A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
1
APPENDIX
H
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
Strategy
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
3
PECONIC
ESTUARY
PROGRAM
AGRICULTURAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
Foreword
The
Agricultural
Nitrogen
Management
Committee
extends
its
deep
appreciation
to
the
East
End
farming
community,
which
has
been
instrumental
in
investigating
and
developing
a
nutrient
and
pesticide
reduction
strategy.

Summary
of
Goals
To
cooperatively
develop,
with
the
region's
agricultural
community,
a
strategy
to
lower
nutrients
and
pesticide
inputs
into
the
environment.
A
20
percent
to
30
percent
reduction
of
agricultural
fertilizer
nitrogen
inputs
is
targeted
over
a
five­
year
period,
and
may
be
measured
by
voluntary
reporting,
surveys,
fertilizer
sales
data,
and
groundwater
monitoring.

To
maintain,
and
hopefully
increase,
farm
profitability
while
demonstrating
that
changes
in
farming
practices
can
have
measurable
environmental
improvements.

To
emphasize
incentive­
based
pollution
reduction
strategies
(
e.
g.,
tax
credits).
This
will
be
linked
to
market
development
and
product
distribution
associated
with
other
agricultural
economic
planning
efforts
underway
in
the
region.

To
attain
90
percent
participation
within
the
farming
community
in
a
Long
Island
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program
within
five
years.

Summary
of
Recommendations
This
Committee
strongly
recommends
that
the
following
tasks
be
pursued
to
begin
reducing
nutrient
and
pesticide
impacts
on
the
Peconic
Estuary.
The
rationale
and
supporting
details
of
each
task
is
outlined
in
further
detail
in
the
body
of
this
report.

Task
I
Develop
a
Long
Island
component
to
the
New
York
State
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program.
The
Long
Island
component
would
be
tailored
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
Region
(
as
well
as
other
Long
Island
regions,
as
appropriate).

Task
II
Identify
potential
pilot
projects
to
demonstrate
Best
Management
Practices
and
test
them,
where
appropriate.

Task
III
Investigate
the
creation
of
a
farm
insurance
plan.

Task
IV
Provide
funding
for
increased
local
AEM
development
and
implementation.

Task
V
Investigate
and
implement
innovative/
alternative
finance
mechanisms
for
education
and
outreach
and
other
tasks
noted
above.

Task
VI
Gather
and
analyze
economic
data
on
a
regular
basis
and
continue
to
promote
and
integrate
economic
analyses
and
support
mechanisms
into
the
AEM
initiatives.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
4
Agricultural
Nitrogen
Management
Committee
 
Background
Because
of
the
need
to
develop
a
regional,
quantitative
nitrogen
loading
management
process,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
(
PEP)
formed
work
groups
(
committees)
to
deal
with
agricultural
issues,
non­
agricultural
issues
and
a
west
estuary
total
maximum
daily
load
(
TMDL).
The
goal
of
each
committee
is
to
set
quantitative
loading
targets
and
detailed
plans
for
load
management
(
timing,
costs,
responsible
entities,
etc.).

The
Agricultural
Nitrogen
Management
Committee
was
charged
with
refining
existing
agricultural
nitrogen
loading
estimates
and
developing
an
implementation
plan
for
regional
nitrogen
load
reductions.
This
effort
includes
expanding
the
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
initiative
and
considering
the
"
Purchase
of
Development
Rights"
links
to
farm
management
plans.
The
Committee
has
also
expanded
its
issues
to
include
pesticides.

To
date,
the
Agricultural
Nitrogen
Management
Committee
has
made
significant
progress
towards
its
goals,
including
producing
agricultural
use
geographic
information
systems
(
GIS)
maps
(
for
the
Towns
of
Southold,
Southampton
and
Riverhead),
and
determining
the
nitrogen
loading
rates
and
estimates
of
potential
reductions
for
specific
crops
(
see
Attachment
H­
2).
These
are
major
tasks
that
will
be
described
and
integrated
in
future
reports.

While
these
initiatives
were
developed
with
a
focus
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
needs,
the
Committee
notes
that
there
will
be
a
countywide
benefit
for
groundwater
and
surface
water.
For
example,
AEM
programs
will
be
countywide,
and
not
just
targeted
at
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed.
Thus,
benefits
will
also
accrue
to
the
surface
waters
of
the
Long
Island
Sound
and
South
Shore
Estuary
Reserve.

Introduction
Maintaining
a
viable
farming
industry
that
serves
its
community
(
broadly
Long
Island)
is
important
for
the
region
economically.
Suffolk
County
is
the
top
producer
of
agricultural
products
in
terms
of
sales
in
New
York
State,
representing
up
to
six
percent
of
Suffolk
County's
gross
domestic
product.
Recent
estimates
indicate
that
an
estimated
10,000
people
are
employed
by
agriculture­
related
businesses.

Agriculture
is
a
significant
underpinning
of
eastern
Suffolk
County's
tourism­
based
economy.
Residents
and
visitors
enjoy
the
rural
quality
of
the
area
and
shopping
at
numerous
local
farm
stands.
A
survey
of
968
residents,
second
homeowners
and
tourists
in
1995
revealed
that
the
public's
overall
priority
for
land
protection
was
protecting
farmland.
The
survey
responses
imply
that
the
public
would
be
willing
to
spend
$
74.5
thousand
per
acre
of
farmland
protection,
using
a
25­
year
time
horizon
and
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
in
1995
dollars
(
EAI,
1999).

The
State
of
Agriculture
At
the
end
of
World
War
II,
more
than
110,000
acres
of
arable
land
were
cultivated
in
Suffolk
County.
In
response
to
the
rapid
suburbanization
of
the
1950s
and
1960s,
the
County
adopted
the
nation's
first
Farmland
Protection
Program
in
the
mid­
1970s.
Through
the
Farmland
Protection
Program,
the
county
pays
farmers
for
their
development
interest
(
rights)
and
in
return,
farmers
agree
not
to
develop
their
land
in
perpetuity.
The
program
gives
farmers
the
opportunity
to
invest
back
into
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
5
their
farms
or
to
settle
estate
matters
with
heirs.
Presently,
Suffolk
County
owns
the
development
rights
to
6,280
acres
of
agricultural
land.

The
Agricultural
and
Farmland
Protection
Plan
(
Suffolk
County
Agricultural
and
Farmland
Protection
Board,
1996)
states
that
Suffolk
County
has
had
a
large
decline
in
the
amount
of
farmland
over
the
last
several
decades
and
continues
to
see
a
rapid
decline
in
farmland
today
in
spite
of
conservation
efforts.
The
Plan
downgraded
the
initial
goal
of
farmland
protection
in
Suffolk
from
35,000
acres
to
20,000
acres.
According
to
the
New
York
Agricultural
Statistics
Service,
about
35,858
acres
of
Suffolk
County
land
was
farmed
in
1997.
Ten
percent
of
the
total
land
area
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
(
14,539
acres)
was
agricultural
land
in
1995,
most
of
which
is
still
located
on
the
north
fork
(
SCPD,
1997).
Undoubtedly
there
are
fewer
acres
of
farmland
in
Suffolk
County
now
than
in
1997
and
1995.
The
Suffolk
County
Farmland
Protection
Plan
further
states
that
at
the
present
rate
of
agricultural
land
loss,
there
will
be
only
10,000
acres
left
in
Suffolk
in
2012.

Areas
at
the
outskirts
of
large
metropolitan
regions
are
under
the
greatest
threat
of
losing
their
farmland
resources
to
sprawl,
houses,
and
commercial
developments.
This
is
well
documented
across
the
nation.
The
American
Farmland
Trust
ranked
Suffolk
County
as
the
18th
most
threatened
agricultural
county
in
the
nation.

While
recent
efforts
to
secure
new
funding
for
farmland
protection
have
been
successful,
there
is
literally
a
race
against
time
to
secure
the
preservation
of
critical
farmland
in
eastern
Suffolk
against
the
backdrop
of
ever
escalating
land
values
tempting
farmers
to
cash
out.

High
land
values
coupled
with
New
York
State's
continued
reliance
on
property
taxes
to
fund
government
operations
increase
the
opportunity
costs
of
farming.
The
fixed
costs
associated
with
farming
add
to
the
problem
and
create
a
situation
likely
to:
1)
accelerate
the
need
to
adopt
high
valueadded
strategies
to
support
farm
enterprises,
and
2)
drive
more
marginal
commercial
farmers
out
of
business.

The
future
of
agriculture
is
also
threatened
by
the
high
degree
of
reliance
on
rented
land
for
farming
in
Suffolk
County.
An
estimated
60
percent
of
Suffolk
County
farmers
rent
land.
Farmland
owners
who
seek
rental
payments
sufficient
to
cover
property
tax
obligations
will
force
farmers
in
turn
to
seek
ever
higher
value
and
more
land­
intensive
(
e.
g.,
with
possible
greater
environmental
impacts)
crop
production
methods.
As
development
pressures
increase,
so
do
incentives
for
conversion
of
rented
farmland
to
alternative
uses
(
i.
e.,
development
and
golf
courses).

