Chesapeake Bay Action Plan

(Posted by Gerald Winegrad)
 
The Maryland Department of Agriculture announced the development of weakened proposed regulations that are well short of the positions advocated by the Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay to address the pollution from millions of tons of chicken and other farm animal manure that is poisoning ground and surface waters.  Some key elements of the proposals don’t even go into effect until 2016, allowing four more years to do just some of what has been required for land application of treated human sludge since 1985!

The reports from the University of Maryland scientists appointed by the Administration were kept from us and the public until just before the announcement of the proposals for regulations. These scientists recommended much more than was incorporated into the regulations and noted that the EPA’s Bay Program found that farm animal manure is responsible for 24 percent of the phosphorus (this is more than all the municipal WWTPs and industrial dischargers) and 15 percent of the nitrogen flowing to and choking the Bay. This does not include the atmospheric contribution of nitrogen from the volatilization of manure and fertilizer, and subsequent atmospheric deposition of the nitrates estimated at 7% of total bay nitrogen. Septic tanks Baywide are somewhere around 3 percent of the nitrogen, near zero of the phosphorus and for Maryland it’s 6 percent of the nitrogen and near zero of the phosphorous.

Please see our letter to the Governor’s Bay Cabinet urging action on new regulations. The new regulations ignore our science-based recommendations to conform chicken manure and other animal waste and nutrients placed on farm fields with the 1985 requirements for treated human sludge including:  prohibition on winter application after November 1, better buffer requirements including a 100′ buffer in the Critical Area, and a prohibition on the application of manure and other nutrients with phosphorus when the soils are already super-saturated with phosphorus. Also rejected was a requirement that there be adequate monitoring and enforcement of the Nutrient Management Regulations, which is currently lacking.

Please see The Sun article on the cozy relationship between Governor O’Malley and Perdue’s General Counsel and the Food and Water watch release on this issue.

It’s hard to win when you are playing against a stacked deck.

Also see the letter from two full-time working farmers on the need for better nutrient management regulations and in support of our positions.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Dawn Stoltzfus.)

On Tuesday, February 21, 2012, members of the Senior Scientists & Policymakers for the Chesapeake Bay made their case for reducing pollution from agriculture at a hearing before the Maryland Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee. Former Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening provided a strong statement (PDF) in support of SB 594 (co-sponsored by Senators Paul Pinsky and Brian Frosh):

SB 594 would mandate better management of the hundreds of thousands of tons of raw chicken, pig, and cattle manure that is put on farm land. SB 594 would require the same regulations required of treated human sludge, a position shared by our Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay of which I am a member. The bill is a reasonable approach to protecting the bay’s waters and our groundwater.

Dr. Bill Dennison, another member of our group, testified in person. Read his testimony here (PDF). Dr. Lynton Land, a scientist with expertise in soil science now living in Virginia, also submitted written testimony, available here (PDF). 

Members of the farming community and environmental organizations also testified in favor of the bill (PDF), and we saw the usual opposition from the Farm Bureau and poultry industry. We’ll keep you updated on the fate of both of these bills throughout Maryland’s 2012 General Assembly session.

Listen to a recording of the hearing, provided by the Maryland General Assembly.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Sen. Gerald Winegrad. This op-ed originally appeared in The Baltimore Sun on February 20, 2012.)

Millions of tons of one of the Chesapeake Bay‘s largest sources of pollution continue to be dumped onto farm lands without proper regulation. Farm animals produce 44 million tons of manure annually in the bay watershed, and most of it is collected and disposed of on farmland — or left where it falls.

This ranks the bay region in the top 10 percent in the nation for manure-related nitrogen runoff, and the problem of proper management of this waste is exacerbated by the fact that three highly concentrated animal feeding operation areas contribute more than 90 percent of the manure. The Delmarva Peninsula, one of these three areas, has some of the greatest concentrations of chicken farms in the country.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bay Program, in 2009 agricultural manure contributed more than 20 percent of all nitrogen and 26 percent of the phosphorus flowing to the bay system. This exceeds the combined levels of nutrients flowing from all wastewater treatment plants handling the waste from 13 million people and all industrial dischargers. Human waste disposal is strictly regulated, and we have made great strides in meeting requirements at wastewater plants at great public costs exceeding several billion dollars. Unfortunately, the agricultural lobby continues to block efforts to sensibly regulate animal manure.

The costs of this failure are high both in the destruction of bay water quality and the contamination of groundwater: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) concluded that 15 percent of all Delmarva drinking water wells contained nitrates exceeding EPA maximum-contaminant levels. More than 70 percent of all wells tested had nitrate. A USGS study concluded that “Concentrations of nitrate and herbicide concentrations in ground water of the Delmarva Peninsula are among the highest in the Nation.” The major source of this excessive nitrogen is chicken and other animal manure, as well as chemical fertilizers.

