Practices designed for proper handling, storage, and utilization of wastes generated from confined animal operations. Reduced storage and handling loss is conserved in the manure available for land application.

Delaware requests a re-evaluation of structural practices associated with animal production areas (AFO/CAFO) to ensure that all structural BMPs are separately valued in the model from NMPs.

The Continuous No-Till (CNT) BMP is a crop planting and management practice in which soil disturbance by plows, disk or other tillage equipment is eliminated. CNT involves no-till methods on all crops in a multi-crop, multi-year rotation. When an acre is reported under CNT, it will not be eligible for additional reductions from the implementation of other practices such as cover crops or nutrient management planning. Multi-crop, multi-year rotations on cropland are eligible. Crop residue should remain on the field. Planting of a cover crop might be needed to maintain residue levels. Producers must have and follow a current nutrient management plan. The system must be maintained for a minimum of five years. All crops must be planted using no-till methods.

Maryland requests the re-evaluation of this practice for the definition as well as the effectiveness values used in the models.
Virginia requests the re-evaluation of this practice to enable the separate reporting (stacking) of cover crops and nutrient management within the definition.

Cereal cover crops reduce erosion and the leaching of nutrients to groundwater by maintaining a vegetative cover on cropland and holding nutrients within the root zone. This practice involves the planting and growing of cereal crops (non-harvested) with minimal disturbance of the surface soil. The crop is seeded directly into vegetative cover or crop residue with little disturbance of the surface soil. These crops capture or “trap” nitrogen in their tissues as they grow. By timing the cover crop burn or plow-down in spring, the trapped nitrogen can be released and used by the following crop. Different species are accepted, as well as, different times of planting (early, late and standard), and fertilizer application restrictions. Manure application on cover crops is not modeled and acres of cover crops that receive manure are not eligible. There is a sliding scale of efficiencies based on crop type and time of planting.
Commodity cover crops differ from cereal cover crops in that they may be harvested for grain, hay or silage and they may receive nutrient applications, but only after March 1 of the spring following their establishment. The intent of the practice is to modify normal small grain production practices by eliminating fall and winter fertilization so that crops function similarly to cover crops by scavenging available soil nitrogen for part of their production cycle.

Maryland requests the re-evaluation of all cover crops including commodity and traditional cover crops.
Pennsylvania requests the evaluation of new enhanced Cover Crops management systems.
West Virginia requests the re-evaluation of Phosphorus and Sediment effectiveness value reductions for both traditional and commodity cover crops in conservation tillage systems.

According to USDA, manure composting is the product of a managed process through which microorganisms break down plant and animal materials into more available forms suitable for application to the soil. Compost must be produced through a process that combines plant and animal materials with an initial Carbon:Nitrogen ratio of between 25:1 and 40:1. Producers using an in-vessel or static aerated pile system must maintain the composting materials at a temperature between 131 deg. F and 170 deg. F for 3 days. Producers using a windrow system must maintain the composting materials at a temperature between 131 deg. F and 170 deg. F for 15 days, during which time, the materials must be turned a minimum of five times.

Pennsylvania requests the evaluation of manure composting technologies to develop a definition and effectiveness values.

As part of the innovative advanced technology element for the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), PA DEP is working with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and a number of companies looking to install various technologies such as methane digesters and electrical co-generation on dairy, poultry and hog operations. Many of these technologies can produce electricity and marketable soil amendments; reduce methane emissions; and generate renewable energy, nutrient reduction and carbon credits that can then be sold. Some forms of technology, such as digesters, alone will not substantially change the nutrient content of manure. Pennsylvania is looking more closely at technologies that include a process element that helps ensure overall nutrient reductions. Examples of nutrient processing technology include: denitrification; solids separation; flocculation, combustion, etc. PA DEP has formally approved several technologies for nutrient credit generation. As part of this approval, a process for quantifying credits is approved as well as a plan to verify the reductions. Each technology or process has been different, but the approvals contain several common requirements critical to quantification, such as 1) Throughput of manure is monitored for the quantity being processed; 2) Sampling for nutrient content is performed at various key stages of the process, such as the inlet and the outlets to the process; and 3) The number of credits are reduced if the overall process indicates a need to account for either the process’ product potentially introducing reduced nutrients back to the watershed (e.g., stack emissions), or if nutrients are applied to replace manure that was previously land applied.

To allow for recognition in the Watershed Implementation Plan of the nutrient reductions associated with manure processing technology efforts, EPA has worked with PA to develop a placeholder Best Management Practice (BMP) and a process for crediting the resulting nutrient reductions.

