Shenandoah Riverkeeper urges the State Water Control Board to re-issue this permit which is critical both to safegaurding state waters from pollution that has long been documented to occur with unregulated use of poultry waste (litter), and to satisfy requirements of House Bill 1207 and corresponding Virginia Code Prior to regulatory guidance, the record demonstrates that the farming communtiy used poultry litter in a menner that may have been effective at growing pasture, hay and row crops but was not protective of state waters. For consistency, I would like to submit the same arguments for the re-issuance of this permit as I have for the necessity of regulating the brokering and end-user community. These arguments apply to litter use on the farm of origin and off.
Section I of Article XI of Virginia’s Constitution reads that “it shall be the Commonwealth's policy to protect its atmosphere, lands, and waters from pollution, impairment, or destruction, for the benefit, enjoyment, and general welfare of the people of the Commonwealth.” Nearly a decade ago, The Commonwealth’s House Bill 1207 and its subsequent regulations were an important first step in addressing the pollution problems associated with decades of over-application of poultry waste on agricultural lands. Shenandoah Riverkeeper contends that these problems are thoroughly documented, and have been the subject of intense scientific study and scrutiny for more than a decade. We also contend that the current regulations are not protective of our land and our state waters and that the proposed changes in the regulation are imperative if we are to begin to turn around the over-nutrification problems in the Shenandoah Valley and in the Chesapeake Watershed.
The Shenandoah Riverkeeper’s mission is to “Use citizen action and enforcement to protect and restore water quality in the Shenandoah Valley for people, fish and aquatic life”. Shenandoah Riverkeeper, along with Potomac Riverkeeper (Shenandoah Riverkeeper operates under 501(c)(3) Potomac Riverkeeper Inc) have over 2300 paid members comprised of landowners, canoers, paddlers and fishermen who join our organization so that their voices and concerns can be heard through our actions. Shenandoah Riverkeeper’s members are affected extensively by the waste disposal practices of poultry growers and by “off-site farms” which receive and use litter for soil nutrient amendment, and it is for that reason that I am commenting on this NOIRA.
Shenandoah Riverkeeper believes that the land over-application of poultry litter in the Shenandoah Valley is its single greatest issue, and the single largest source of phosphorous leading to eutrophication, poor water chemistry and possibly fish health problems faced by our river.
An Inevitable Problem
In framing this debate, it’s important to recognize that the industry’s entire supply of animal feed (2 billion pounds annually) is imported by rail from the mid-west, and as long as the waste is kept here through application on agricultural land in the Shenandoah Valley – we are inclined to have nutrient excess. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Program reports that manure phosphorus production in the region exceeded regional crop phosphorus uptake by over 4,000 tons, annually in Rockingham County and over 1,300 and 1,200 tons, annually in August and Page Counties, respectively.
The very core of the issue is not irresponsible farmers, or intentional or accidental litter over-application. Rather, the core of the problem is that poultry litter is an imbalanced fertilizer which contains several times more phosphorous than crops use when applied at a rate needed to meet nitrogen needs. Litter in the Valley has proven to be more economical than commercial fertilizer in meeting nitrogen needs due to it’s abundance and low cost. Recent rises in the cost of commercial nitrogen has only reinforced the economics. Scientific soil studies as well as farmer’s own VPA permit submissions show without a doubt that farmers have and will continue to apply poultry litter to their fields in the tonnage required to meet nitrogen needs, thereby over-applying phosphorous several times, unless regulation provides guidance otherwise.
The File Room
I personally reviewed of over 100 Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Files, at random, for poultry farms ranging in scale from 20,000 to over 545,000 birds on site during the summer of 2007. Almost without exception the history of the files I reviewed painted the picture how over-application occurs. The files showed that without exception, litter has been used at tonnage per acre to meet nitrogen requirements, without regard to the chronic accumulation of phosphorous, and also without regard to compounding environmental factors such as steeply sloped fields and proximity to streams most of which completely lack streamside buffers.
Prior to regulation, there is no documentation of poultry litter application rates. However, over-application had clearly been the practice as the files clearly show that phosphorous levels in these soils generally rated “Very High”. I encountered a surprising number of farms where soil tests showed phosphorous levels between 2 and 4 times the amount required to be rated Very High. Some soils appeared to exceed the testing capability of the lab (999 pounds per acre), or at least were higher than contemplated by the designers of the test. Discussion with agency staff indicate that some of these soils have such an excess of phosphorous, that crops could literally be grown for 50 years without the need to add P.
