Nutrient Management Regional Conference
Managing Nutrients to
Prevent Pollution:
Conference Summary and Recommendations
for Action
Nutrient Management Workgroup
Nutrient Subcommittee of the
Chesapeake Bay Program
SI
September 1996
Chesapeake Bay Program

-------
Nutrient Management Regional Conference
March 13-14, 1996
Managing Nutrients to Prevent Pollution:
Conference Summary and Recommendations
for Action
Developed by the Nutrient Management Workgroup
of the Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Subcommittee
Membership
Lynn Langer, Chair, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Renato Cuizon, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Dr. Frank Coale, University of Maryland
E.J.	Fanning, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
Jim Hannawald, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Tom Juengst, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Russ Perkinson, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
F.	Fred Samadani, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Dr. Tom Simpson, University of Maiyland/MD Department of Agriculture
Nicoline Shulterbrandt, DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Melanie Wertz, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Sarah Nunez, Nutrient Subcommittee staff, Chesapeake Research Consortium
1996
Introduction
Recommendations for Action
Discussion Session: Topics and Questions
Discussion Session: Summary of Ideas
Septembi
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program

-------
Introduction
This document summarizes ideas presented at the regional nutrient management conference
"Managing Nutrients to Prevent Pollution" and brings forth recommendations for action. The two-
day conference held on March 13-14, 1996 in Solomons, Maryland was sponsored by the Nutrient
Management Workgroup under the Nutrient Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program and was
administered by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.
Under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the states of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania and
the District of Columbia committed to reduce nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay by 40% by the
year 2000. As a result, each jurisdiction is developing "tributary strategies" which outline the
specific practices they will employ to achieve the nutrient reduction goal. Nutrient management, a
pollution prevention practice that manages the timing, rate, and method of nutrient applications to the
land, is included as a major component of the tributary strategies.
The conference was designed to encourage dialogue between planners, program managers, and the
agricultural community on technical and policy issues surrounding nutrient management. It created
an opportunity to learn about the latest nutrient research, consider new efforts to expand urban and
agricultural programs, and discuss the role nutrient management will play in the meeting the
Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction goal. Plenary sessions provided an overview of nutrient
management in relation to Chesapeake Bay Program concerns, policies, and strategies; various
perspectives on nutrient management issues; and practical experiences implementing nutrient
management on the farm. Concurrent sessions were held focusing on a balance of agriculture and
urban, technical and policy nutrient management issues.
The conference featured strong attendance and participation from both the public and private sectors.
Approximately 180 individuals participated, with representation from a broad range of public and
private interests throughout the Bay watershed:
•	Fanners and agricultural/agribusiness organizations such as Southern States Cooperative,
Maryland Farm Bureau, Penn Ag Industries Association, and Delaware Maryland AgriBusiness
Associations.
•	Extension specialists and researchers from institutions such as Virginia Tech, Penn State,
Delaware Valley College, St. Mary's College, and University of Maryland.
•	Local agencies such as Carroll County Extension, Calvert Soil Conservation District, City of
Baltimore Recreation and Parks, and Hampton Roads Sanitation District.
•	State agencies such as Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; Maryland
Departments of Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources; Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation; and Delaware Department of Agriculture.
•	Federal government entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources
l

-------
Conservation Service, and U.S. Naval Academy.
•	Fertilizer dealers, lawn care companies, and certified nutrient management planners and services
such as Lawn Doctor of Glen Burnie, Nutrient Analytical Services Lab, Home and Garden
Information Center, and Bio-Gro.
•	Other private sector interests such as BFI Organics, Autrusa Compost Consulting, Royd Smith
Realty, and Tysons Foods.
The opportunity for hearing different perspectives on issues surrounding nutrient management
proved extremely beneficial and helped to reduce distrust and conflicts between various interests.
The final discussion sessions provided an excellent forum for dialogue, coordination, and teamwork
between public and private sectors, where participants identified specific issues that need to be
addressed for future action.
This document provides recommendations by the Nutrient Management Workgroup as to how
conference issues, concerns, and ideas may be addressed through future action within individual state
and local nutrient management programs, as well as the Chesapeake Bay Program. Finally, this
document provides a summary of the ideas collected from the six discussion sessions and attempts to
categorize them into main subject areas. Many of the issues cut across various categories, and all the
ideas should be considered within a holistic framework of nutrient management.
2