Nutrient management plan (NMP) implementation is a comprehensive plan that describes the optimum use of nutrients to minimize nutrient loss while maintaining yield. A NMP details the type, rate, timing, and placement of nutrients for each crop. Soil, plant tissue, manure and/or sludge tests are used to assure optimal application rates. Plans should be revised every 2 to 3 years.

Delaware requests that the effectiveness values assigned to NMPs be re-evaluated, especially for inorganic nutrients, to gain a better understanding of values assigned for NMP for agriculture. In addition, annual NMPs could potentially receive a higher model value than three-year NMPs.
New York requests a re-evaluation of the base assumptions utilized in the Bay models of nutrient applications on agricultural lands.
West Virginia requests the re-evaluation of nutrient management systems implemented on agricultural cropland.

The passive hay production interim BMP is the harvesting of hay without the application of organic or inorganic nutrients, with the exception available natural soil mineralization and atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Hayland currently included in the "hay with nutrients" modeling land use category.

New York requests the re-evaluation of the land use category "hay with nutrients" receiving 80 lbs N/acre and 40 lbs P/acre for NY. After discussion with the Upper Susquehanna Coalition's (USC) Agricultural committee, an interim BMP was developed that reflected additional nutrient savings by farmers who have been implementing low-fertilization management systems which further reduces N and P on their hay fields. Farmers have reported using fewer nutrients on rented hay fields due to the uncertainty of long-term use, cost of fuel and fertilizer, and ability to use naturally fertilized hayfields. Farmers developed a BMP where they eliminated nutrient spreading on some of their hayland. The USC analyzed 15,402 acres of hay land from nutrient management plans. The analysis prorated each field's nutrient load according to size. Information was garnered throughout the watershed to reflect regional differences. For N and P, the BMP is to spread the CBP nutrient load per acre 80 pounds of N on 61% the each farm's hayland (model and analysis virtually same at 80 and 79 pounds). For P, the CBP rate of 40 pounds is spread on 48% of all hayland (to account for 40 pounds P in model versus 32 pounds applied). On the remainder of the hayland (39% and 52%, respectively,) no N or P of any sort is spread, leaving this hay to be fertilized solely by atmospheric deposition. These figures are supported by references.

The passive hay production interim BMP is the harvesting of hay without the application of organic or inorganic nutrients, with the exception available natural soil mineralization and atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Hayland currently included in the "hay with nutrients" modeling land use category.

Delaware encourages the scientific evaluation of "P" nutrient management and transport potentials based on multiple relevant factors, including soil "P" values. This information will be important for developing "P" application policies for implementation.

Use of technologies beyond nutrient management, such as variable rate technology for fertilizer application based on spatial variation in soil types within fields, or use of other production factors influencing yield within field areas, or use of site-specific diagnostic tests to fine tune future applications using spatial data.

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia each request an evaluation of these practices to provide improved definitions and effectiveness estimates for the models.

This practice involves the collection of runoff water from container nursery operations where runoff of irrigation water and leachate from plant containers grown on plastic or in greenhouses is routed to lined return ditches or piped to lined holding ponds. Ponds would be designed to retain all excess irrigation water runoff or leachate and capture the first one-half to one-inch of stormwater runoff. Water would be recirculated for irrigation in nursery and greenhouse operations or irrigated at the proper times of year on other vegetation capable of trapping nutrients at agronomic rates, such as cool season grasses. Proposed BMP efficiency would be the same as for an animal waste storage system.

Virginia requests that these practices be evaluated to develop a comprehensive definition and effectiveness estimates.

Cropland under irrigation management is used to decrease climatic variability and maximize crop yields. The potential nutrient reduction benefit stems not from the increased average yield (20-25%) of irrigated versus non-irrigated cropland, but from the greater consistency of crop yields over time matched to nutrient applications. This increased consistency in crop yields provides a subsequent increased consistency in plant nutrient uptakes over time matched to applications, resulting in a decrease in potential environmental nutrient losses. The current placeholder effectiveness value for this practice has been proposed utilizing the range in average yields from the 2002 and 2007 NASS data for irrigated and non-irrigated grain corn as a reference. The proposed practice is applied on a per acre basis, and can be implemented and reported for cropland on both lo-till and hi-till land uses that receive or do not receive manure.

Delaware and Maryland request the evaluation of cropland irrigation management to develop a definition and appropriate effectiveness values.