Upon promulgation of regulations limiting application rates to crop nitrogen uptake, farmers reduced rates to fall within the cap. Even under the nitrogen limitation, application rates of around 2-4 tons per acre were standard. This continued annual application of litter exacerbated an already decades old problem of high soil phosphorous. This occurred despite DEQ inspectors efforts to educate and influence farmers to curb litter application in favor or more accurate commercial nutrients. This was a common comment in inspection reports:
“Note that with continued high levels of manure and litter applications P levels in the soil are extremely high. While continued use of manure and litter can be done in order to meet N needs, thought should be given to selling more litter or manure and applying commercial N”
I make these comments only to demonstrate that, when given the liberty, farmers have and will apply litter at rates that meet crop nitrogen needs without regard to soil phosphorus excess. It was not until the regulations required phosphorus-based nutrient management plans that poultry litter application rates were reduced to levels appropriate for crop agronomic needs. After phosphorus-based nutrient management plan implementation was mandatory, the great majority of poultry farms began to export litter to neighboring farms and to neighboring valleys. The VPA files show that regulations were required to first control nitrogen inputs, and then to control phosphorous inputs, before poultry litter application rates were reduced to levels that are protective of water quality.
The Loophole
The file room work confirmed what was known: regulation from House Bill 1207 created a need for litter to be exported to “off-site” from poultry farms. It is estimated that 80-90% of litter produced by poultry farms in the Shenandoah Valley is being transported off site, and outside of any regulatory guidance. Further, DEQ records indicate that of the 350,000 tons of poultry litter moved off poultry farms in 2004, approximately 75% remained in the Shenandoah Valley.
It is Shenandoah Riverkeeper’s position that this litter is again being applied for nitrogen needs. It is also our position that our “off-site” farms are well on the way (or all the way) to re-creating the same nutrient soil imbalances that our poultry farmers have created. Discussions with officials at the regulatory agencies confirm my concerns. Evidently, Inspectors commonly hear the complaint from farmers that they are being regulated and unfairly required to limit land application of litter, and required to spend time and money safely handing and storing litter, while “off-site” farms do not. It is implied over and over again that “off-site” farms are using the same problematic practices that poultry farmers used for decades. I also base my position on discussions with farmers. During one poignant discussion with a farmer in the Linville Creek watershed, he said “Since the test (soil P testing requirement) I haven’t been able to use my litter on my fields for years, so I have to give it to my neighbor who uses it all up every year”.
As long as the economics between litter and commercial fertilizer strongly favor the over-application of phosphorous from litter, we simply cannot rely on the hope that litter use will be done in a way that protects water quality.
Overwhelming Science on the Ground
There is ample evidence from research conducted in Virginia and around the U.S. that high soil phosphorus levels and poultry litter application result in increased phosphorus concentrations in surface runoff. Numerous researchers have documented that phosphorus losses in runoff are highly correlated to soil phosphorus concentrations (Sims et al., 2002; Maguire and Sims, 2001; Pote et al., 1996). In the Shenandoah Valley Mullins (2001) studied the relationship between soil phosphorus and the concentration of phosphorus in surface runoff from soils with a history of poultry litter and/or dairy manure applications and reported that runoff phosphorus concentrations increased with increasing soil phosphorus levels. Mullins (2003) also studied the relationship between phosphorus in surface runoff from grazed pastures as affected by fertilizer application (inorganic and broiler litter) and concluded that “relating soil phosphorus to phosphorus released in surface runoff was significant with all soil phosphorus levels observed in this study.” Penn et al. (2004) evaluated surface runoff from Virginia soils amended with turkey litter and concluded that at higher manure application rates dissolved phosphorus in manure as well as litter particles in runoff contributed to the overall runoff P concentration. They concluded that the management of manure was influential in protecting water quality. Macguire et al. (2005) also concluded that the total amount of phosphorus in runoff was likely due to several factors, including soil phosphorus levels and manure application rate.
Research in Virginia is also supported by research elsewhere in the U.S. For example, DeLaune et al. (2004) measured surface runoff from Arkansas pastures fertilized with poultry litter and found that before poultry litter application, soil phosphorus was directly related to dissolved phosphorus concentrations in runoff, but after manure was applied, the impact of phosphorus application rate overwhelmed the effect of soil phosphporus in surface runoff phosphorus concentrations. Even after three rainfalls, application rate still contributed more to phosphorus in surface runoff than did soil phosphorus levels.