Soil surveys document that much of the soil on the Delmarva Peninsula already tests “optimum” or higher for phosphorus and therefore should not have any animal manure applied to it. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 2005 reported that about two-thirds of soils in the watershed test “optimum” or higher for phosphorus and should receive no phosphorus fertilizer, and certainly no phosphorus-rich animal waste (poultry litter, municipal sewage sludge or manure).

Many federal and state programs provide significant funding for farms to better manage animal excrement, such as the Maryland Agricultural Cost Share Program, which I helped develop and gain passage of in 1982. This program has provided more than $140 million in taxpayer-funded grants to farmers, including up to 87.5 percent of the cost of manure handling structures as well as subsidies to transport manure off the farm.

Unlike the millions of tons of animal excrement, the land application of treated biosolids from advanced human wastewater treatment systems, called human sludge, has been strictly regulated since the mid-1980s. The Maryland Department of Environment adopted these regulations at the urging of the farm community. Our group of Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay has consistently proposed that the state adopt parallel measures for animal manure applied to land. After all, human sludge is treated in advanced wastewater systems meeting stringent federal and state requirements, while animal excrement is land-applied just as it comes out of the animals.

On Oct. 27, the Maryland Department of Agriculture proposed changes to its nutrient management regulations to deal with the problem — although the changes were far short of what was necessary. When both the farm lobby and the environmental community objected, the regulations were withdrawn and have not been reissued.

The MDA stated that one of the key purposes of the withdrawn regulations was “to achieve consistency in how all nutrient sources are managed and applied to agricultural land. … That consistency is important if the State of Maryland is to meet its Total Daily Maximum Load requirements, as set forth in EPA’s Watershed Implementation Plan for restoring the Chesapeake Bay.” The MDA proposals were far short of attaining that consistency with the sludge regulations.

Wastewater treatment plants have met or are nearing their required reductions, while agriculture lags far behind. Gov.Martin O’Malley’s proposed doubling of the flush tax to complete the $1.4 billion nutrient removal job at sewerage treatment plants is before the legislature, as is septic tank legislation. These tanks contribute about 6 percent of the nitrogen and close to zero of the phosphorus. The much larger problem of farm animal manure from concentrated feeding operations seems to go unchallenged.

Legislation to deal with this problem is scheduled for a hearing Tuesday in Annapolis. The bill would require much better management of animal manure and all biosolids disposed on farm land. We wouldn’t let a town of 25,000 people dump human manure untreated on open lands; why should we allow the dumping of the equivalent amount of manure from 150,000 chickens without meaningful regulation?

Properly regulating the disposal of raw animal excrement can be achieved at a very small fraction of the cost of other measures to restore the bay, but unless policymakers aggressively address the problem and overcome “big chicken” and the rest of the farm lobby, the bay will only continue to decline as the manure is piled on.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Bill Dennison)

Nutrient trading is the buying and selling of nutrient reduction credits that have a monetary value for the reduction of either nitrogen or phosphorus loading to the waterways. The concept of nutrient trading is to unleash free market forces for nutrient reduction strategies, similar to the approach used with carbon trading to address global warming.

Nutrient trading is a relatively new concept in ecosystem restoration that has been initiated for the Chesapeake Bay. Using the new Google analysis tool (‘ngrams’), nutrient trading only appears in the literature around 1990, but has increased rapidly, with a doubling of citations roughly every three years. There is excitement about nutrient trading as a new approach, and this excitement is evident in the various policy statements explaining nutrient trading. Along with this excitement, there is considerable skepticism also evident, and the issue is often emotive.

The Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers group has reviewed the status of nutrient trading as applied to Chesapeake Bay restoration. We found that there are a variety of different definitions for nutrient trading being used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies, and that there is a lack of data and case studies to support or refute assertions about nutrient trading. The fact that nutrient trading is complicated, emotive and data poor makes this approach one that deserves close scrutiny and scientific rigor. Within the Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers group, our nutrient trading report is a carefully crafted consensus between fairly intense and polarized viewpoints and it took quite a bit of effort to strike this balance.

The nutrient trading report by the Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers answers the question “Is nutrient trading a good thing for Chesapeake Bay?” with a qualified “Yes it could be, but there are major concerns,”  listing ten caveats and recommendations for implementing nutrient trading.  A strong case is made for exercising caution in developing a nutrient trading program, recognizing that a nutrient trading system on this scale is unprecedented.

The ten caveats and recommendations for nutrient trading articulated in the report are the following:

1. Nutrient trading is a relatively new and untested technique for pollutant reductions in waterbodies that makes assumptions regarding short- and long-term effects.
2. All efforts should be made to improve and then preserve local water quality.
3. Independent, rigorous, and transparent verification is essential.
4. A policy of net improvement credit is needed to account for uncertainties in non-point sources reductions and runoff variability.
5. Nutrient trading should not be used to maintain discharges at technology levels below industry standards.
6. Nutrient trading may create environmental justice issues by moving problems to disadvantaged areas.
7. Trading could benefit large organizations and corporations without protecting the interests of local waterways and grassroots entities.
8. The total impacts of nutrient trades need to be measured and adequate compensation provided.
9. Credited practices and the models used to calculate the amounts of credits awarded need to be standardized.
10. Growth allocations should be based on demonstrated pollution reductions in other sectors, not on speculative, proposed reductions in those sectors.