Yellow
Wood
Associates
(
YWA),
under
contract
with
the
Town
of
Southampton
to
update
the
town's
agricultural
section
of
its
comprehensive
plan
in
1995,
found
that
agriculture
in
Southampton
has
evolved
in
response
to
market
demand.
Agriculture
now
includes
horse
farming,
nursery
and
greenhouse
production,
potatoes,
vegetables,
sod
production,
vineyards,
duck
farms,
pheasant
farms,
orchards,
small
fruits
and
row
crops.
There
is
an
increased
emphasis
on
direct
marketing
from
roadside
stands
and
farm
services
such
as
winery
tours,
horse
boarding,
breeding,
training
and
riding
lessons.
These
conclusions
can
be
applied
to
the
entire
East
End.

Citing
trends
common
to
areas
like
the
East
End,
YWA
identified
the
transformation
from
a
commodity­
based
production
to
a
(
mostly)
land
intensive
production
of
high
value
crops
that
can
be
differentiated
in
the
market.
This
trend
is
underway
in
many
urban
fringe
areas
in
the
northeast
and,
in
fact,
represents
a
kind
of
agricultural
resurgence
(
See
Attachment
H­
3).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6
Environmental
Concerns
Conventional
farming
practices
are
typically
fertilizer
(
nitrogen)
and
pesticide
dependent.
Nitrogen
is
a
major
management
issue
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
since
nitrogen
contributed
from
fertilizers
has
already
resulted
in
adverse
environmental
impacts,
such
as
depressions
in
dissolved
oxygen
(
see
Nutrient
Chapter).
Nitrogen
is
soluble
and
is
particularly
mobile
in
Suffolk
County's
highly
permeable
soils.
While
fertilizers
and
pesticides
have
resulted
in
an
increase
in
crop
biomass,
much
of
the
byproducts
are
carried
into
the
estuary
by
groundwater
and,
locally,
by
stormwater
runoff.

Overall
groundwater
total
nitrogen
loading
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
approximately
6,500
pounds
per
day,
about
32
percent
of
which
occurs
in
the
western
estuary
(
Peconic
River
and
Flanders
Bay
groundwater­
contributing
area).
The
dominant
sources
of
total
nitrogen
to
the
estuary
are
agriculture
(
41
percent
of
the
TN
loading)
and
residential
development
(
40
percent
of
TN
loading).
Agriculture
has
a
per­
acre
TN
loading
rate
of
about
double
the
residential
land
in
the
study
area
(
SCDHS,
1999).
Loading
rates
for
various
land
uses
are
illustrated
in
Figure
H­
1.

Figure
H­
1.
Total
Nitrogen
(
TN)
Load
by
Land
Use.

Public
Health
Many
studies
indicate
that
nitrogen
from
synthetic
fertilizer
is
the
most
important
source
of
nitrate
in
groundwater.
Ingestion
of
water
with
high
nitrate
levels
is
known
to
cause
methemoglobinemia
in
infants
under
one
year
of
age.
In
addition,
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
has
reported
two
episodes
TN
Loads
and
Land
Use
Type
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Acres/
10
Fertilizer
(
lb/
day)

Sanitary
(
lb/
day)

Other/
aggregated
(
lb/
day)
TN
Load
(
lb/
Day)
and
Land
Use
(
Acres/
10)

TN
Loads
and
Land
Use
Type
Residential
Agriculture
Vacant/
Open
Space
Other
TN
ACRES
TN
ACRES
TN
ACRES
TN
ACRES
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
7
of
an
association
between
first
trimester
miscarriages
and
elevated
nitrate
concentrations
in
the
drinking
water.

The
SCDHS
monitored
ten
wells
that
were
primarily
down
gradient
from
agricultural
land
over
a
22­
year
period
(
SCDHS,
1996).
For
the
20
year
period
1975
through
1994,
the
average
annual
nitrate
concentration
for
all
ten
wells
was
11.3
mg/
l.
The
ten
well
annual
averages
ranged
from
a
minimum
of
9.2
mg/
l
in
1982
and
1984
to
a
maximum
of
13.7
mg/
l
in
1988.
The
EPA
and
New
York
State
drinking
water
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(
MCL)
for
nitrate
is
10.0
mg/
l.

The
impact
of
agriculture
on
nitrate
concentrations
is
also
reflected
in
the
results
of
private
well
testing
by
the
SCDHS.
The
SCDHS
tested
45,985
private
wells
between
the
years
1972
and
1994.
Of
all
the
private
wells
tested,
7.4
percent
exceeded
the
nitrate
MCL
(
SCDHS,
1996).
The
percentage
of
private
wells
exceeding
the
nitrate
MCL
was
significantly
greater
in
the
agricultural
communities
than
the
countywide
average.

Agricultural
pesticides
have
also
found
their
way
into
Suffolk
County's
groundwater.
Concentrations
of
the
carbamate
pesticides,
including
Aldicarb
(
Temik),
carbofuran
(
Furadan),
and
oxamyl
(
Vydate),
have
been
detected
in
Suffolk
County's
monitoring
wells
but
have
steadily
decreased
since
their
ban
in
1979
and
1982.
The
dacthal
metabolite
TCPA
can
be
found
in
some
areas
despite
its
removal
from
the
Suffolk
County
market
in
1988.
In
1999,
the
SCDHS
concluded
an
18­
month
study
of
pesticide
contamination
in
the
groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties
(
SCDHS,
1999).
Wells
were
chosen
for
testing
based
upon
a
variety
of
considerations
including
selecting
wells
that
had
shown
detectable
traces
of
pesticides
in
previous
monitoring.
Other
criteria
included
land
use
type,
geographic
coverage,
and
random
selection.
Of
the
1,901
wells
tested
in
Suffolk
County,
Aldicarb
metabolites
were
the
most
frequently
detected
pesticide,
followed
by
the
dacthal
metabolite
TCPA,
1,2­
dichloropropane,
metalaxyl,
and
metachlor.
These
are
all
agricultural
chemicals
with
the
exception
of
TCPA,
which
is
also
used
on
turf
and
residential
lawns.
There
were
191
wells
found
to
exceed
pesticide
MCLs
of
which
91
percent
were
impacted
by
agricultural
chemicals
(
including
nursery
and
sod
uses).
The
towns
found
to
have
the
greatest
percentage
of
pesticide
impacted
wells
are
Southold
(
51
percent),
Riverhead
(
38.7
percent),
and
Southampton
(
34.5
percent);
these
towns
also
contain
the
bulk
of
Long
Island's
remaining
agricultural
land.
In
response
to
the
pesticide
problem,
the
NYSDEC
has
recently
created
a
committee
to
reduce
pesticide
usage.

Estuarine
Health
Excessive
levels
of
nitrogen
can
be
harmful
to
the
estuary.
When
nutrients
are
introduced
to
the
estuary
at
higher
than
normal
rates,
they
can
stimulate
aquatic
plant
growth,
including
plankton
and
larger
communities
of
macroalgae.
Algae
consume
oxygen
(
respire)
at
night,
potentially
depleting
dissolved
oxygen
levels
in
the
water
column.
Also,
when
algae
die,
they
can
settle
through
the
water
column
to
the
sediments,
where
the
organic
matter
is
decomposed
by
bacteria.
Bacterial
decomposition
uses
oxygen
("
sediment
oxygen
demand"),
as
well
as
releases
nitrogen
back
into
the
water
column
("
sediment
nutrient
flux").
Processes
such
as
diurnal
DO
depression,
sediment
oxygen
demand,
and
sediment
nutrient
flux
can
result
in
dissolved
oxygen
levels
which
are
low
enough
to
be
harmful
to
marine
life.

Currently,
the
estuary
is
not
experiencing
widespread
low
dissolved
oxygen
levels
related
to
nitrogen
loading.
However,
the
western
portion
of
the
system
(
Peconic
River
and
Flanders
Bay)
has
a
legacy
of
nutrient
over
enrichment
and
periodic,
short­
term
dissolved
oxygen
problems.
According
to
the
Nitrogen
Loading
Budget
and
Trends
Report
(
SCDHS,
1999),
nonpoint
source
loading
of
nitrogen
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
8
has
risen
dramatically
over
time,
far
outweighing
historic
point
source
nitrogen
loading
from
duck
farms.
Considering
the
trends
of
nutrient
enrichment
in
the
region,
implementing
nitrogen
reduction
strategies
is
critical.