-------
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
Developed by the Nutrient Management Workgroup
of the Chesapeake Bay Program
oooooo
The following nine recommendations were developed by the Nutrient Management Workgroup of the Chesapeake
Bay Program. Ideas presented by conference participants were analyzed by the workgroup and an action plan was
formulated to address these issues. Under each of the nine items, a general recommendation is made describing the
issue or need and how it should be addressed, followed by specific actions or steps that should be taken to
incorporate these recommendations.
The workgroup will strive to ensure that as many recommendations as possible are incorporated into on-going and
future activities of the Nutrient Subcommittee and the Chesapeake Bay Program, as well as state and local agencies
and programs.
000000
1. Increase plan implementation by educating farmers on the value and benefits of Nutrient
Management.	
Clear, simple education should be provided for farmers to help them recognize the value and benefits of nutrient
management planning. Educators need to be able to describe the impacts of nutrient management on the
environment and how long it will take to produce observable results. Nutrient management plans developed by
certified consultants should be implemented efficiently by farmers in order to reduce nutrient loads for agricultural
lands. Nutrient management specialists and local government agencies providing technical assistance to the
agricultural community should focus their efforts on "planting a seed" for future implementation through education.
Our goal should be to promote and increase efficient plan implementation by providing education and information to
farmers. Jurisdictions are currently increasing farmers' awareness of nutrient management through educational
activities such as field days, training sessions, cooperative extension programs, and formal technical training. The
Nutrient Management Workgroup will continue its efforts to increase efficient implementation of nutrient
management plans through exchange and promotion of successful education programs and curriculums.
2. Ensure that incentives are in place for Nutrient Management.
Incentives need to be developed and endorsed that will accelerate voluntary plan implementation by the farmer.
Jurisdictions should consider supporting economic incentives such as tax credits or cost-sharing to encourage
3

-------
landowners to implement nutrient management plans. In addition, non-monetary incentives such as simple and
flexible plans, standardized maps between agencies where appropriate, and recognition for sound practices should
be endorsed to make implementing plans easier and more rewarding. Efforts should be made to streamline the
nutrient management process by reducing the required amount of time, effort, and paperwork for both those who
write the plan and those who implement. Finally, incentives need to be pursued for nutrient management planners to
ensure that adequate demand exists for both public and private sector planning. Current nutrient management
programs lack adequate incentives for private consultants to write plans. This shortfall needs to be addressed to
create an even playing field for private planners.
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania are offering free technical training and assistance to farmers and private
sector individuals interested in nutrient management. The Chesapeake Bay Program provides cost-share funding for
animal waste storage structures and other management practices with the presence of a written nutrient management
plan. Under the nutrient management law in Pennsylvania, financial assistance will be made available for
implementation of nutrient management plans in the form of loans, loan guarantees, and grants. In addition, the law
provides technical and educational assistance to help farmers comply with requirements. The Nutrient Management
Workgroup will continue to support specific incentives that will encourage both the writing and implementation of
nutrient management plans, such as jurisdictional recognition programs, flexibility for plan formats, and
coordination of nutrient management with other resource concerns (Total Resource Management).
Recognition of nutrient management efforts is provided through Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania's
certification programs. Reciprocal certification for nutrient management is being pursued between the three states,
where reciprocity would minimize administrative burdens on applicants for certification and certifying agencies
while assuring performance to respective standards and state regulations. The Nutrient Management Workgroup
will continue to work on facilitating the certification process as much as possible and keeping the concerns of the
private sector in mind while working within state-specific regulations.
3. Define the roles of the public and private sector and foster their cooperation in Nutrient
	Management planning.	
Jurisdictions will need to develop a vision for the roles of the public and private sectors working together as a team
in nutrient management. Current misconceptions and distrust between the public and private sectors, including
both vendors and fanners, in agriculture and urban settings, need to be replaced with professional trust. Certified
consultants from the private sector and government agencies need to continue working together in writing nutrient
management plans. Transition of program outreach to the private sector certified consultants should be gradual and
combined with sound continuing education and training, oversight, and spot checking for quality control of services
provided by the public sector.
Certification programs have been developed by jurisdictions represented on the Nutrient Management Workgroup to
certify the competence of both public and private sector individuals interested in writing nutrient management plans.
The programs, which afford the private sector an opportunity for increased participation and training in nutrient
4

