COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio House Bill 490 is another step in cleaning up Ohio waters, with the support of the Ohio Farm Bureau. This omnibus bill passed the House Nov. 19 and is expected to be taken up soon by the state Senate.

The portion of the bill that has received the most energy in the last couple of weeks have been the areas that deal with the application of manure and commercial fertilizer on ground that is either frozen or wet. Such ground is conducive to nutrient runoff, said Yvonne Lesicko, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF) senior policy director.

“That ban has been for the application of fertilizer and manure on that type of soil has been focused on the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB). Farm Bureau has been supportive of that measure; it is something we have been talking to our members about. We’ve brought together, along with the rest of the commodity groups, a kind of a manure task force.”

Farm Bureau members who were already using this practice have said it is an effective and a workable conservation measure, Lesicko said. The practice will have oversight respectively at the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (DNR). “Fertilizer will be at ODA and manure will be at ODNR until the transfer that happens in this bill that transfers everything to ODA,” Lesicko explained. “That (transfer) was the main thrust of the bill when it was introduced in spring.”

Manure and fertilizer application is restricted not only on frozen or snow-covered ground. It is also restricted when the top 2 inches of soil are saturated by precipitation or when there is at least a 50 percent chance of precipitation in the weather forecast.

Legislators looked to the 590 standards when writing the bill. Those standards are the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation (NRCS) Practice Standards: managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of application) and timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments. Everyone respects these standards as efficient, effective standards.

“They looked at when you would be allowed to apply under those circumstances,” Lesicko explained. “If you can inject or incorporate, or if you are applying on a live crop, then you would still be able to do it. Those things negate nutrient runoff.”

Farm Bureau wants to make sure the farmers who are going to be affected are aware they are affected and that they have time to figure out how they are going to implement, she explained.

“The approach we’re taking is a toolbox approach that includes solutions from storage to equipment to transport, to making sure that there are options out there for farmers to be in compliance by next winter.”

ODA supports applying the right fertilizer source at the right rate at the right time and in the right place, said Brett Gates, agency spokesperson. Applying nutrients when there is snow covering the soil or when the soil is frozen is the wrong time.

“We feel prohibiting that practice in the Western Lake Erie Basin is one of those necessary steps in our battle to restore the health of the lake,” he said.

490 not just about water

Two amendments to H.B. 490 have sportsmen concerned. One deals with the issuance of hunting licenses to any person assisting a “mobility impaired” hunter.

The other would create “deer sanctuary” permits.

“Since 2009, we have discontinued the practice of rehabilitating fawns from the wild,” said Scott Zody, chief of the DNR Division of Wildlife. “We have never allowed rehabilitation of adult deer. That is one point that has been lost in some respects in this discussion. We discontinued that practice because of concerns with chronic wasting disease (CWD) and other types of disease.”

This amendment is being driven by people who don’t appreciate the challenges and issues involved with truly rehabilitating a deer versus taking them in and keeping them as pets, Zody said.

People find a deer they assume to be orphaned or abandoned. Ninety percent of the time, that is true. But rehabilitators have found the stress of moving the deer would kill it. Zody said he understands people see these animals and want to help them.

“We are trying to see if we can find some other options,” he noted. “We find this situation a couple of times a year. We don’t want these animals to be kept as pets. People don’t appreciate that when these fawns grow up, they can be powerful animals.”

The Ohio Rehabilitators Assoc. supports the Division of Wildlife on this amendment.

Concerning the “mobility impaired” amendment, the Division has always used discretion when dealing with that situation, Zody said.

“We don’t want someone to get a ticket because they are, with good intentions, helping someone (disabled go hunting),” he explained. “We have provided guidance to our officers to use discretion in those cases.”

One concern is that anytime someone gives away a license or permit, it has a detrimental financial effect. The Division is a “user pay public benefit system,” Zody said.

“The bulk of our funding for the Division is derived from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and permits, and we use the sale of those permits to match down our federal funding sources. We receive no credit for free licenses with our federal aid, so it is a double hit.”

The second worry is about the intent of the language, Zody said. If a disabled person wants to be able to hunt, they buy their license and a deer permit for deer hunting.

If they need someone to assist them because of their impairment or disability, that person must be a licensed hunter. They don’t necessarily have to have a deer permit unless they are also participating in the hunt.

“The concern was, the way the language was written was very broad. The ‘mobility impairment’ wasn’t very well defined. Was it permanent or temporary thing? If my ankle was in a cast because I twisted it, does that qualify me for the mobility impairment?”