ford (Square “O” 

Consulting) agreed that STAC is a great forum to bring state partnerships together. He added that local 

level partnerships, brought together by STAC, often are taken for granted. Mr. Petty affirmed that the 

STAC in Iowa has successfully addressed issues, and the committee members listen and help develop 

positive working relationships within the community. 

Ms. Dilley explained that the workgroups should decide on their recommendations and then fine tune 

them; workgroups also should develop a work plan. Mr. Elworth emphasized that this is the last time the

workgroups will meet until the October meeting, at which time a draft will be needed. Ms. Dilley 

clarified that a first draft should be submitted by August or September so that an executive summary can 
20 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

be compiled for the October meeting. Workgroups need to define their final tasks, establish a timeline,

and identify the support they will need.

Public Comment

Ms. Dilley called for public comments and there were none. 

Review and Discussion of Committee Workgroup Session and Final Remarks

Ms. Dilley indicated that the FRRCC needs to develop a work plan for the October meeting. Workgroups 

should communicate to EPA any support they will need to complete their drafts, and workgroups need to 

share their product timelines and products with the entire Committee. An executive summary needs to be 

prepared for the October 26-27, 2011 meeting. Mr. Elworth added that an executive summary also should

be prepared for administrators and the public.

Ms. Dilley emphasized that the workgroup drafts submitted by September should be almost final so an 

executive summary can be prepared by the October meeting. First drafts should be circulating within 

each workgroup by mid-August (themes, issues and recommendations should all be described and 

addressed). Mr. Elworth asked that workgroups be sure to define and describe resources, terms and other 

topics that may not be understood by those outside the FRRCC. Ms. Dilley went on to state that by midSeptember workgroups need to prepare a second draft, which will be circulated among the entire 

Committee. Comments from the full Committee on each workgroup draft will be due by September 30, 

2011 and a final draft from each workgroup will be ready by the October meeting. At that meeting, an 

executive summary group will be formed to bring together the workgroup findings and recommendations 

into one executive summary.

Mr. Elworth remarked on the importance of this executive summary. It needs to be a cohesive narrative. 

Ms. Dilley affirmed that it should seamlessly knit together all the workgroup reports and clearly present 

the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Elworth noted that the drafting process is not definitive, but it 

will help facilitate discussion.

Mr. Boggs asked how refined and polished the writing should be for the workgroup reports. Ms. Dilley 

replied that it probably will require more work to refine and polish the executive summary because it is a 

compilation of different reports written by different workgroups. Mr. Elworth clarified that individual 

workgroups can decide on the level of polish for their reports; the executive summary, however, needs to 

be polished. Ms. Dilley added that the workgroup reports should be in good shape though; specifically, 

the workgroups should pay attention to the wording of the findings and recommendations.

Mr. Boggs asked for validation during the process to keep the workgroups on the right narrative path. 

Mr. Elworth asserted that the writing of the individual workgroups can be different; it is more important 

that the reports provide key observations and recommendations. Mr. Boggs was concerned about the 

isolated discussions within the workgroups, as there may be comments that other workgroups should 

hear. Mr. Elworth reminded Mr. Boggs that the second draft from each workgroup, due in midSeptember, will be reviewed by the whole FRRCC. Each workgroup will get Committee feedback and 

there will be discussion and interaction with other workgroups. Mr. Boggs suggested that the workgroups 

distribute their frameworks to the Committee in July to get validation and early feedback. Ms. Dilley 

agreed to this request.

Dr. Sanders mentioned that summer is a time of vacation for many members and it can be a difficult time 

to accommodate deadlines. He asked about the flexibility of the timeline. Is there a requirement to 

complete the report by a particular date? Mr. Elworth responded that there is no legal deadline, but the

executive summary needs to be completed as soon as possible. He then posited two options: (1) have the 

executive summary completed, as planned, in October and discuss it with EPA staff at the end of October, 

or (2) have a subsequent meeting before the end of the year to meet with the EPA Administrator or senior 
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 21

leadership and present the recommendations. Mr. Elworth reminded the Committee that the value of the 

recommendations decline somewhat as the deadline is pushed out further. Dr. Sanders asked if the draft 

deadlines could be pushed back one month. Mr. Elworth conceded to the delay. Ms. Friedman said she 

preferred Mr. Elworth’s second option, and this seemed to be the consensus of the Committee. 

Ms. Dilley then asked the workgroups what support they will need to meet these deadlines. Dr. 

McFarland, on behalf of the Science Workgroup, requested help with three conference calls (July 18 to 

discuss data gaps/models, August 22 to discuss economic resources, and September 12 to discuss 

communication). On September 16, the Science Workgroup will have a draft for circulation to the other 

workgroups. Dr. McFarland stated that the workgroup may request facilitation for these conference calls, 

and they may need some EPA experts on the calls. 

Dr. Sorenson, on behalf of the Resources Workgroup, stated that they will have a conference call the first 

week of September, which will not require facilitation. A draft will be distributed to the Committee on 

July 22, and the workgroup would like to receive any comments by August 5. 

Ms. Kaiser asked the workgroups to send her the dates for their conference calls. She also asked them to 

specify facilitation needs and any other needs for EPA or outside experts. 

Mr. McDonald, on behalf of the Partnerships Workgroup, said that they will not require any outside 

resources and there are no plans for a conference call. The workgroup members will communicate via email. Ms. Friedman stated that the workgroup may need help in capturing the flip chart notes. 