The
increased
production
of
microscopic
algae
caused
by
increased
nutrient
enrichment
results
not
only
in
dissolved
oxygen
problems
but
also
discolors
the
water,
decreases
water
clarity
and
diminishes
the
amount
of
light
received
by
rooted
aquatic
plants
(
i.
e.,
eelgrass).
Submerged
aquatic
vegetation
beds
serve
as
a
prime
habitat
for
juvenile
fish,
a
food
source
and
bottom
stabilization.
Aquatic
plants
that
are
at
a
species'
depth
limit
for
clear
water
conditions
would
be
expected
to
decline
due
to
the
lack
of
sufficient
light
energy
in
turbid
waters.
Excessive
influxes
of
nutrients
will
also
increase
the
growth
of
epiphytes
on
eelgrass
blades,
again
shading
the
plant
itself
and
hindering
production.
Furthermore,
species
such
as
red
or
green
macroalgae,
which
adsorb
nutrients
more
quickly
than
eelgrass,
may
competitively
exclude
eelgrass
plants.
It
is
also
thought
that
the
lack
of
a
mechanism
to
terminate
nitrate
uptake
in
eelgrass
coupled
with
excessive
nitrate
in
the
system
results
in
impaired
plant
health
and
a
decline
in
eelgrass
shoot
production
(
Cashin
Associates,
1996).

Nitrogen
levels
may
also
be
linked
to
the
Brown
Tide.
While
data
suggest
that
gross
concentrations
of
nitrogen
do
not
trigger
blooms,
the
relative
concentrations
among
the
various
forms
of
nitrogen
may
play
a
role
in
Brown
Tide
blooms.
One
theory
holds
that
increases
in
nitrogen
in
groundwater
may
play
a
role
in
triggering
Brown
Tide
blooms.

Though
no
causal
link
has
been
identified,
low
levels
of
pesticides
may
be
affecting
aquatic
resources,
including
eelgrass,
sensitive
larval
stages
of
commercially
and
recreationally
important
finfish
and
shellfish,
and
other
ecologically
important
species.

Recommendations
The
Committee's
recommendations
are
shown
in
Table
H­
1,
which
also
includes
a
designation
of
responsible
entity,
cost,
and
timeframe
for
each
recommendation.
The
following
discussion
provides
additional
background
and
details
regarding
the
recommendations.
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
9
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
H­
1.
Agricultural
Nitrogen
Committee
Interim
Workplan
Actions.*

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
*
Status
AgN­
1
Priority
Develop
a
Long
Island
component
to
the
New
York
State
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
program.
NYS
Dept.
of
Agriculture
&

Markets
2000
$
250,000
 
$
500,000
for
program
development
(
estimated)
R
AgN­
2
Identify
potential
pilot
projects
to
demonstrate
Best
Management
Practices
and
test
them.
Suffolk
County
&
Cornell
Coop.
Extension
2001
To
be
determined
C
AgN­
3
Priority
Investigate
the
creation
of
a
farm
insurance
plan.
PEP
Agriculture
Nitrogen
Management
Committee
2000
To
be
determined
R
AgN­
4
Priority
Provide
funding
for
increased
local
AEM
development
and
implementation.
USDA
NRCS,
Cornell
Coop.
Extension,
SC
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District,
Suffolk
County
&

NY
State
2000
$
175,000/
year
for
staff
at
SCSWCD;
$
175,000/
year
for
staff
at
CCE
$
1
million
annually
for
implementation
start
up
(
from
NYS
Bond
Act,

Suffolk
County
¼
%
Sales
Tax,
and
funding
sources
in
AgN­
5);

Long­
term
to
be
determined.
R
AgN­
5
Priority
Investigate
and
implement
innovative/
alternative
finance
mechanisms
for
education
and
outreach,
and
actions
1­
4.
NY
State:

fertilizer/
pesticide
tax;

subsidizing
capital
improvement
loans
from
EFC
2000
To
be
determined
R
AgN­
6
Gather
and
analyze
economic
data
on
a
regular
basis
and
continue
to
promote
and
integrate
economic
analyses
and
support
mechanisms
into
the
AEM
initiatives
PEP
Agriculture
Nitrogen
Management
Committee
2001
To
be
determined
R
C
=
Commitment
R
=
Recommendation
*
Note:
Actions
and
costs
are
also
contained
in
the
Nutrient
Chapter
of
the
PEP
CCMP.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
10
Task
I
The
New
York
State
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
Program
(
AEM)

New
York
State
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets
and
the
New
York
State
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
Committee
manage
the
New
York
State
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
Program
wherein
whole
farm
management
plans
are
undertaken
with
farm
operators
to
reduce
environmental
impacts.
This
program
has
focused
on
the
livestock
farmers
in
upstate
New
York,
with
an
emphasis
on
phosphorus
reduction
and
little
emphasis
on
nitrogen
reduction
(
Long
Island's
primary
issue).
Total
AEM
State
funding
for
1999
was
4.5
million
dollars,
but
the
program
was
still
oversubscribed.
Expanding
this
program
for
Long
Island
will
require
a
one­
time
estimated
commitment
of
$
250,000
 
$
500,000
of
State
funds.
This
cost
estimate
deals
with
program
planning,
design,
and
development,
and
not
implementation,
which
is
discussed
below.

The
current
AEM
program
is
the
preferred
model
for
nutrient
and
pesticide
reduction
in
the
Peconic
Region
since
enhancements
can
be
added
to
the
conventional
AEM
program
to
satisfy
Long
Island's
program
requirements.
In
a
high
cost
area,
like
Long
Island,
AEM
must
be
enhanced
with
incentives
to
be
viewed
as
a
viable
working
option
to
reduce
nitrogen
and
pesticides.
The
tax
credits,
cost
sharing,
and
the
program
itself
should
be
enticing
enough
so
that
90
percent
of
the
farmers
working
the
remaining
agricultural
acres
within
the
watershed
are
participating
by
2005.

A
Long
Island
AEM
Plan
outlining
the
management
objectives
and
the
available
financial
incentives
will
be
developed.
The
plan
will
be
prepared
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
 
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(
USDA
 
NRCS),
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
(
SCSWCD),
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
(
CCE),
and
other
stakeholders
and
approved
by
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets
and
the
New
York
State
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
Committee.
Farmers
would
than
be
eligible
to
have
whole
farm
management
plans
prepared
for
them
with
respect
to
the
LI
AEM
Plan.
Practices
such
as
fertilizing,
pesticide
application,
irrigating,
and
soil
testing
would
be
examined
and
then
a
financial/
feasibility
plan
would
be
prepared
showing
the
farmer
how
the
recommended
actions
could
be
financially
undertaken.

An
ambitious
Agricultural
Environmental
Management
(
AEM)
Initiative
program
has
already
been
piloted
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Using
the
AEM
approach,
a
comprehensive
inventory
and
analysis
was
conducted
for
most
farms
within
one
subwatershed
to
assess
the
potential
impact
the
farms
may
have
had
on
that
part
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
shallow
aquifer.
Plans
were
developed
for
high
priority
farms
and
best
management
practices
(
BMPs)
were
implemented.
A
total
of
13
farms
within
the
watershed
implemented
the
high
priority
BMPs.

This
pilot
effort
and
other
limited
and
localized
efforts
have
been
targets
for
agricultural
environmental
management
by
the
USDA
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
and
the
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District.
Their
success
is
a
promising
foreshadowing
of
a
much­
needed
regional
program.

The
task
before
the
Peconic
Estuary
Management
Conference
is
to
manage
for
improved
environmental
practices
without
driving
farms
out
of
business.
Any
discussion
about
environmental
improvements
should
be
incentive­
driven
as
it
relates
to
the
burdens
placed
on
the
farmer.
More
applications
of
the
same
products
at
reduced
loading
rates
and
other
best
management
practices
may
reduce
total
pollutant
loadings
but
increases
farm
operation
costs
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
11
in
terms
of
fuel,
labor,
wear
on
equipment,
etc.
Since
it
is
within
the
public
interest
to
seek
changes
in
agricultural
practices,
the
public
should
offer
several
incentives
to
farmers
that
carry
out
the
recommendations
of
their
whole
farm
plans.
The
tax
credits
option
is
consistent
with
school
district
tax
relief
practices
that
the
State
legislature
has
provided
to
farmers.

A
recent
study
by
the
Northwest
Area
Foundation
compared
certain
conventional
farming
practices
with
aggressive
AEM­
based
approaches.
That
study
concluded
that
the
cost
of
chemicals
decreased
in
certain
instances
while
labor
and
managerial
costs
rose
in
some
cases.
Sustainable
farming
tends
to
be
more
labor­
intensive
than
conventional
farming.
This
translates
into
greater
job
creation
potential.
Diversification
leads
to
a
more
even
distribution
of
labor
requirements
throughout
the
year.

Other
States
have
achieved
substantial
reductions
in
nutrient
loadings
as
a
result
of
their
investment
in
AEM.