-------
management planning, are up and running in Maryland and Virginia and are anticipated to start later this year in
Pennsylvania. The workgroup will continue to pursue opportunities for dialogue and cooperation between public
and private sectors through workshops, conferences, and specific nutrient management activities. The
Implementation Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program will be hearing various perspectives on the role of the
private sector in Total Resource Management, which includes nutrient management, this October.
4. Establish adequate standards and accountability for Nutrient Management planners.
Suitable plan standards and criteria should be established and upheld for both public and private sectors to ensure
the delivery of quality plans. Jurisdictions should provide organized training programs for planners that include
basic training on nutrient management planning, plan content, interpretation of soil test results, and the basis for
nutrient recommendations. Nutrient management programs should promote plans that are simple and understandable
to the farmer, comprehensive in addressing all resource concerns, and coordinated with other conservation plans.
Agencies should work together and share resource information as much as possible through actions such as using
standardized field number references to create a uniform mapping base.
Plan definition, criteria, and standards for nutrient management were jointly developed and agreed upon by
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia representatives on the Nutrient Management Workgroup. In addition, the
workgroup established a Model Bay Area Nutrient Management Training and Certification Program to aid in the
development of qualified nutrient management personnel by each jurisdiction. The model lays out criteria and core
knowledge area components for Nutrient Management certification. Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania have
based their state certification programs on this model. Each jurisdiction will continue to use established criteria and
standards in their continuing education programs that provide training for individuals desiring to write nutrient
management plans.
5. Develop a tracking system for documenting plan implementation.
Tracking systems provide jurisdictions with vital tools to evaluate and assess their nutrient management programs.
Current documentation for nutrient management focuses on the number of plans written. A regional tracking system
should be developed that accurately records the level of plans implemented. Jurisdictions must work with the Bay
Program Office to identify what types of information are needed for data collection. The tracking system should be
able to track information where current gaps exist, such as accounting for both government and non-govemment
plans as well as changes in operators on rented land. Landowner concerns about privacy and sensitivity of
information should also be addressed.
The Nutrient Management Workgroup is working in conjunction with Chesapeake Bay Program staff to develop a
report on BMP tracking. The report will outline how nutrient management progress is currently being tracked by
each state. This information will be analyzed by the workgroup in light of Bay Program needs to recommend
5

-------
changes to the tracking systems. Data-gathering efforts will be coordinated with modeling needs so that the tracking
system may be linked to the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed model.
6. Develop indicators of Nutrient Management impacts in the Ecosystem
In order to promote nutrient management, we need to be able to demonstrate its environmental impacts on water
quality and living resources. The agricultural community and the public should be provided with documentation on
the impact nutrient management practices have made and when these visible improvements can be expected to show
up in the ecosystem. Coordination of land and water quality monitoring and synthesis of research on water quality
and nutrient management practices should be used to assess the complex relationship between nutrient management
and water quality. We need to be able to quantify the nitrogen and phosphorous reductions resulting from nutrient
management implementation. This will assist jurisdictions in deciding whether nutrient management can be cranked
up to be the silver bullet for tributary strategies and if it can deliver the nutrient reductions projected by their
tributary plans.
The Nutrient Management Workgroup will work toward a firmer scientific basis for demonstrating environmental
impacts of nutrient management and will continue development of a series of environmental indicators. The
workgroup has submitted as their priority research need a request for quantifying nutrient reductions resulting from
nutrient management practices. If selected for funding by the Nutrient Subcommittee, the project would begin in
1997. In addition, the workgroup will encourage the use of monitoring and modeling as tools to assess the role and
progress of nutrient management in meeting the Chesapeake Bay Program 40% nutrient reduction goal.
7. Develop markets for exporting excess organic nutrients.
The existing small scale marketing network for transportation of excess animal waste from highly concentrated
livestock and poultry operations to other utilization areas is inadequate. An integrated management program for all
nutrient sources in each county and watershed should be developed to identify crop nutrient needs, available organic
sources, supplemental nutrient needs, and/or the excess wastes to be exported. In addition, tracking systems need to
be instituted for manure markets that include private brokers who handle excess manure and show locations of
excesses and deficits. Efforts should be coupled with farmer education that includes treating excess manure as a
resource rather than a problem.
The Nutrient Management Workgroup will encourage developing ways for better information exchange on manure
availability and sharing this information with localities and farmers. In addition, they will explore innovative
options for facilities aiding in the transport of manure between supply and demand, such as regional manure storage
"bank" facilities. Successful initiatives and technologies will be exchanged and promoted between jurisdictions,
such as matching programs or manure brokerage programs that involve the matching and transfer of manure from
points of excess to points of need within counties or regions.
6

