7/31/2019 Comments on Proposed MD Nutrient Management
Regulations 081312
1/2
901 E Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Phone 202.552.2000
Fax 202.552.2299
www.pewtrusts.org
August 13, 2012
Jo A. Mercer, Ed.D., Administrator
Nutrient Management Program, Maryland Department of
Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman ParkwayAnnapolis, Maryland 21401
RE: Proposed Changes to Maryland Nutrient Management
Regulations
Dear Dr. Mercer:
The Pew Environment Group is writing to thank the Maryland
Department of Agriculture for initiating thisimportant nutrient
management rulemaking and for providing an opportunity for public
comment. Maryland
has long been a leader in conservation and environmental
protection, and improvements to Marylandscurrent nutrient
management regulations are yet another important step in the effort
to protect water quality,
human health, and the states economy.
The Pew Environment Group urges the Department to act quickly to
finalize these new nutrient
management rules to assure that all Maryland farmers use sound
practices for manure storage and
land application. We also offer suggestions regarding how the
current draft rules might be enhanced to
better protect the Chesapeake Bay and other important natural
resources without unduly burdening the
farming community.
We understand that manure can be a valuable resource for farmers
when it is used in lieu of or along with
commercial fertilizers. The appropriate agronomic and
environmentally protective use of manure can
present some difficulties, however, and it is easy for manure to
be mismanaged, through inadequate storageor through inappropriate
application rates, methods, or timing.
Because of these difficulties and the large portion of manured
acres across the state, clear and specific rules
are absolutely crucialincluding within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Without improvements to existingrules, which allow
inadequate storage to serve as a rationale for over-application of
manure or for poor
timing of applications, the State will face significant
difficulties in reducing nutrient loads in the Bay and its
tributaries. The problem is particularly acute on the eastern
shore, where large volumes of poultry litter are
generated.
As the USDA highlighted in its 2011Conservation Effects
Assessment Project(CEAP) report on the
Chesapeake Bay, a mere six percent of cropped acres in the
region are managed to meet all nutrientmanagement criteria, and a
disappointing one percent of manured crop acres are managed in a
manner that
promotes the full conservation treatment. The report notes that
there is an opportunity to enhance
existing nutrient management practices on most acres, especially
those receiving manure. (Emphasisadded.) Even though USDA accounted
for implementation of farmer conservation practicesas
determined
by a survey of farmers, they concluded that phosphorus losses,
for example, from land receiving manure
were nearly three times that of cropland receiving only
commercial fertilizers.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042076.pdfhttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042076.pdfhttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042076.pdfhttp://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042076.pdf
7/31/2019 Comments on Proposed MD Nutrient Management
Regulations 081312
2/2
Given the long history of bay restoration efforts, these results
are disturbing at best. In our view, theyindicate that traditional
reliance on voluntary practices for agricultural activities must be
supplemented by
reasonable and enforceable rules.
We urge the Department to adopt new rules which will do the
following:
Require all animal feeding operations to have sufficient storage
capacity to contain manure for longperiods, so that it is not
released into the environment when inclement weather and other
conditions
delay its agronomic use on crops. Existing facilities that are
undersized may need some transitionperiod to bring their operations
into compliance, but such a transition must occur as quickly as
possible. Lack of storage should no longer serve as a rationale
for excessive or poorly timed manure
applications in any instance.
Adopt appropriate seasonal prohibitions on manure application as
well as prohibitions on applicationsduring a defined winter period.
The prohibition on winter application and the restrictions on
fall
application must be straightforward and clearly enforced.
Require setbacks to protect waterways, wells, sinkholes, springs
and all other conduits that allow formanure pollutants to impair
water quality. Under the Clean Water Act, Maryland setbacks must
at
least be as stringent as those set out in Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) rules, but we urgethe Department to
increase the distance of setbacks in areas where nutrient pollution
is either of
greater risk or the most severe. Some other states have taken
similar steps to address impaired waters
or even to offer additional protection to high quality waters.
Maryland should give seriousconsideration to those sorts of
enhancements to the rule. To the extent that Maryland allows
for
alternative practices, as the EPA rules provide, the state
should require strong evidence of the
comparability of such practices, allow for public comment and
review on alternatives, and follow up
with monitoring of results.
Again, we are hopeful that Maryland, which has been a pioneer in
Chesapeake Bay protection with adoption
of a phosphate detergent ban, land use planning initiatives,
controls on suburban fertilizer use, and the flush
tax, will take these important steps to stem the flow of excess
nutrients into Maryland waters. To the extentthat the State fails
to reduce manure-related nutrient losses, the burden for additional
reductions from other
sources, such as municipal sewage plants, septic tanks, and
industrial activities, will increase. Eventually,
sewage treatment plants and others will face rising costs to
meet the necessary nutrient reductionrequirements of the bay TMDL,
if agricultural operations generating and using manure do not do
their part.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment, and we urge speedy
adoption of new rules.
Sincerely,
Velma M. Smith
Officer, Pew Environment Group