Task
II
Pilot
Projects
To
initiate
the
AEM
effort
as
soon
as
possible,
pilot
projects
will
be
identified
and
carried
out.
One
pilot
site
that
has
already
been
identified
is
at
the
Suffolk
County
Yaphank
research
farm;
others
will
be
sought,
as
well.
Possible
pilot
projects
include:

 
Evaluation
of
fertilizer
and
pesticide
application
rates
as
related
to
crop
yield
and
quality,
as
well
as
leaching
rates
and
pollution
potential.
Fertilizer
trials
(
CCE)
with
potatoes
show
that
a
substantial
reduction
in
nitrogen
can
be
obtained
with
no
reduction
in
yield.
Overall,
nitrogen
reductions
in
the
range
of
10
to
30
percent
are
believed
to
be
feasible
for
most
crop
types
(
except
grapes
and
grain);

 
Utilization
of
slow
release
nitrogen
fertilizers.
Most
suited
for
nursery
stock
and
longer
term
crops;

 
Irrigation
evaluations
for
water
efficiency
and
nitrogen
loads;

 
Zero
discharge
nursery
greenhouses
currently
exist.
Others
could
be
retrofitted
but
new
equipment
costs
money;

 
Best
management
practices
for
pesticides
(
IPM);

 
Soil
testing;

 
Pesticide
storage
handling
and
application
equipment
evaluations
should
be
undertaken
with
a
specific
intention
of
improving
handling
practices
etc.;

 
Stormwater
runoff
mitigation
practices,
including
soil
loss
and
erosion
control;
and
 
Agricultural
wellhead
protection.

Task
III
Farm
Insurance
Plan
There
is
a
perceived
risk
in
trying
unfamiliar
farming
practices
instead
of
the
accustomed
methods.
Although
proven
by
researchers
and
innovative
farmers,
most
growers
are
reluctant
to
adopt
new
practices,
even
when
crop
costs
can
be
reduced,
because
of
concerns
about
yield
variability.
Necessary
to
any
real
environmental
improvements
is
making
certain
that
risks
to
the
farmer
in
implementing
these
procedures
could
be
neutralized,
possibly
by
creating
a
farm
insurance
program.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
12
The
farm
insurance
plan
could
be
modeled
after
the
Mississippi
Soil
Conservation
District
and
Campbells
Corporation
private­
sector
crop
insurance
programs.
They
were
designed
to
raise
the
comfort
level
of
new
farmers
participating
in
conservation
programs
that
depart
from
traditional
farming
practices.
Similarly,
the
Agricultural
Conservation
Innovation
Center,
in
cooperation
with
the
IGF
Insurance
Company,
has
designed
insurance
coverage
to
help
farmers
adopt
conservation
practices
(
see
Attachment
H­
5).

The
USDA
has
undertaken
the
development
of
an
Adjusted
Gross
Revenue
(
AGR)
insurance
plan
to
provide
an
insurance
safety
net
for
multiple
agricultural
commodities
in
an
insurance
product.
The
AGR
plan
was
piloted
in
New
England
last
year.
The
USDA
intends
to
expand
this
program
to
16
counties
in
New
York
State,
including
Suffolk
County.
The
AGR
insurance
plan
will
replace
the
Federal
government
disaster
program
of
the
past
and
the
crop
insurance
which
growers
found
much
too
expensive
for
anything
near
adequate
coverage.
The
AGR
plan
is
not
the
same
as
reduced
losses
due
to
new
practices,
however
the
principles
of
the
plan
may
be
applicable
to
the
proposed
farm
insurance
plan.

Task
IV
AEM
Implementation
The
Federal,
State
and
county
governments
must
expand
their
operating
budgets
to
provide
for
more
staff
at
the
USDA
 
NRCS,
CCE,
and
SCSWCD
to
provide
technical
support
to
develop
1)
the
regional
plan,
2)
whole
farm
plans
and
3)
initiate
necessary
pilot
demonstration
projects.
Respective
budgets
should
appropriate
two
more
staff
persons
at
SCSWCD
at
$
175,000
per
year,
and
2
more
staff
at
CCE
at
$
175,000
per
year
specifically
for
this
Committee's
initiatives
(
figures
include
salaries,
benefits,
associated
equipment
and
space
needs).

In
terms
of
funding
to
support
implementation
of
the
LI
AEM,
the
program
should
be
financed
by
New
York
State
with
at
least
a
$
1
million
commitment.
The
New
York
State
Bond
Act,
Environmental
Protection
Fund,
the
new
1/
4
percent
sales
tax
water
quality
improvement
fund
from
the
non­
point
source
pollution
category,
and
Suffolk
County
Capital
Funds
are
all
reasonable
candidates
for
additional
funding
for
implementation.

Another
option
for
securing
funding
to
implement
AEM
plans
designed
for
specific
farms
is
the
Suffolk
County
Farmland
Development
Rights
Program,
which
is
authorized
and
administered
in
accord
with
the
criteria
in
Laws
of
Suffolk
County,
Volume
1,
Part
III,
Administrative
Local
Laws,
Chapter
8,
Development
Rights
to
Agricultural
Lands
(
pp.
801­
806).
This
program
is
currently
limited
to
the
expenditure
of
funds
for
the
purchase
of
non­
farm
development
rights
in
response
to
recommendations
made
by
the
Suffolk
County
Farmland
Committee.

Suffolk
County
should
evaluate
the
potential
and
utility
of
amending
Chapter
8
to
authorize
the
payment
of
additional
funds
to
a
willing
seller
of
development
rights
so
as
to
encourage
participation
in
the
AEM
program
for
a
specified
time
period.
This
offering
could
be
linked
to
farms
in
watershed
areas
that
have
been
identified
as
having
significant
impacts
on
Peconic
Estuary
water
quality,
and
to
farms
located
within
1500
feet
of
the
regional
groundwater
divide
in
order
to
protect
drinking
water
supplies.
The
new
13­
year,
1/
4
percent
sales
tax
extension
program
will
have
a
funding
stream
dedicated
specifically
for
purchase
of
development
rights
to
farms.
If
authorized,
yearly
participation
payments
from
this
fund
could
be
made
to
farmers
who
implement
AEM
farm
plans.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
13
Task
V
Finance
Mechanisms
While
some
finance
mechanisms
are
noted
above
(
New
York
State
Bond
Act,
Environmental
Protection
Fund,
the
new
1/
4
percent
sales
tax),
several
other
conventional
and
innovative/
alternative
finance
mechanisms
need
to
be
investigated
to
fund
education
and
outreach,
as
well
as
the
other
tasks.
For
example,
crop
insurance,
additional
personnel,
and
tax
credits
could
be
financed
by
levying
a
small
fee
on
all
fertilizer
and
pesticide
sales
at
the
wholesale
to
retail
distribution
level
in
Suffolk
County.
A
well­
developed
marketing
and
public
outreach
program
targeted
to
homeowners
and
larger
users
should
also
be
developed
with
these
funds.
Aspects
of
this
educational
program
should
be
extended
to
large
institutional
users
such
as
golf
courses
(
See
Attachment
H­
6;
the
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
and
the
Northwest
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program,
both
financed
by
a
small
fee
on
nitrogen
and
pesticides).

Another
topic
raised
by
the
Committee
includes
subsidizing
capital
improvement
loans
for
farms
from
the
Environmental
Facilities
Corporation.
This
and
other
mechanisms
need
to
be
explored
more
fully.

Task
VI
Gather
and
analyze
economic
data
Economic
data
need
to
be
gathered
and
analyzed
on
a
regular
basis,
and
the
Committee
needs
to
continue
to
promote
and
integrate
economic
analyses
and
support
mechanisms
into
the
AEM
initiatives.
Ideas
posed
by
the
Committee
include
securing
an
agricultural
economist
and
creating
a
Farm
Development
Agency.

Summary
of
Costs
and
Benefits
Developing
a
LI
AEM
program
will
require
an
estimated
commitment
of
$
250,000
to
$
500,000.
While
the
cost
of
long­
term
implementation
of
the
plan
is
unknown,
$
350,000
is
needed
to
fund
additional
staff
at
CCE
and
SCSWCD
for
agriculture­
related
issues,
and
a
minimum
of
$
1
million
is
required
to
support
initial
implementation
efforts.
The
costs
of
providing
State
tax
credits
to
farmers,
conducting
pilot
projects,
and
developing
and
implementing
farm
insurance
plans
have
not
yet
been
developed.

Environmental
benefits
of
nutrient
management
are
well
documented
in
the
PEP
CCMP,
and
include
attainment
of
dissolved
oxygen
standards
throughout
the
estuary.
Other
benefits
include
public
health/
drinking
water
considerations
(
attainment
of
standards),
as
well
as
support
of
a
sustainable
agricultural
community,
which
is
essential
to
the
economy
and
quality
of
life
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed.