To date, in the Shenandoah Valley, where much of the Commonwealth’s animal agriculture operations (including turkey, chicken and dairy) are located, there are 6 tributaries in the Rockingham County area with total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for P due to documented P water quality and habitat impairments (Muddy Creek, Cooks Creek, Blacks Run, Pleasant Run, Mill Creek and Holmans Creek).
Given the clearly proven link between soil phosphorus and poultry litter application rates with phosphorus in surface runoff, the regions documented excess poultry litter, and given that DEQ documentation indicates that most the poultry litter exported off VPA farms was land applied in the Shenandoah River watershed, it is no surprise that many of the Shenandoah’s tributaries and impaired.
Keeping up with Commitments
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware have all passed legislation requiring that farmers create and follow nutrient management plans on their farms when using animal waste. In Maryland and Delaware, almost all farms are required to implement nutrient management plans, regardless of fertilizer source. Pennsylvania requires that all manure and litter produced by permitted facilities be land applied according to a nutrient management plan, whether the application occurs on or off the permitted facility.
Virginia has committed to share the responsibility of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay watershed and it seems we have fallen behind in these commitments by neglecting to address a critical component of bay and river cleanup with regards to the prolific poultry industry. It is important that regulation not be overly burdensome, yet evidence shows the poultry industry continues to thrive under nutrient management regulations in Virginia’s neighboring states.
The Commonwealth and it’s taxpayers are spending billions of dollars to upgrade and operate its sewage treatment facilities. Industrial businesses are currently scrambling to meet strict 2011 tributary strategies nutrient caps on their point sources. Regulations controlling stormwater pollution from construction sites, cities and industrial properties have incrementally tightened causing hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent by industry and government in order to meet requirements. And though agricultural nutrient management may be the most economical method available to reduce nutrient pollution, The Commonwealth has only gone part of the way. The Water Control Board’s approval of the proposed “off-site” poultry litter regulation is a step vital to the Commonwealth upholding it’s constitutional duty to protect it’s land and water for the benefit and welfare of its people.
Shenandoah Riverkeeper requests the opportunity to be included on the Technical Advisory Committee. We look forward to working with the Commonwealth and with other stakeholders in producing a regulation that protects water quality.
Literature Cited
DeLaune, P.B., P.A. Moore, Jr., D.K. Carman, A.N. Sharpley, B.E. Haggard, and T.C. Daniel. 2004. Development of a phosphorus index for pastures fertilized with poultry litter-factors affecting phosphorus runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 33:2183-2191.
Maguire, R.O. and J.T. Sims. 2001. Soil testing to predict phosphorus leaching. J. Environ. Qual. 31:1601-1609.
Mullins, G.L. 2001. National phosphorus runoff project: Virginia. Quarterly Report to the NRCS, Dec. 2001.
Macguire, R.O., J.T. Sims, and T.J. Applegate. 2005. Phytase supplementation and reduced-phosphorus turkey diets reduce phosphorus loss in runoff following litter application. J. Environ. Qual. 34:359-369.
Mullins, G.L. 2001. Phosphorus, agriculture and the environment. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication Number 424-029.
Mullins, G.L, J.P. Fontenot, G.A. Alloush, D.G. Boyer and D.P. Belesky. 2003. Phosphorus and fecal coliforms in surface runoff from grazed pastures as affected by nutrient management. July 31, 2003 Virginia Tech Shenandoah Valley Agricultural Research and Extension Center Field Day Proceedings.
Penn, C.J., G.L. Mullins, L.W. Zelazny, J.G. Warren, and J.M. McGrath. 2004. Surface runoff losses of phosphorus from Virginia soils amended with turkey manure using phytase and high available phosphorus corn diets. J. Environ. Qual. 33:1431-1439.
Pote., D.H., T.C. Daniel., A.N. Sharpley, P.A. Moore, Jr., D.R. Edwards, and D.J. Nichols. 1996. Relating extrable soil phosphorus losses in runoff. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:855-859.
Sims, J.T., R.R. Simard, and B.C. Joern. 1998. Phosphorus loss in agricultural drainages: historical perspective and current research. J. Environ. Qual. 27:277-293