The subsurface application of liquid manure from cattle and swine has been demonstrated in research studies to significantly reduce nutrient losses for both surface runoff and ammonia emissions. Recent studies by Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and USDA-ARS indicate that the effectiveness of the practice is dependent on the technology used for injection, and that some systems are not consistent with the USDA-NRCS management requirements for high residue management systems; e.g., Continuous No-Till. This proposed practice is indicative of low disturbance soil injection systems and is not appropriate for tillage incorporation or other post surface application incorporation methods.

Delaware requests the evaluation of cropland irrigation management to develop a definition and appropriate effectiveness values.
Maryland and New York request the evaluation of liquid manure injection systems as well as surface incorporation systems to develop definitions and appropriate effectiveness value estimates for the models.

Non-Cost-Shared and/or voluntary structural and management practices that have been implemented and maintained without financial assistance from federal, state and county agencies, or non-governmental organizations utilizing public financial assistance. Approved practices under this BMP are characteristic of existing approved Cost-Shared practices, and may meet federal Conservation Practice (CP) standards under the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Practices which do not meet the federal CP technical standards but provide an equal functional equivalency for nutrient and sediment reductions may also be included under the BMP description.

Maryland requests an EPA approved track and reporting methodology, and effectiveness values for non-cost-shared agricultural practices.

The control of agricultural stormwater runoff from crop fields, roads and farm structures through a series of stormwater management structures and systems to be infiltrated into the soil profile for regenerative conveyance. Structures may include, but are not limited to, wetlands, catch basins, earthen berms, filter cloths, rip rap, filter strips, etc.

Delaware and Maryland request the evaluation and development of an agricultural stormwater management system with associated effectiveness estimates. Delaware is currently piloting a research study with Filtrexx Technologies for poultry operations.
West Virginia requests the evaluation and development of an agricultural stormwater management system with associated effectiveness estimates for use on AFO production areas.

The University of Maryland and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have demonstrated through an existing research project at the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore the application of “Phosphorus-sorbing” materials to absorb available dissolved phosphorus in cropland drainage systems for removal and reuse as an agricultural fertilizer. These in-channel engineered systems can capture significant amounts of dissolved phosphorus in agricultural drainage water by passing them through phosphorus-sorbing materials, such as gypsum, drinking water treatment residuals, or acid mine drainage residuals.

Maryland requests the evaluation of this new technology to develop a definition and effectiveness estimates for use in the models.

Stabilization to protect an area on a farm which is being utilized frequently and intensively by livestock or farm equipment specifically for areas adjacent to the entrance of a poultry house or poultry waste storage structure. Applied to where there is a need for properly designed artificial or vegetative cover in order to prevent the delivery of animal waste, sediment and nutrients to surface and sub-surface water sources.

Delaware and Maryland request the evaluation of this practice to develop a suitable definition and effectiveness values for crediting in the models. Both States have made significant investments in this BMP and have strongly encouraged producers to install them.
West Virginia requests the evaluation of this practice to develop a suitable definition and effectiveness values for crediting in the models.

The subsurface injection of poultry manure has been demonstrated in university and USDA-ARS research studies to significantly reduce nutrient losses for both surface runoff and ammonia emissions. Recent studies by universities and USDA-ARS indicate that dry manure injection is feasible and effective by utilizing current research technology. These systems are also consistent with the USDA-NRCS management requirements for high residue management systems; e.g., Continuous No-Till. This proposed practice is indicative of low disturbance soil injection systems and is not appropriate for tillage incorporation or other post surface application incorporation methods.

Maryland requests the evaluation of this new technology to develop a definition and effectiveness value estimates.

The implementation of grass buffers for sink-holes associated with agricultural land uses in karst geology regions for reducing nutrient and sediment losses to subsurface water sources.

West Virginia requests the evaluation of this new practice for developing a definition and associated effectiveness estimates.

A vegetative environmental buffer, or VEB, is the strategic dense planting of combinations of trees and shrubs around poultry houses to address environmental, production, and public relations issues. Research conducted by the University of Delaware has indicated that mature tree plantings can offer filtration benefits for poultry operations by entrapping dust, odor, feathers, and noise emitted by air exhaust from ventilation systems. Documentation on the effectiveness of VEBs in reducing nitrogen losses to the environment through ammonia emission reductions is currently non-conclusive. The current placeholder effectiveness value for this practice will be described as a land use change for the area directly planted to trees and shrubs. The proposed practice is applied on a per acre basis, and results in a conversion to forest land from cropland, on both lo-till and hi-till land uses that receive manure or do not receive manure, pasture or hay land with or without nutrients.

Maryland and Pennsylvania request that an evaluation be conducted to develop a definition and effectiveness value estimates.