The current revisions to the regulations and nutrient criteria address new and revised components, in particular phosphorus management, timing considerations, and heightened attention to the Green Industry segment of agriculture.  These revisions should seek as their foundation the best available science, and be crafted to achieve the maximum environmental protection with due consideration of the economically achievable outcomes for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Key Points 

1. Soil Test Threshold versus P Index.  P enrichment (biosolids, manures, etc.) does not harm the environment and certainly presents no direct threat to life.  Only when significant amounts of unbound P move from agroecosystems to surface waters with naturally low P concentrations are these aquatic systems adversely affected.  The consensus of the scientific community on this issue is that assessment of potential P impact shall (not should) consider not only the “source” component (soil reserves and added P-containing materials), but the “transport” (runoff, erosion, and leaching) component as well.  This should be the underlying scientific principal of P-based nutrient management plans.  The use of a soil-testing based threshold alone, as proposed by this regulation, addresses only the source component, and is thus runs contrary to the best available science. 

If transport is minimized through variety of BMPs promoted by DCR, and actual P loss is truly minimized, a soil test threshold based system (such as the 65% and 50% saturation limits) erroneously continues to “predict” high P losses, and imposes the same restrictions as those imposed on a site with no management of transport losses.  Losses are grossly over predicted.  In the second type, a producer below the 35% saturation could choose to use this “assessment method”, and still make P additions.  If he fails to manage transport losses (runoff and erosion) the site could still lose excessive amounts of P.   Losses are grossly underestimated.

The use of the P-Index method attempts to deal with source and transport factors and should not be abandoned simply for the convenience of a rapid soil test threshold method.  

2.  Crop Phosphorus requirements are not always correctly predicted by soil test levels alone.  There are instances in which a crop requires and responds economically to small additions of starter P even though the soil test values are high.  This may results from extremely slow root growth in cold soils, from slow diffusion rates of P, or from a lack of moisture.  To deny these applications will place these growers at a significant economic disadvantage.

3) The Green industry/urban/non-agricultural nutrient management requirements are currently covered in essentially by TWO sentences. These sentences clearly do not reveal expectations and criteria for planners who are to prepare nutrient management plans for turf, roadside vegetation, and horticultural crops.  This document must define this process for those agencies, voluntary planners, and for future mandated programs.  

Agency Comments and Economic Impact

1)  In 62.1-44.17.1.1 “Poultry waste management program”, Section C2c. states that DCR, in consultation with DEQ .....“ Has such a review been completed and in what manner has DCR made the summary of this study public?  Available documents contain only the DCR response to part ii of their charge.  How can the affected citizens of the Commonwealth access the extremely important scientific documentation which forms the basis for the proposed regulatory changes?    

2) DCR has lobbied heavily and effectively to require all state agencies to develop nutrient management plans for lands under their control.  While we agree with this goal, several sections of the economic impact analysis totally ignore these additional implementation costs to the state agencies, and even fail to include these agencies as affected parties.

3) The economic impacts attributed to these changes are in large measure ignored as either attributed to other regulations, or dismissed on the basis of voluntary participation in the program.   The fact remains that new costs will accrue to both the citizens and to affected state agencies directly as a result of the changes proposed.  DCR is fully aware that these regulatory changes will indeed be mandated for a variety of users (CAFOs, poultry producers, fellow state agencies) and it seems very likely that they may again lobby for additional non-voluntary programs in the near future.  In all fairness to the citizens of the commonwealth, DCR should make a good-faith attempt to address the true costs of implementation which will be required by the changes under the known existing mandates.