Conclusions
AEM
enhanced
with
tax
credits
as
presented
herein
can
be
initiated
now.
If
so,
it
will
accelerate
the
conversion
of
conventional
agriculture
to
lower
impact
practices.
This
may
lead
to
organic,
community­
supported
agriculture
and
niche
farming
or
other
innovations.
A
successful
AEM
program
will
result
in
less
pollution
to
the
groundwater,
and
consequently
the
Peconic
Estuary,
and
reduce
pesticide
use
in
the
region
by
providing
direct
economic
incentives
to
farmers.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
14
YWA
concludes
its
report
by
stating,
"
Sustainable
farming
is
not
universally
financially
sustainable
or
profitable.
The
crucial
factor
in
financial
sustainability
is
good
management,
particularly
necessary
since
many
sustainable
farms
are
highly
diversified.
Ecological
sustainability
in
agriculture
requires
use
of
modern,
emerging
technologies
that
are
information­
driven
and
management
centered.
Sustainable
agriculture
requires
a
highly
adaptive
management
technology
that
responds
to
the
ecology
of
the
farm,
and
will
spread
as
environmental
constraints
grow.
The
ability
to
farm
sustainably
will
be
in
increased
demand
as
environmental
constraints
grow
because
it
has
real
and
measurable
environmental
benefits."

The
State
and
the
County
have
robust
economic
development
programs,
investing
millions
of
dollars
each
year.
In
order
to
address
AEM
correctly
we
must
augment
this
effort
to
other
agriculturalrelated
economic
assistance
programs
in
order
to
fully
support
the
conversion
of
the
region's
current
agricultural
economy
to
one
that
is
more
environmentally
harmonious
with
groundwater
and
surface
water
protection
issues.

References
Cashin
Associates,
P.
C.,
(
January,
1996).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Final
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
Study.

Economic
Analysis,
Inc.,
(
February
1999).
Resource
and
Recreational
Economic
Values
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

Suffolk
County
Agricultural
and
Farmland
Protection
Board
(
June
1996).
Agricultural
and
Farmland
Protection
Plan.
Report
prepared
by
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning.
Hauppauge,
NY.

Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Office
of
Ecology,
(
January
1999).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
 
Nitrogen
Loading
Budget
and
Trends,
Major,
External,
Anthropogenic
Nitrogen
Sources:
Groundwater
and
Duck
Farms.

Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Bureau
of
Groundwater
Resources,
(
September
1996).
Nitrate
and
Pesticide
Impacts
of
Agriculture
on
Groundwater
Quality,
Suffolk
County,
NY.

Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Bureau
of
Groundwater
Resources,
(
March
1999).
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY.

Suffolk
County
Department
of
Planning,
(
January
1997).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Existing
Land
Use
Inventory.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
1­
1
ATTACHMENT
H­
1
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
1­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
1­
3
AGRICULTURAL
NITROGEN
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
MEMBERSHIP
Name
Agency
George
Proios,
Chairman
Suffolk
County
Executive
Office/
Suffolk
County
Soil
&
Water
Conservation
District
Kevin
McDonald,
Co­
Chairman
Group
for
the
South
Fork/
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CAC
Bill
Sanok
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
Joe
Sieczka
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
Mary
Barbato
East
End
Initiative
Mary
McGlone
East
End
Initiative
Joe
Gergela
Long
Island
Farm
Bureau
Marci
Bortman
The
Nature
Conservancy
Stuart
Lowrie
The
Nature
Conservancy
Alpa
Pandya
The
Nature
Conservancy
Matthew
Sclafani
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation/
Peconic
Estuary
Program
John
Wildeman
New
York
State
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
Committee
Debbie
O'Kane
North
Fork
Environmental
Council
Susan
Dodson
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Martin
Trent
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services
Walter
Dawydiak
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services/
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Vito
Minei
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services/
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Laura
Klahre
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Health
Services/
Peconic
Estuary
Program
DeWitt
Davies
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
Lauretta
Fischer
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
Steve
Jones
Suffolk
County
Planning
Department
Thomas
J.
McMahon
Suffolk
County
Soil
&
Water
Conservation
District
Allan
Connell
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
 
NRCS
Rick
Balla
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Other
Contributors:
Long
Island
Agricultural
Stewardship
Working
Group
Peconic
Land
Trust
Town
of
Southampton
Town
of
Southold
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
1­
4
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
2­
1
ATTACHMENT
H­
2
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
2­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
2­
3
NITROGEN
LOADING
RATES
AND
POTENTIAL
REDUCTIONS*

Category
Fertilizer
Load
Rate
Reduction
(
lb
N/
ac/
yr)
Potential
(%)

Vineyards
40
5­
10
Mixed
Vegetables
125­
175
10
Potatoes
150­
200
10­
20
Orchards
60­
80
20
Nurseries
160­
250
20­
30
Sod**
250
25
Grain
0­
50
0
Greenhouse
(
inc.
Container
Stock)
***
 
Field
Corn
120­
180
15
Christmas
Trees
160­
200
20
*
All
values
result
from
the
publication
"
Protection
and
Restoration
of
Groundwater
in
Southold,
NY"
Cornell
University
C.
E.
R.,
April
1983,
Draft,
and
subsequent
discussions
with
the
Long
Island
Agricultural
Stewardship
Working
Group
Meeting
at
the
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Suffolk
County
on
June
22,
2000.
**
Sod
values
were
further
refined
with
input
from
Tamsen
Yeh
from
the
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Nassau
County
in
July
and
August,
2000.
***
Approximately
80
percent
of
container
stock
greenhouses
use
slow
release
fertilizers
instead
of
liquid
feeding.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
2­
4
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
3­
1
ATTACHMENT
H­
3
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
3­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
3­
3
AGRICULTURAL
TRENDS
ANALYSIS
FOR
TOWN
OF
SOUTHAMPTON
Yellow
Wood
Associates
(
YWA)
analyzed
the
existing
agricultural
and
fisheries
resources
and
developed
recommendations
for
fostering
an
economically
and
environmentally
viable
climate
for
the
natural
resource­
based
economy
of
Southampton,
New
York.
They
identified
several
important
components
to
changes
in
the
agriculture
industry.
The
major
components
of
their
trends
analysis
are
listed
below
and
incorporate
a
strategy
to
assess
capacity
and
develop
a
response
strategy.

1.
The
transformation
from
commodity
production
to
specialty
crop
production
may
contribute
positively
to
environmental
sustainability.
This
will
depend,
in
large
part,
on
the
capacity
of
farmers
to
employ
more
information
and
management­
intensive
approaches
to
production.
Farmers
will
need
to
have
the
financial
capital
to
invest
in
modern
technologies.
This
transformation
will
depend
as
well
on
continued
growth
in
consumer
demand
for
organic
or
"
green"
products
and
services.

2.
Diversification
of
agricultural
production
will
increasingly
include
service
provision
in
tourism,
recreation
and
education,
whether
through
direct
marketing
(
e.
g.,
roadside
stands,
pick
your
own)
or
activities
such
as
farm
vacations,
school
field
trips,
riding
lessons,
hay
rides,
wine
tasting
events
or
farm
tours.
There
are
two
reasons
for
this
trend.
First,
services
provide
an
additional
income
opportunity
to
farmers
who
face
everhigher
costs
of
production.
Second,
consumers
rank
the
ocean
as
their
#
1
most
popular
vacation
setting,
followed
in
third
place
by
rural
destinations.

3.
The
long­
term
success
of
agriculture,
based
on
product
differentiation
and
services
depends
heavily
on
economical
provision
of
appropriate
infrastructure
(
e.
g.,
parking,
signage,
and
sewage
disposal)
and
market
infrastructure
development
in
both
retail
and
wholesale
markets.
Market
diversification
is
as
important
as
product
diversification
to
ensure
the
long­
term
viability
of
agriculture.
East
End
farmers
must
be
able
to
capture
local
sales
and
tap
more
distant
markets
as
appropriate.

4.
One
of
the
substantial
challenges
facing
agricultural
entrepreneurs
is
that
of
matching
the
scale
of
production
to
market
demand.
Another
is
in
securing
the
range
of
professional
services
from
translating
to
graphic
design,
labeling,
packing,
transportation
and
pricing
information
required
to
survive
in
a
highly
competitive
marketplace.
A
third
is
developing
the
supply
relationships,
market
relationships
and
information
systems
needed
to
meet
demands
for
"
just­
in­
time"
deliveries.
Advantages
to
the
East
End
farmers
include
proximity
to
major
markets,
but
proximity
alone
is
not
enough
to
ensure
marketing
success.

5.
The
requirements
of
agricultural
diversification
into
specialty
products
and
related
production
and
marketing
requirements
can
lead
to
increased
vertical
integration
of
farm
operations.