-------
8. Promote Nutrient Management in urban and suburban areas through concentrated
	efforts and partnerships with various stakeholders.	
Policy and program managers need to work together with technical specialists to define and articulate what practices
constitute urban nutrient management. Many efforts are already underway to market urban nutrient management.
These practices should be recognized and partnerships formed with key groups who are implementing urban nutrient
management to avoid duplication of efforts. Existing conservation and education programs should incorporate
urban nutrient management outreach into their agendas. Potential stakeholders for nutrient management
implementation such as homeowners, public and private grounds managers, lawn care services, and local
governments should be targeted for education and training.
The development of a comprehensive urban nutrient management program in the Bay region is important in meeting
the projected nutrient reduction goals. Jurisdictions should formulate their long-term plans and strategies for diverse
audiences in the urban landscape. The program should include voluntary participation by the private sector in all
phases of the program and address their educational needs.
Jurisdictions have already engaged in numerous efforts to form partnerships with public and private urban
stakeholders in promoting urban nutrient management. Maryland has formed an advisory group of state and county
representatives to defme which practices qualify as urban nutrient management, identify potential sources of
nutrients from landscaped areas, and discuss potential controls. In addition, they have sponsored nutrient
management training for public grounds targeting lawn care services, grounds keepers for parks and golf courses,
and homeowners. Virginia hosted similar workshops on turf and landscape management for lawn service providers,
and has developed a recognition program for "nutrient management aware" fertilizer retailers. Pennsylvania has
sponsored brochures, public announcements, and a citizen's workshop demonstrating proper soil testing, home lawn
care, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Finally, the District of Columbia is emphasizing the training and use
of nutrient management and IPM in D.C. community gardens and on public agency grounds.
The Nutrient Management Workgroup will be developing individual jurisdiction strategies for urban nutrient
management and consolidating them into a comprehensive Chesapeake Bay urban nutrient management action plan.
The workgroup will continue to pursue partnerships with the private sector and to include them in the strategy
development process.
9. Identify information gaps and promote research in Agricultural and Urban Nutrient
	Management.			
Nutrient management programs will remain credible and viable only as long as they continue to refine their
knowledge by addressing informational or research gaps. Several key research needs have been identified and
should be pursued in the near future as priorities for funding. Researchers should examine the balance of nutrient
inputs and outputs at the farm level to determine acceptable limits and standards of performance which can be
explained and taught to farmers. The lag in time and distance for delivery of nutrient reductions from nutrient
7

-------
management activities to environmental response and observable water quality improvements should be included in
studies. In addition, nutrient contributions from urban and suburban areas need to be quantified. Research should
explore less common practices for reducing nutrients such as management practices focusing on animal nutrition or
alternatives to nitrogen-based de-icers.
State agencies with technical assistance from academic institutions should continue to refine nutrient management
planning criteria and application of advanced technologies in management of nutrient sources. Research-based
information may include more detailed information on mineralization rates, phosphorous-based nutrient
recommendations in the areas with high levels of phosphorous concentrations, and the use of precision agriculture
and yield monitoring in crop nutrient recommendations.
The Nutrient Subcommittee has sponsored several research projects on nutrient management issues under the
recommendation of the Nutrient Management Workgroup. These include:
•	Mineralization and Availability of Nitrogen in Organic Waste-Amended Mid-Atlantic Soils. Gregory K. Evanylo,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
•	The Relationship between Soil Test Phosphorous Level and the Concentration of Dissolved and Potentially
Transportable Phosphorous in Field Drainage Water. Frank J. Coale, University of Maryland.
•	Nitrogen Leaching from Established Turf. D.R. Chalmers et al.,Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
In addition, the NSC Request for Proposals for 1997 Research includes topics on assessing the impacts of nitrogen-
based de-icers on water quality and evaluating various animal feeding and nutrition practices on the nutrient content
of manure. The Nutrient Management Workgroup will assure that findings and conclusions from all sponsored
research are disseminated to the jurisdictions in a timely manner so that they may be applied to current nutrient
management efforts. In addition, they will continue to identify research needs and studies required for improving
nutrient recommendations and assessments of program impacts on water quality.
00000000000
The Nutrient Management Workgroup is dedicated to addressing as many of these recommendations as possible and
has already moved ahead in many areas. However, practical limitations such as budgets, time, and resources may
prohibit the workgroup from acting upon all the items immediately. The workgroup will review its progress toward
recommended actions at the end of 1996 and will revisit any outstanding items for their 1997 Workplan. It should
be noted that this set of recommendations may not include all the activities planned in individual jurisdictions that
may address issues contained within the document.
To learn more about the Nutrient Management Workgroup and its activities in the Chesapeake Bay Program, please
refer to Chesapeake Bav Area Nutrient Management Programs: An Overview. March 1996, EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program. You may obtain this report and other information by calling the Chesapeake Bay Program Office at 1-
800-YOURBAY.
s

