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 Parkway Annapolis, 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 this important 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 Marylands current 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 storage or 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 existing rules, 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 2011 Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) report on the Chesapeake Bay, a mere six percent of cropped acres in the region are managed to meet all nutrient management 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. (Emphasis added.) 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.

Given the long history of bay restoration efforts, these results are disturbing at best. In our view, they indicate 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 long periods, 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 transition period 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 applications during 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 for manure 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 urge the 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 serious consideration 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 extent that 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 reduction requirements 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