6.
Diversified
agricultural
activity,
with
a
significant
service
and
processing
component,
will
require
new
approaches
to
land
use
regulation.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
3­
4
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
4­
1
ATTACHMENT
H­
4
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
4­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
4­
3
IATP'S
NUTRIENT
MANAGEMENT
YARDSTICK
The
Institute
for
Agriculture
and
Trade
Policy
(
IATP)
uses
a
Nutrient
Management
Yardstick
to
promote
on­
farm
efficiency
and
environmental
protection
for
use
on
Minnesota
farms.
This
is
a
summary
of
that
program.

Summary
The
Nutrient
Management
Yardstick
measures
nutrient
inputs
and
outputs
that
go
beyond
the
farm
boundary.
An
imaginary
boundary
is
drawn
around
the
farm,
so
that
nutrients
that
remain
on
the
farm
are
not
counted;
but
those
that
enter
or
leave
the
farm
boundary
are
measured.
Nutrients
that
enter
the
farm
from
beyond
the
boundary
include
nitrogen
in
rainfall,
feed
and
livestock
inputs,
fertilizer
and
manure
inputs,
nitrogen­
fixing
plants,
and
nitrogen
in
irrigation
water.
Nutrients
that
leave
the
boundary
may
include
exported
crops,
volatilization
and
denitrification
into
the
atmosphere,
runoff
into
surface
water,
and
leaching
into
groundwater.

The
project,
based
on
a
successful
Dutch
program,
is
in
its
second
year
in
the
United
States
and
Canada.
The
Yardstick
is
a
bookkeeping
tool
to
help
farmers
understand
and
better
manage
the
flow
of
primary
nutrients
(
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
potassium)
on
their
farms.
By
providing
farmers
with
a
method
of
measuring
nutrient
utilization,
unnecessary
inputs
can
be
eliminated,
reducing
costs
as
well
as
excess
nutrients
flowing
to
the
environment.

Excess
nutrients
are
measured
using
a
simple
equation:
inputs
 
outputs
=
excess
nutrients.
The
farmer
completes
worksheets,
entering
estimated
figures,
and
calculates
a
score
that
indicates
the
pounds
per
acre
of
excess
nitrogen,
phosphorus,
and
potassium
on
the
farm.
Cash­
grain
farms
tend
to
have
minimal
(­
50
pounds
per
acre)
nutrient
excesses.
Scores
are
used
by
the
farmer
to
more
fully
understand
the
nutrient
flows
on
the
farm;
since
conditions
vary
from
farm
to
farm
and
year
to
year,
the
scores
should
not
be
used
for
comparison
purposes.
The
Yardstick
is
not
a
regulatory
tool;
scores
are
kept
confidential.

Determining
Nutrient
Outputs
Crop
farmers
need
the
following
information
to
complete
the
worksheets:

 
amount
of
fertilizers
used;

 
amount
of
crops
that
left
the
farm;

 
if
legumes
are
grown,
the
acreage,
cutting,
and
type
of
stand;
and
 
if
irrigation
is
used,
the
nitrate
content
and
volume
of
water
used.

The
program
describes
how
to
convert
the
dry
matter
weight
of
crop
products
that
were
sold
or
removed
from
the
farm
and
determines
the
nutrient
content
of
sold
crop
products.
A
useful
chart
of
nutrient
contents
of
common
crops
and
forages
is
included.
The
farmer
then
determines
the
nutrients
in
purchased
fertilizer
and
manure
and
the
nitrogen
fixated
by
legumes.
Finally,
environmental
inputs
are
estimated
from
deposition
and
irrigation
water.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
4­
4
Once
all
known
factors
are
figured
in,
the
farmer
totals
all
nitrogen,
potassium,
and
phosphorus
inputs
and
outputs,
then
determines
the
difference.
The
final
result
is
a
score
for
excess
pounds
per
acre
for
each
of
the
three
nutrients.

SIGNIFICANCE
OF
SCORES
The
closer
a
yardstick
score
is
to
zero,
the
more
efficient
is
the
on­
farm
nutrient
use.
The
document
includes
criteria
that
increase
or
decrease
efficiency,
and
fertilizer
data.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
5­
1
ATTACHMENT
H­
5
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
5­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
5­
3
BMP­
PLUS

:
INSURANCE
COVERAGE
FOR
INNOVATIVE
PRACTICES
Conservation
Practices
Could
Be
More
Widely
Adopted
if
RISKS
Could
be
Neutralized
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs)
are
research­
proven,
cost­
reducing
farming
methods
designed
to
optimize
crop
income
while
protecting
the
land.
Yet
it
is
hard
for
farmers
to
change
the
way
they
farm.
They
stick
with
accustomed
methods
because
of
concerns
about
yield
variability
that
tend
to
outweigh
either
cost­
cutting
appeal
or
environmental
impact
reduction
concerns.
Until
farmers
have
seen
that
the
risks
have
been
worked
down,
they
continue
to
use
current
practices.

THE
BMP­
PLUS

:
Conservation
Innovation
Policy
To
boost
adoption
of
proven
conservation
techniques,
the
Agricultural
Conservation
Innovation
Center
(
ACIC)
has
designed
insurance
coverage
for
innovative
practices.
The
approach
uses
split
fields
(
or
orchards)
to
isolate
the
risk.
The
innovative
steps
are
followed
on
one
half
while
conventional
methods
are
used
on
the
other.
All
other
practices
must
be
identical
across
the
split
field
system
to
make
sure
that
the
conservation
practice
is
the
only
thing
that
is
different
in
the
two
portions.
The
yield
difference
between
the
two
halves
is
insured.

Sponsoring
organizations
play
a
pivotal
role.
Proposals
originate
with
them
and
they
screen
participants.
They
identify
technicians
who'll
guide
growers
as
the
innovative
practice
is
implemented.
They
track
yields,
analyze
differences
in
the
split
field
results,
and
help
process
any
claims.

ACIC
empanels
expert
committees
to
evaluate
conservation
practices
for
their
suitability.
Other
criteria
may
become
evident
as
proposals
are
processed.

A
Specialized
Insurance
Policy
Can
Resolve
This
Dilemma
To
boost
adoption
of
proven
conservation
practices,
the
ACIC
and
IGF
Insurance
Company
have
designed
insurance
coverage
to
help
farmers
adopt
conservation
practices.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
4
How
It
Works
and
What
It
Costs
1.
A
split
field
approach
is
commonly
used
to
demonstrate
a
different
practice
or
product.
For
BMP­
PLUS

split
fields
will
be
used
to
isolate
risk
in
proven
conservation
methods.
The
innovative
procedure
is
followed
in
one
half
while
conventional
methods
are
continued
in
the
other.
All
other
farming
practices
must
be
identical
across
the
split
field
system
to
make
sure
that
the
conservation
practice
is
the
only
thing
that
is
different.
Yield
variance
between
the
two
halves
is
then
insured
neutralizing
a
grower's
risk
as
innovative
conservation
practices
are
adopted.

2.
The
BMP­
PLUS

insurance
will
have
premiums
set
at
50
percent
of
the
established
Multiple
Peril
Crop
Insurance
(
MPCI)
rates
for
any
crop.

Sponsoring
Groups
The
enhanced
AEM
program
proposed
herein
recognizes
that
the
County
and
State
(
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets)
have
a
bona
fide
stake
in
conservation.
Their
leadership
makes
the
whole
process
work
by:

 
Identifying
conservation
proposals;

 
Clarifying
the
benefits
and
the
risks;

 
Communicating
with
farmers;

 
Screening
farmer
participants;

 
Ensuring
sufficient
technical
support;
and
 
Assisting
in
loss
adjustment.

How
the
BMP­
PLUS
 
Policy
Works
1.
A
bona
fide
conservation
practice
is
identified
(
in
this
case,
AEM
practices);

2.
Either
a
sponsoring
organization
persuades
farmer
members
to
enroll
crop
acreage
or
a
producer
persuades
his
organization
to
sponsor
a
proposal;

3.
A
simplified
description
of
the
conserving
practice
is
submitted
by
the
sponsoring
organization
to
ACIC
for
an
initial
review;

4.
ACIC
reviews
the
concept
and
the
needs,
responding
to
the
applicant
organization
with
assistance
in
either
making
a
full
application
or
in
obtaining
more
information
and
refining
how
the
proposal
may
be
specified
more
effectively;

5.
The
sponsoring
organization:

a.
Nominates
the
producer
participants;

b.
Vouches
for
the
participants;

c.
Identifies
the
field
support
for
farmers
using
the
practice;
and
d.
Certifies
that
the
split
fields
have
comparable
productive
capacity.

6.
ACIC
initially
rates
the
insurance
based
on
a
non­
probability
premium
structure
developed
jointly
with
IGF
Insurance
Company:
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
5­
5
a.
Empanels
a
vetting
committee
to
assess
the
technical
aspects
of
the
proposal;
and
b.
Customizes
the
innovation
insurance
policy
to
fit
the
circumstances.