-------
Discussion Sessions: Topics and Questions
Participants signed up for one of six discussion sessions focused on various issues in urban and agricultural
nutrient management. Groups discussed specific questions related to their topics and brain stormed various
solutions and ideas in response. Following is a list of discussion session topics and questions. The summary of
ideas generated from these discussions can be found on pages 11-15.
Session 1: Private Sector Involvement ia Nutrient Management Planning

Questions:
1.
How will private consultants remain competitive in providing technical assistance?
2.
What are the barriers to additional involvement of private sector consultants?
3.
How can we deal with the perception that private consultants connected with the fertilizer industry may not

write the same kind of plan as the university nutrient management specialist?
4.
What opportunities are there for private sector involvement in manure marketing?

Session 2: Raa Implementation by Fanners

Questions:
l.
What incentives would help to accelerate voluntary nutrient management implementation by farmers?
2.
How can we enhance the delivery and acceptance of nutrient management planning by fanners? Is it selling

itself or do we need more incentives?
3.
What is the extent of farmers' awareness of the detailed management plans written by certified consultants?
4.
Does enhancement of the farmer's knowledge (through organized training programs) of plan

recommendations, soil test interpretation, etc. ensure implementation of the plans?
5.
How do we document implementation of nutrient management plans?

Session 3: The Role of Nutrient Management In Meeting 40% N&P Redaction Goals

Questions:
1.
How can we improve "information management" related to the nutrient management program	

A) tracking Plan Implementation ?

B) dealing with landowner concerns about privacy and sensitivity of information?

C) creating a database that includes landowners who do not participate in government programs?
2.
Can the existing nutrient management "infrastructure" deliver the nutrient reductions being projected in the

tributary plans?
3.
What issues does the Bay Program need to address regarding nutrient management and the year 2000 goal?
9

-------
Session 4; Research Needs for Urban and Agricultural Nutrient Management
Questions:
1.	Do we have an adequate technical/scientific basis for efficiency rates assigned to various nutrient
management practices? Are there specific research needs related to efficiency and effectiveness?
2.	How important are groundwater and delivery lag time issues with relationship to the year 2000 40%
reduction target?
3.	What recommendations would you make for increased or improved monitoring in either agricultural or
urban settings?
4.	Are there opportunities for expanded private sector involvement in research? Are there opportunities for
more effective coordination among academic and governmental research efforts?
5.	What are the current levels of technical implementation and education/understanding?
6.	What are the methods for researching effectiveness of nutrient management at the farm level that consider
the heterogeneity of the farm site?
Session 5? Technical and Policy Issues in Urban Nutrient Management
Questions:
1.	What activities would you include as constituting nutrient management implementation by homeowners,
public grounds managers, lawn care services, and other urban audiences?
2.	Do we have adequate technical information required for development and implementation of urban nutrient
management?
3.	How can urban nutrient management be tracked and monitored?
Session & Marketing Nutrient Management to Suburbia

Questions:
1.
Based on experience, what methods and techniques for reaching urban and suburban homeowners should

the Bay program be promoting?
2.
What should the approach be for public lands such as parks, and for private lands such as golf courses and

business parks?
3.
Are there opportunities for partnerships with the private sector that ought to be explored?
4.
What is the appropriate role for the Bay Program in marketing nutrient management?
10

