NEWS & VIEWS What the Muck? The straight poop on the MDA’s on again-off again manure management proposals.
First, word leaks that the Maryland Department
of Agriculture (MDA) is planning potentially oner- ous new manure management regulations without industry input. T at was last summer, and – in the face of the horse industry’s seemingly well-organized grass roots revolt – MDA quickly course-corrected. In late October, MDA released new proposed nu- trient management regs, which, for horse people, primarily concerns how we manage our manure and our pastures. T e Maryland Horse Council was pleased to see that MDA took the horse folk concern seriously, and eliminated such absurd proposals as requirements to fence off each and every run-off stream and gully wash on your farm (described in the regs as “ephemeral streams”). On November 15, 2011, the Maryland Horse Council hosted an information and Q&A ses- sion with horse farm owners, MHC members and MDA. Horse farm owners were still concerned about the proposed new regs.
But if horse folks
were concerned, the traditional crop and livestock farmers were livid, and so on December 1, 2011, MDA pulled the proposal. Nevertheless, even though the most recent pro-
posal has been pulled, at some point MDA is go- ing to have to issue revamped regs in order to be in compliance with federal law. Below, Maryland Horse Council vice president Jane Seigler provides our readers with a more detailed explanation of federally mandated requirements and the state ef- forts to comply.
106 | THE EQUIERY | JANUARY 2012
On December 1, the Maryland Depart- ment of Agriculture (MDA) confi rmed to the Maryland Horse Council (MHC) that it had “delayed publication of the [new, proposed] nutrient management regulations in an eff ort to achieve consensus with concerned stake- holders.” MDA had submitted these proposed changes on October 27, 2011 to the State Leg- islature’s Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review (AELR). If the AELR Committee had approved the proposed regulatory changes, they would have been published in the Maryland Register for a 45-day public comment period. T e planned date for that publication was December 2. In- stead, MDA announced that it was going back to the drawing board, and promised to include MHC in the process. MDA has been struggling for months to come up with regulatory changes to help the state meet goals imposed by the Federal EPA related to the Chesapeake Bay clean-up eff ort. (See below for more information on the bay ef- fort.) An initial draft of the proposed changes surfaced last spring, and immediately drew outcry from the Maryland Horse Council, the Maryland Farm Bureau, and many farmers and individuals over the specifi cs of the proposed changes, some of which contained require- ments that would have been diffi cult or impos- sible to implement in the context of the typical
horse operation. As a result of these comments, the state’s
Nutrient Management Advisory Committee (which includes representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, MDA, University of Maryland, Maryland Department of the En- vironment and Natural Resources, Maryland Farm Bureau, Delaware-Maryland Agribusi- ness Association, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, commercial lawn care companies, the biosolids industry, as well as local governments and the state legisla- ture, and which has been considering the pro- posed changes for the past year) made changes to the proposal. A summary of the MDA’s proposed changes submitted to AELR, with a link to the full text of the proposed regulations, is available online at:
http://www.mda.state.md.us/pdf/NM_
Regs_Fact_Sheet.pdf T e proposal contained the following requirements of particular inter- est to horse farmers:
Setbacks Eff ective January 1, 2014, setbacks of veg-
etated areas, where no nutrients may be depos- ited or applied, will be required at the edge of surface water: Pastures and hayfi elds are subject to a 10-foot application setback; no nutrients shall be applied mechanically or deposited by livestock with the set- back. Sacrifi ce lots (less than 75% grass or grass le- gume mix) shall maintain a 35-foot setback. Essentially, this means that streams and ponds must be fenced. One improvement in this provision over a previous version is that “ephemeral streams” are now exclud- ed from the defi nition of surface water. Additionally, Operators are responsible for sediment and erosion control of stream crossing areas. Oper- ators shall move livestock from one side of the stream to the other side only through stream crossings designed to prevent erosion and sedi- ment loss. Operators shall gate crossing areas wider than 12 feet. Operators may allow live- stock controlled access to streams for watering in accordance with the USDA-NRCRS Field Of- fi ce Technical Guide standards and specifi cations. T ere is no eff ective date specifi ed for this provi- sion. An MDA offi cial commented at the MHC meeting that it was “not clear” whether this provi- sion would apply to stream crossings on trails.
Spread vs. No Spread
During Spring and Summer (March 1 – Sep- tember 9): manure may be spread or deposited directly on permanent pastures and land used for hay production. T ese applications will now be exempt from the requirement that nutrients be “injected or incorporated” within 72 hours, as was contained in a previous draft. During the Fall (September 10 – November
15) livestock manure may be applied only if: T e operation making the application is generat- ing the dairy/livestock manure or waste and storage is insuffi cient to accommodate additional materials generated before March 1st of the following year. Again, there is no incorporation requirement for pastures or hayfi elds. During the winter (November 16 – February
28): T e proposal states that winter applica- tion of stackable manures (e.g., horse manure) is prohibited, which is also the case under the current regulations. Virtually all winter appli- cations will be prohibited eff ective July 1, 2016. Farmers will be expected to have adequate ma- nure storage facilities in place to handle 120 days of manure production, and no manure may be applied to fi elds (except for what is di- rectly applied by livestock). However, the proposal will allow temporary
fi eld storage (up to 120 days) if certain stan- dards are met regarding location, setbacks from water sources and residences, slope and grade, and cleanup of the site in the spring. If these standards cannot be met, then a manure storage facility must be built by 2016. T e 2016 eff ective date is intended to give farmers enough time to plan for the installa- tion of manure storage facilities, and to apply for cost-share and other government programs providing fi nancial assistance. However, funds for these programs are limited and continue to be subject to budget cutting. Some farmers are
The 2016 effective date is intended to give farmers enough time to plan for the installation of manure storage facilities (such as this one under construc- tion), and to apply for cost-share and other gov- ernment programs providing fi nancial assistance.
not eligible at all for these programs, due to the nature of their operations.
Federal Mandates In order to understand where MDA is com-
ing from in its eff orts to amend these regula- tions, it’s useful to have some background. In 1972 Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which in essence mandated that polluted water bodies be restored to environmental health. In the late 1990’s, several environmental groups
brought suit against the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), complaining of the slow progress in improving the Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River. T ese lawsuits resulted in two consent decrees that eventually produced
800-244-9580 |
www.equiery.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120