7.
IGF
Insurance
Company
writes
and
distributes
the
BMP­
PLUS
 
policy
via
agents;

8.
The
producer
grows
his
crops
according
to
the
split
field
method;

9.
The
sponsoring
organization
provides
technical
support
for
enrolled
producers
and
oversees
the
steps
of
the
recommended
conservation
practice;

10.
The
sponsoring
organization
performs
the
initial
adjustment
process
and
prepares
a
preliminary
report
if
a
loss
occurs
and
verifies
that
all
other
farming
practices
were
consistent
across
both
portions
of
the
split
field
system;
and
11.
IGF
Insurance
Company
performs
the
final
adjustment
process
and
pays
out
claims
as
necessary.

Source:
Agricultural
Conservation
Innovation
Center,
1999
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
6
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
1
ATTACHMENT
H­
6
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
2
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
3
Mission
To
provide
information
and
assessment
tools
for
pesticide
and
nitrogen
fertilizer
users
which
help
them
identify
risks
to
groundwater
associated
with
their
pesticide
and
nitrogen
fertilizer
use
practices
and
to
coordinate
local,
State,
and
Federal
resources
to
help
individuals
reduce
those
risks.

The
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
is
designed
to
be
voluntary,
to
be
locally
driven,
to
address
the
concerns
of
individuals,
and
to
maintain
a
focus
on
the
financial
and
technical
constraints
which
drive
real­
world
decisions.

The
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
is
relatively
narrow
in
focus
addressing
only
risks
to
groundwater
associated
with
pesticide
and
nitrogen
fertilizer
use.
However,
it
has
a
wide
scope
and
addresses
the
many
uses
of
these
materials,
including
agricultural,
turfgrass,
and
household
uses.

Local
Programs
Local
Groundwater
Stewardship
Programs
are
being
funded
through
a
competitive
grants
program.
Technical
assistance
personnel
are
hired
to
help
individuals
complete
an
on­
site
evaluation
of
risks
and
help
implement
practices
which
reduce
those
risks.

Farm
*
A*
Syst
(
FAS)

Farm
*
A*
Syst
(
FAS)
identifies
potential
risks
posed
by
farmstead
operations.
Fact
sheets
provide
educational
information
and
list
reference
people
to
contact
if
questions
arise.
F*
A*
S*
work
sheets
use
a
simple
question­
and­
answer
format
to
evaluate
farmstead
practices
that
may
pose
a
risk
to
groundwater.

Farm
*
A*
Syst
is
voluntary
and
confidential.
All
Farm
*
A*
Syst
materials
stay
with
you
on
your
farm.
It
is
important
to
recognize
that
Farm
*
A*
Syst
only
identifies
risk.
It
does
not
tell
you
if
you
have
contaminated
water
or
that
you
will
never
have
contaminated
water.

Technical
assistance
with
completing
Farm
*
A*
Syst
evaluations
is
available
free
of
charge
from
the
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program.

Home
*
A*
Syst
Home
*
A*
Syst
helps
homeowners
identify
and
lower
risks
to
groundwater
and
surface
water,
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment.
A
home
assessment
system
to
help
you
identify
and
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
4
lower
risks
to
groundwater
and
surface
water.
Groundwater
is
a
limited
resource.
Its
contamination
can
occur
in
several
ways:

 
Contaminants
moving
down
well
casings
of
unused
or
unusable
wells;

 
Excess
or
poorly
timed
use
of
yard
and
garden
fertilizers
and
pesticides,
leading
to
groundwater
or
surface
water
contamination;

 
Poorly
maintained
septic
systems;
and
 
Improper
disposal
of
wastes.

Groundwater
Stewardship
Practices
Technical
assistance
personnel
may
work
with
landowners
to
develop
a
Groundwater
Stewardship
Plan
describing
the
cost­
share
and
technical
assistance
resources
available
to
implement
Groundwater
Stewardship
Practices.

The
practices
not
only
provide
easy­
to­
access
information
about
reducing
risks
but
also
can
provide
technical
assistance
and
cost­
share
for
closing
abandoned
wells.

One­
Stop
Shopping
In
the
past,
individuals
have
gone
to
MSU
Extension
for
general
information
on
implementation
of
the
Groundwater
Stewardship
Practices.
Then
they
would
go
to
the
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
for
technical
standards,
visit
the
Consolidated
Farm
Service
Agency
for
cost­
share
information,
and
finally
work
through
the
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
and
the
local
conservation
district
to
set
up
technical
assistance
and
learn
about
other
cost­
share
opportunities.

To
address
this
problem,
a
series
of
Groundwater
Stewardship
Practice
Manuals
have
been
developed
by
the
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
which
integrate:
 
MSU
Extension
descriptive
information
 
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
technical
standards
 
State
and
Federal
legal
requirements
 
Information
on
State
and
Federal
cost­
share
opportunities,
and
 
Evaluation
tools.

Groundwater
Stewardship
Teams
These
teams
determine
the
mixture
between
cost­
share,
technical
assistance,
and/
or
demonstration
provided
by
the
local
program.
They
ensure
coordination
of
local
resources
and
make
sure
the
local
program
meets
the
groundwater
protection
needs
of
local
pesticide
and
fertilizer
users.

Groundwater
Stewardship
Teams
(
GST)
are
a
part
of
Michigan's
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
(
GSP).
They
provide
a
collective
voice
of
pesticide
and
nitrogen
fertilizer
users
in
determining
the
direction
of
the
statewide
program.
GSTs
help
ensure
that
local
information,
technical
assistance,
demonstration
projects
and
cost­
share
opportunities
supported
by
the
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
meet
local
needs
and
interests.
They
can
also
serve
as
local
forums
to
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
5
communicate
the
groundwater
protection
activities,
needs,
and
concerns
of
the
pesticide
and
nitrogen
fertilizer
users
to
the
nonagricultural
community.

Field
*
A*
Syst
Field
*
A*
Syst
is
designed
to
help
individuals
identify
ways
to
reduce
the
risk
of
groundwater
contamination
associated
with
field
applications
of
pesticides
and
nitrogen
fertilizers.

Field
*
A*
System
is
a
series
of
worksheets
and
fact
sheets
that
help
identify
and
offer
ways
to
reduce
the
risk
of
groundwater
contamination
associated
with
pesticide
and
nitrogen
fertilizer
use.
These
infield
risk
assessment
tools
are
based
on
the
highly
popular
Farm
*
A*
Syst
program
which
is
used
to
evaluate
farmstead
practices
and
structures
that
may
pose
a
risk
to
groundwater.

Currently,
Field*
A*
Syst
materials
are
available
for
the
following
topics:

 
General
Pesticide
&
Nutrient
Management
Work
Sheets;

 
General
Irrigation
Management
Field
Screening
Work
Sheets;
and
 
Corn
Nutrient
&
Pesticide
Management.

The
general
pesticide,
nutrient
and
irrigation
management
packages
focus
on
practices
such
as:
split
nitrogen
application,
nitrate
testing,
pesticide
selection,
sprayer
calibration,
and
pesticide
safety.

The
field
screening
worksheets
help
evaluate
the
impact
of
soils,
subsurface
geology,
cropping
practices,
and
depth
to
the
water
table
on
the
relative
vulnerability
of
the
fields
you
manage.
The
idea
is
that
if
you
are
going
to
try
using
a
groundwater
stewardship
practice,
you'll
get
the
biggest
benefit
using
it
on
your
most
vulnerable
fields.

The
materials
are
designed
to
integrate
MSU
Extension
bulletins
and
recommendations
into
a
single
fact
sheet,
using
the
same
easy
Farm*
A*
Syst
question­
and­
answer
format
to
help
you
apply
the
recommendations
to
your
own
fields.
Just
like
Farm*
A*
Syst,
the
Field*
A*
Syst
program
is
voluntary
and
confidential.
All
materials
stay
with
you
on
your
farm.

Funding
Funds
for
this
program
come
from
industry­
supported
pesticide
and
fertilizer
registration
fees
on
specialty
and
agricultural
products.
Registration
fees
are
paid
for
by
companies
that
register
their
products
for
use
in
Michigan.
A
tonnage
fee
on
bulk
nitrogen
fertilizers
is
also
a
source
of
funding.
Nitrogen
tonnage
fees
are
paid
directly
by
bulk
fertilizer
users.

Pesticide
registration
fees
account
for
about
72
percent
of
the
revenues
with
the
remaining
being
provided
by
nitrogen
fertilizer
users.
Specialty
(
household)
products
generate
approximately
40
percent
of
the
total
revenues
with
the
remaining
coming
from
agriculture
and
other
wide­
area
pesticide
uses.

Over
85
percent
of
the
revenues
generated
by
these
fees
are
returned
directly
to
pesticide
and
fertilizer
users
through
education,
technical­
assistance,
applied
research,
and
cost­
share
programs.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
6
Funding
Revenues
Funds
for
the
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
come
from
industry­
supported
pesticide
and
fertilizer
registration
and
tonnage
fees.