-------
SUMMARY OF IDEAS FROM DISCUSSION SESSION
i
000000
The following is a compilation of suggestions and ideas generated by participants during the six breakout discussion
sessions, categorized into main subject areas. This summary represents the views of all participants, some of which
may be conflicting. The groupings do not correspond directly with the nine recommendations and ideas are not
listed in any order relative to priorities.. The ideas presented are not necessarily endorsed by the Nutrient
Management Workgroup or the Chesapeake Bay Program.
0<>C>000
Education
¦	Help fanners recognize the value of nutrient management planning to them as a
product or service, as well as the need for nutrient management services such as soil
testing.
¦	Help fanners recognize that nutrient management will require more work but has
benefits.
¦	Explain to farmers and the public in a clear and simple way the impacts of nutrient management and how
long it will take to see results.
¦	Ensure that education programs reach out to all sizes/types of producers with a wide variety of awareness
levels.
¦	Planners should focus on education and information delivery, or "planting a seed" for future
implementation, rather than immediate levels of implementation.
¦	Provide basic information about the planning service that will strengthen the planner's relationship with the
farmer.
¦	Access farmers and disseminate information through endorsements from professional organizations such as
the Crop Improvement Association and Farm Bureaus.
¦	Explain detailed nutrient management plans written by the planners (certified consultants) effectively to
farmers with varying levels of awareness and understanding of nutrient management details.
¦	Emphasize the need for farmers to plan ahead and allow adequate time for development of plans.
11

-------
Incentives
¦	There are currently little or no incentives for private consultants to write nutrient
management plans. This lack of demand needs to be addressed.
¦	Internalize environmental effects by considering environmental impact when
calculating costs and benefits to the farmer.
¦	Shift from free nutrient management planning by setting fees that must be charged by all sectors for plan
development.
¦	Help farmers recognize that nutrient management will require more work but has benefits.
¦	Endorse economic incentives that would accelerate voluntary plan implementation such as tax credits or
cost-sharing.
¦	Support non-monetary incentives for nutrient management such as simple and flexible plans, standardized
maps between agencies, and recognition for sound practices.
¦	Reward or recognize farmers who operate in an environmentally sound manner (apply proper amounts of
fertilizer/nutrients).
¦	Streamline the nutrient management process by reducing paperwork, time, and effort required.
¦	Make nutrient management simple and voluntary.
Public and Private Sector Roles
¦	Public and private sectors need to work together as a team in nutrient management
with professional trust and eliminate the "us vs. them" attitude.
¦	Develop a vision for public and private sector roles and plan for a transition period to
achieve these roles.
¦	Ensure that adequate demand exists for private sector planning through planned measures such as setting up
fee schedules that are still affordable to farmers.
¦	Transition the role of public agencies to provide training, education, technical transfer, oversight, and spot
checking for private agencies writing the actual plans.
¦	Ensure that the private sector can deliver quality plans that are comprehensive in addition to offering many
options and services.
¦	The private sector will need to develop long-term relationships with farmers to foster trust and develop
good working relationships.
¦	Address false perceptions that private industiy is self-serving by promoting environmentally sound
practices and programs that they are instituting.
¦	Some private industries may choose to provide nutrient management services such as soil testing or manure
sampling for free as a value-added service.
¦	Expand private sector involvement in all aspects of nutrient management, including research, and engage
them as partners in addressing current problems and meeting environmental goals.
12

-------
Standards and Accountability
¦
¦
¦ Establish plan criteria and standards for both public and private sectors to meet.
^	¦ Ensure the quality of private sector plans through spot checking and oversight by
the public sector.
Promote plans that are simple and understandable to the farmer, comprehensive in addressing all resource
concerns, and coordinated with other conservation plans such as erosion control or sludge application plans.
Standardize field number references between agencies in order to create a good mapping base.
Include follow-up with the landowner, plan evaluation, and periodic revisions or updates in the nutrient
management planning process.
Follow-up and continual visits by the planner will foster implementation.
Foster implementation through existing programs and regulations for other resources that encourage or
require nutrient management plans.	
Documentation
Recognize that the number of plans written does not always translate to direct
implementation.
Identify what types of information are wanted or needed for data collection and where gaps
exist in the data.
¦ Develop ways to document implementation through surveys, random sampling or testing
(soil tests or manure samples) on planned farms, feedback from fanners, and on-site
follow-up visits.
Create a database that includes landowners who do not participate in government programs through either
mandatory participation in the database or incentives for voluntary participation.
Address landowner concerns about privacy and sensitivity of information through reference to farms by
GPS and/or HUP sites rather than owners' names.
Structure the tracking system so that it will account for changes in operators on rented land.
Coordinate modeling and data-gathering efforts so that the tracking system is linked to Chesapeake Bay
Program models.
rowo
Marketing Excess Nutrients
¦	Promote successes in marketing and exporting manure (dairy manure in Lancaster
^ Co., PA) and partnerships (Shenandoah Valley, VA).
¦	Develop program to educate farmers that excess manure can be a resource rather
than a problem.
Address issues such as timing of application, salinity of manure, and manure storage.
Develop tracking system for manure markets that includes private brokers who handle excess manure and
shows locations of excesses and deficits.
Large private interests are needed to integrate the system.	
13