Mr. Elworth commended the Committee on a job well done and reiterated that workgroups should inform 

Ms. Kaiser if they need additional support. Dr. Balling thanked the Committee members for their time 

and effort. He also extended his gratitude to Mr. Mark Joyce (OFACMO) and Ms. Kaiser for their 

support, as well as the assistance of the support staff. 

Ms. Kaiser said she will distribute a timeline to the Committee members and then she adjourned the 

meeting at 12:49 p.m.

Full Committee Action Items/Timeline

 In July, workgroups have the option of sending out a framework of their reports to the Committee for 

validation and early feedback.

 By mid-August, workgroups will have a first draft of their reports completed.

 At the end of August, workgroup first drafts will be circulated within workgroups for comment.

 In mid-September, workgroups will have the second draft of their reports completed and will circulate 

those to the full Committee for comment.

 By September 30, Committee members will have submitted comments on workgroup second drafts.

 At the end of September, an Executive Summary Workgroup will be formed and that workgroup will 

outline or form a preliminary draft of the executive summary document before the October meeting.

 By October 7, workgroup third drafts will be completed, with Committee comments integrated.

 During the October 26-27 FRRCC meeting, final workgroup reports will be completed and reviewed 

by the Committee.

 During the October 26-27 FRRCC meeting, the Executive Summary Workgroup will present the draft 

executive summary to the full Committee and it will be further developed by the Committee at the 

meeting.

 By November 30, the workgroup final reports will be completed and the executive summary will be 

finalized.
22 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

 In December, the executive summary report and the Committee’s recommendations will be presented 

to the Administrator.

Workgroup Expressed Timelines

Science Workgroup

 July 18: Conference call covering data gaps/models

 August 22: Conference call covering economic resources

 September 12: Conference call covering communication

 September 16: Workgroup report draft sent to full Committee

Resources Workgroup

 July 22: Preliminary draft/outline sent to full Committee for comment/guidance

 August 5: Full Committee returns draft with comments

 First week of September: Conference call

Partnerships Workgroup

 E-mail contact will be maintained to form draft reports, provide comments, and circulate revised 

drafts within the specified deadlines
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 23

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC)

June 22-23, 2011 Meeting Participants



Committee Chair:

Steven S. Balling, Ph.D.

Del Monte Foods

Walnut Creek, CA

Deputy Chair:

G. Douglas Young

Spruce Haven Farm and Research Center

Union Springs, NY

Members:

Peggy Beltrone

Exergy Integrated Systems

Great Falls, MT

Lori A. Berger, Ph.D.

California Specialty Crops Council

Tulare, CA

George J. Boggs

Whatcom Conservation District

Lynden, WA

Daniel A. Botts

Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association

Maitland, FL

Lawrence E. Clark

Farm Pilot Project Coordination

Alexandria, VA

James W. Ford

Square “O” Consulting

Hermitage, TN

Suzy Friedman

Environmental Defense Fund

Washington, DC

Omar J. Garza

Texas Mexico Border Coalition

San Isidro, TX

Archilus L. Hart

North Carolina Department of Agriculture

Raleigh, NC

Lee McDaniel

Harford Soil Conservation District

Darlington, MD

Tom McDonald

JBS Five Rivers Cattle Feeding

Dalhart, TX

Janis McFarland, Ph.D.

Syngenta Crop Protection

Greensboro, NC

Steven R. McNinch

Western Plains Energy

Colby, KS

Martha L. Noble

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Washington, D.C.

Bill Northey

Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land 

Stewardship

Des Moines, IA

David D. Petty

Iowa River Ranch

Eldora, IA

Jennie S. Hughes Popp, Ph.D.

University of Arkansas

Fayetteville, AR

Larry D. Sanders, Ph.D.

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK

Ann Sorenson, Ph.D.

American Farmland Trust

DeKalb, IL

Ray E. Vester

E & M Farms Partnership

Stuttgart, AR
24 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

Designated Federal Officer:

Alicia Kaiser

Special Assistant for Agricultural Policy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Participants:

Karma Anderson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 10

Geraldine Brown

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Caitlin Conover 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Naeema Conway

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Lawrence Elworth

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Agriculture Counselor to the Administrator

Katie Flahive

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Carol Galloway 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Agriculture Compliance Assistance 

Center

(web conference attendee)

John Goodin

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Terry Grady 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Environmental Information

(web conference attendee)

Eugene Green

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Mark Joyce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

John Larmett

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Program Evaluation

Andrew Manale

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Policy

Stephanie McCoy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Jennifer Meints

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 8

(web conference attendee)

Megan Moreau

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee 

Management and Outreach

Ginah Mortensen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Agriculture Compliance Assistance 

Center

(web conference attendee)

Jeff Potent

U.S Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Eugene Thilsted, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 6

(web conference attendee)

Cheryl Woodward

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Agricultural Counselor’s Office
June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary 25

Other Participants:

Hobey Bauhan

VA Poultry Federation

Robert Bonnie

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Tom Hebert

Bayard Ridge Group, LLC

John Heltman

Inside EPA

Steve Hensley

USA Rice Federation

Michael Imia

National Pork Producers Council

Matt Kastner

The Fertilizer Institute

Bruce Knight

Strategic Conservation Solutions

Kyle Liska

National Pork Producers Council

Ashley Lyon

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Bridget O’Grady

The Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators

Michael Plumer

Conservation Agriculture

Andrew Sharpley, Ph.D.

University of Arkansas

Patricia Sinicropi

National Association of Clean Water Agencies

Rod Snyder

National Corn Growers Association

Devin Webb

National Cotton Council

Support Contractors:

Abby Dilley

RESOLVE

Erinn C. Howard, Ph.D.

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc
26 June 22-23, 2011 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee Meeting Summary