It is evident from these ten caveats/recommendations that there are many ways to do nutrient trading badly, and fewer ways to get it right. We feel that there is only one shot at getting it right and developing market integrity is key. The scientifically rigorous verification by independent entities will be essential for the ongoing integrity of a nutrient trading program.

We have produced this nutrient trading report to encourage an active, robust discussion about the issue. We welcome your comments and viewpoints and would very much like to hear what you have to say about nutrient trading.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Chris Trumbauer,  Anne Arundel County Councilman) 

(This is fifth in an ongoing series of posts on What’s It Going to Take?: A look at how the environmental community can regain the initiative and build the political will necessary to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.)

If your family is like mine, the struggling economy is making every household economical decision a critical one. I cringed when I got my latest fuel oil bill and turned the thermostat down a couple of degrees to try and lessen the pain of the next bill. My wife and I both own fuel-efficient cars, but we still restrict driving as much as possible to delay filling up our tank as long as we can. Like many families, we are putting off important purchases, hoping to get a little more time out of a pair of shoes or a winter coat.

None of this, however, dampens my strong desire for clean water and healthy air. Pollution is pollution whether it contaminates our environment in a recession, or in an economic boom. My lungs don’t care what the return on my 401k is, and my kids don’t think about what the price of gasoline is before they jump into the Chesapeake Bay. Why are we all suddenly on the defensive in our fight for our environment? From the federal battles over the EPA to land-use decisions on the local level, we are seeing our environmental protections threatened, when they should be strengthened. Government’s overarching goal is to protect its people, and that includes protecting them from the threat of pollution.

Right now, far too often, the economy is being used as an excuse not to meet our obligations to provide the basic security of fishable, swimable waterways. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark Clean Water Act. Now is not the time for us to walk away from our commitment to clean water – it’s time to double down. The health of the Chesapeake Bay and our local waterways is intertwined with a healthy economy. So is the quality of life of our communities. Investing in cleaning up our environment will create jobs, not kill them, as some would have you believe. For too long, we have been fed this false choice of jobs versus the environment. Enough is enough.

Think back to the last election cycle and all the robocalls and political mailers you received. Do you remember any candidates who claimed they did not support cleaning up our environment? Probably not. Now that those candidates (including me) are in office, think about whether their actions match their stated commitment to our waterways and our environment. Broad, non-specific support for “the Bay” does not always translate to having the political will to achieve policy.

In Anne Arundel County, I sponsored a bipartisan bill to establish dedicated funding for in-the-ground restoration projects to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff. At the public hearing, nearly 30 people offered compelling testimony in favor of the bill, including community leaders, health officials, boaters, and grassroots advocates. Only a handful of people testified in opposition. Despite the broad show of support, and general acknowledgment of the problem, the measure was withdrawn because there were not enough votes for passage. A case study in the lack of political will to clean up our waterways.

What will it take to turn the corner on restoring the environmental (and economical) treasure that is the Chesapeake Bay?

• Realistic expectations. We cannot “wish” the Bay better with positive thoughts and feel-good measures alone. Serious problems require serious solutions and those solutions can and will cost money. We need to consider the long-term impacts of an impaired Bay when we consider the current investments needed to secure our fisheries, recreational activities, maritime industry, and other benefits of a restored Bay. What will it cost us if we fail to act?
• Willingness to try new things. While acknowledging the progress we have made, we must also realize it has not been enough. The tactics of voluntary measures and loose enforcement of environmental laws is not working. Regulation of pollution and strong management actions have successfully restored other waterways and they can work on the Bay, too.
• A renewed sense of accountability. We cannot keep failing to meet deadlines and goals with no consequence. If we are asking our citizens to change their behavior or share in the responsibility to clean up our waterways, our leaders need to hold up their end of the bargain by making sure the right policies are in place to reduce pollution enough to make a difference.

We are making real progress in the fight to clean up our waterways. A recent report found that we were about halfway to our Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort goals. That progress represents an investment of decades of work and millions of dollars. The progress has been slow but we’ve come too far to give up now and jeopardize all the work that we have done up to now.

It’s time to put up or shut up. This is our opportunity to finish the job, not come up with more excuses. We absolutely must focus and control growth, regulate and reduce pollution from all sources, and change our behavior. None of these things are simple, and some are expensive, but they are all necessary if we want our future to include a restored Chesapeake Bay and a healthy local economy.

Share on Facebook