Pesticide
registration
fees
are
paid
for
by
companies
which
register
both
specialty
(
homeowner)
and
wide­
area
(
agricultural,
right
of
way,
golf
course,
etc.)
pesticides
for
use
in
Michigan.
The
rate
for
specialty
pesticides
is
$
100/
product
while
the
rate
for
wide­
area
pesticides
is
equal
to
three­
quarters
of
one
percent
of
the
annual
wholesale
value
with
a
$
150/
product
minimum.

Specialty
fertilizer
registration
fees
are
equal
to
$
100
for
each
product
and
grade
registered
for
sale.
Nitrogen
fertilizer
tonnage
fees
are
set
at
one­
and­
a­
half
cents
per
percent
of
nitrogen
in
each
ton
of
fertilizer
sold.
For
example,
the
fee
on
one
ton
of
28­
0­
0
would
be
28
x
.015
or
$
0.42.
So,
if
28­
0­
0
were
selling
at
$
160/
ton,
the
groundwater
fee
would
raise
the
price
by
two­
tenths­
of­
one­
percent.

Pesticide
registration
fees
account
for
about
74
percent
of
program
revenues
with
the
remaining
being
provided
by
nitrogen
fertilizer
users.
Specialty
products
generate
approximately
40
percent
of
the
total
revenues
with
the
remaining
coming
from
wide­
area
pesticide
uses.

Total
annual
revenues
were
about
$
2
million
in
1994
and
$
3.5
million
in
1995.
Revenues
not
spent
in
one
year
are
carried
forward
to
fund
the
next
year's
programs
and
are
not
returned
to
the
general
fund.

The
Northwest
Michigan
Groundwater
Stewardship
Program
is
here
to
be
of
service
to
you.
The
Program
offers:

 
Farmstead
Assessments
(
Farm*
A*
Syst);

 
Homestead
Assessments
(
Home*
A*
Syst);

 
Cost­
share
Funding;
and
 
An
Information
Network/
Partnership.

It's
about
Risk
Reduction
to
improve
the
quality
of
our
region's
groundwater
and
your
personal
groundwater
supply.
This
program
is
funded
through
PA216
of
1994,
which
assesses
a
surcharge
on
nitrate
fertilizers
and
pesticides.
The
revenues
generated
are
to
be
used
to
help
farmers
and
homeowners
to
undertake
management
changes
that
will
reduce
the
threat
of
groundwater
contamination
on
their
property.
The
bulk
of
the
grant
funds
will
be
used
to
deliver
on­
site
technical
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
7
assistance
to
landowners
and
to
provide
cost­
share
funds
to
landowners
for
closing
abandoned
wells,
installing
anti­
backflow
devices
on
agricultural
wells
and
implementing
other
practices
that
protect
groundwater.

Groundwater
Facts
and
Trivia
 
The
earth
is
a
closed
system;
there
is
the
same
amount
of
water
here
today
as
there
was
three
billion
years
ago;

 
Water
moves
through
the
hydrologic
cycle,
changing
from
solid
to
liquid
to
gas
(
water
vapor)
over
and
over
again;

 
Ninety­
seven
percent
of
the
earth's
water
is
salt
water,
only
three
percent
is
fresh
water.
Of
the
freshwater,
77
percent
is
frozen
in
ice
and
glaciers,
22
percent
is
groundwater,
and
less
than
1
percent
is
found
in
lakes,
marshed,
rivers,
and
streams;

 
About
95
percent
of
the
United
States'
total
supply
of
fresh
water
is
groundwater.
The
remaining
is
surface
water
found
in
lakes
and
streams;

 
About
27
trillion
gallons
of
groundwater
are
withdrawn
for
use
in
the
United
States
each
year;

 
Three­
quarters
of
the
cities
in
the
United
States
use
groundwater
as
part
of
their
water
supply.
Almost
350
municipalities
throughout
Michigan
use
groundwater
for
their
public
water
supply
system;

 
More
than
800,000
new
water
wells
are
drilled
in
the
United
States
each
year;

 
Unconsolidated
sands
and
gravels
compose
nearly
90
percent
of
all
aquifers
developed
for
water
supplies.
Porous
sandstone,
limestone,
and
highly
fractured
crystalline
and
volcanic
rock
make
up
most
other
aquifers;

 
Forty­
three
percent
of
Michigan's
residents
depend
on
groundwater
for
drinking;

 
Thirty­
seven
percent
of
Michigan's
farmers
use
groundwater
for
irrigating
crops
and
watering
livestock;

 
Groundwater
supplies
water
to
many
of
our
streams,
lakes,
and
wetlands.
In
fact,
about
30
percent
of
stream
flow
in
the
U.
S.
is
from
groundwater
discharge;

 
Rainfall
is
the
main
source
of
fresh
groundwater.
About
25
percent
of
rainfall
in
the
United
States
becomes
groundwater.
That
is
equal
to
about
300
trillion
gallons
per
year;

 
Groundwater
is
constantly
moving.
The
rate
of
movement
may
be
as
fast
as
50
feet
per
day
or
as
slow
as
50
feet
per
500
years;

 
Groundwater
nearly
always
contains
more
mineral
matter
than
nearby
surface
water,
but
is
generally
much
cleaner;

 
About
a
quarter
of
the
Earth's
population
drink
contaminated
water;

 
The
two
major
groundwater
problems
are
overdraft
(
withdrawing
more
water
than
is
being
naturally
replenished),
and
unnatural
contamination;

 
Since
water
will
dissolve
more
things
than
any
other
substance
it
is
very
susceptible
to
contamination;
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
8
 
Groundwater
contamination
has
been
found
in
every
State.
Groundwater
is
known
to
be
contaminated
at
about
1,300
sites
in
Michigan;

 
Agricultural
activities
constitute
the
single
largest
use
of
groundwater;
and
 
Approximately
one­
fifth
of
the
earth's
fresh
water
is
contained
in
the
Great
Lakes
Basin.

Farm*
A*
Syst
A
Farm*
A*
Syst
is
an
assessment
to
help
identify
potential
risk
of
groundwater
contamination
posed
by
farmstead
operations.
Fact
sheets
provide
education
information.
F*
A*
S
worksheets
use
a
simple
question­
and­
answer
format
to
evaluate
farmstead
practices
that
may
pose
a
risk
to
groundwater.
A
groundwater
technician
will
come
out
to
the
farm
and
work
with
you
to
identify
practices
which
would
help
reduce
the
risk
of
contamination
on
you
farm
and
develop
a
Groundwater
Stewardship
Plan.

Farm*
A*
Syst
areas
which
are
addressed
are:

 
Well
location
and
condition;

 
Pesticide
and/
or
fertilizer
storage
and
handling;

 
Fuel
storage
(
see
EQIP
info
for
cost­
share
info);

 
Hazardous
waste
management;

 
Household
and
milking
center
wastewater
treatment;

 
Livestock
manure
storage;

 
Livestock
yard
management;

 
Silage
storage;

 
Emergency
preparedness
planning;
and
 
Overall
farmstead
assessment.

After
doing
a
Farm*
A*
Syst,
one
is
eligible
to
apply
for
cost­
share
funding
to
help
implement
safer
groundwater
practices.
For
more
information
about
the
Farm*
A*
Syst
program,
please
contact
Ginger
Bardenhagen
at
(
616)
941­
4191
or
email
her
at:
spice@
northlink.
net.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
9
Home*
A*
Syst
Home*
A*
Syst
is
a
home
assessment
system
to
help
you
identify
and
lower
risks
to
groundwater
and
surface
water.
The
packet
fact
sheets
can
be
done
alone
or
with
assistance
and
cover
the
following
topics:

 
Drinking
Water
Well
Management;

 
Yard
and
Garden
Care;

 
Household
Wastewater;

 
Stormwater
Management;

 
Hazardous
Household
Products;

 
Household
Trash;

 
Liquid
Fuels;
and
 
Homesite
Assessment.

The
assessment
will
allow
you
to:

 
Protect
your
drinking
water;

 
Learn
the
basics
about
your
home
septic
system;

 
Reduce
runoff
which
may
harm
lakes
and
streams;

 
Gain
information
on
the
health
and
environmental
impact
of
your
yard
and
gardening
activities;

 
Lower
risks
from
hazardous
household
products;

 
Reduce
and
improve
handling
of
household
waste;
and
 
Safely
manage
liquid
fuel
storage
(
gas,
fuel
oil,
kerosene,
etc.).

For
more
information
or
for
a
Home*
A*
Syst
packet
contact:

Kelly
Wood­
Arnold
Phone:
616­
935­
1514
Fax:
616­
922­
4633
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
X
H
H­
6­
10
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.