-------
Environmental Indicators
¦	Show farmers and public the impact nutrient management has and when these environmental
impacts will show up in the ecosystem.
¦	Demonstrate effects of nutrient management (and other management practices) on water quality
© and living resources.
¦	Quantify reductions in nutrient loadings downstream resulting from nutrient management.
Use monitoring and modeling as tools to assess the role and progress of nutrient management in meeting the
Chesapeake Bay Program 40% nutrient reduction goal.
Coordinate land and water monitoring to assess complex interactions of land use processes and water
quality.
Use reference farms, particularly hog or poultry operations, in a small watershed to study the relationship of
nutrient inputs and outputs and their contribution to Bay loadings.
Use areas with rapid groundwater turnover to assess effects of land use practices and effectiveness of
management practices.
Increase monitoring and develop tracking systems in urban areas to assess the effectiveness of urban
nutrient management practices.			
Research
¦
¦
¦ Document implementation efficiencies of nutrient management plans and nutrient
reductions resulting from implementation.
15^ ¦ Examine the balance of nutrient inputs and outputs at the farm level to determine
acceptable limits/standards of performance which can be explained and taught to
farmers.
Quantify nutrient contributions from urban and suburban areas (break out percent of impervious surface as
a factor).
Develop information to address whether existing nutrient management infrastructure can deliver the
reductions being projected in the tributary plans.
How will we maintain the Chesapeake Bay Program year 2000 cap (40% nutrient reduction) once it is
reached?
Identify future funding resources and what types of information need to be collected.
Validate models, tracking systems, and assumptions in relation to current technical and scientific bases.
Identify and analyze groundwater and delivery lag time issues and develop an information/education
program for lag time issues.
Provide information to farmers and develop best management practices that focus on animal nutrition.
Document impacts of animal waste on water quality.
Research options to minimize septic system impacts on water quality such as maintenance requirements,
design criteria, and construction practices such as using grasses to capture nutrients.
Assess the impacts of nitrogen-based de-icers and explore possible alternatives.
14

-------
Urban Nutrient Management
Define and articulate what practices constitute urban nutrient management.
Target various groups who are potential nutrient management implementers:
Homeowners, public and private grounds managers, lawn care services, non-
agricultural lots used for livestock/horses, businesses, and local governments.
¦	Hold community demonstrations in public areas (parks and school grounds) and in conjunction with
homeowners associations; private sector demonstrations at facilities such as industrial parks.
¦	Publicize nutrient management through mass mailings, public service announcements on television and
radio, and special events such as Earth Day.
¦	Promote environmental education targeting youth through school programs.
¦	Incorporate urban nutrient management outreach into existing programs such as continuing education for
professionals, managers, and employees, or training for master gardeners and garden centers.
¦	Use the Internet to disseminate information such as lawn and garden care facts sheets, research, and nutrient
management program activities.
¦	The Chesapeake Bay Program's role in promoting nutrient management should focus on developing a
message and a marketing plan that incorporates a long-term vision, identifies target audiences, creates an
awareness among public officials/local governments, and focuses on specific tasks/activities for the public.
Themes should be regularly updated.
¦	Build partnerships with key groups to support urban nutrient management.
¦	Target new homeowners through homeowners associations and realtors for distributing brochures on Bay-
friendly lawn and garden care.
¦	Work with developers and homebuilders to promote Bayscaping and include nutrient management
considerations in planning stages for new development.
¦	Encourage realties to include basic nutrient management and ecological information in realtor exams.
¦	Encourage local governments to change out-dated zoning specifications and adopt sound nutrient
management practices on public lands.
¦	Engage businesses and private industry through education programs for new businesses, publishing nutrient
management-related articles in business' newsletters, and seeking volunteers for environmental projects.
¦	Recognize the private sector/industry for sound practices such as nutrient management training for
applicators through rewards, publicity, etc.
000000
15

-------

-------