Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection
Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Rule Subject:
Soil and Water
Resource Management Program
Adm. Code Reference:
ATCP 50
Rules Clearinghouse #:
__
-
___
D
epartment
Docket #:
15
-
R
-
13
Rule Description
General
This proposed rule will modify
the
S
oil
and
W
ater
R
esource
M
anagement
(SWRM)
P
rogram
under
ch.
ATCP 50
, primarily for the purpose of incorporating the changes
to the
United States Department
of Agriculture’s
(USDA)
N
atural
R
esources
C
onservation
S
ervice
(NRCS)
2015
version of the
590 Nutrient Management Standard
(2015-590 NM Standard)
for the purposes of implementing
ch.
NR 151
adopted by
the
D
epartment
of Natural Resources
(DNR)
in 2011
(2011 DNR standards)
.
The
most significant
changes
to the rule that impact
this analysis center on the
agricultural
conservation standards
for nutrient management
(NM)
in
S
ubchapters
II
, clarification of
requirements for farmland preservation conservation compl
iance in
S
ubchapter III
, a cost
share rate adjustment in Subchapter
V,
NM
requirements in local regulations in Subchapter VII,
and
the
NM
technical and other standards for practices
cost
shared with s
tate funds in Subchapter VIII.
F
armers and others may benefit from
various
rule
changes
intended to improve
NM
implementation and resource protection.
Small Businesses Affected
The moderate impacts of this
rule
will
mostly affect f
armers,
a
great majority
of whom qualify as “small businesses.”
T
his rule
provides technical
runoff control
standards for
farmers
to implement the water quality performance standards
required by
the
2011 DNR
promulgated
standards
.
Most farmers
will
be
insulated from
some of the
costs
of implementation
because of
the state’s cost
share requiremen
t
and
the
limited
availability of
state funding to provide cost
-
sharing.
For farmers receiving farmland preservation
program (FFP)
tax credits, t
his rule
provides farmers
the
flexibility to
minimize
financial impacts of compliance, including the
option
of
discontinuing collection of
a
tax credit
as
a
last recourse
to avoid compliance responsibilities.
R
ule changes will also affect
businesses other than farmers including
NM
planners, soil testing laboratories, farm supply organizations, agricultural engineering
practitioners, and contractors installing farm conservation practices. The rule will impact these businesses to
a much smaller degree
, and
with primarily
positive impacts.
To reach its conclusion regarding
agricultural nutrient management (NM)
imp
acts on farmers
and non-farmers
, the
D
epartment
assessed
the cost
s associated with the
changes to the 2015
-
590
NM S
tandard as compared to the 2005
-
590
NM S
tandard
, while also identifying aspects of the 2015-590 NM Standard that are likely to have no cost increases to farmers or that may reduce the cost of conducting NM on their farms
.
T
he
D
epartmen
t concludes that this rule will create
a moderate impact on farmers and other businesses
.
Department
Impact Analysis
Chapter 92.05
(3)
(k) charges the
D
epartment with improving agricultural
NM
, making rules consistent with s.
281.16(3)
, and providing
financial
incentives, education, and compliance
assistance to agricultural landowners
. Implementing
NM
practices can improve
farm
profitability, reduce excess nutrient applications to cropland, and reduce water quality
impacts
.
The
Wisconsin
USDA
NRCS
developed
the 2015 version of the Wisconsin 590 Nutrient Management Standard with technical assistance from
agronomists, farmers, UW scientists, and agency staff.
In Wisconsin, the 590 Standard
us
es
the current 2012 version of UW Pub.
A2809
Nutrient Application Guidelines for Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops
to
determine the crop’s nutrient needs
and includes other restrictions required of NM plans developed for
: Department of Natural Resources
(DNR)
– Notice of Discharge or Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits for >1000 animal unit operations
,
Ordinances for manure st
orage or livestock siting
,
Department
cost
share or Farmland Preservation
,
DNR cost
share
,
USDA cost
share
,
or voluntary reasons.
The D
epartment calculates
an additional $3/acre to comply with the 2015-590 NM Standard
may be appropriate for those farms that have not yet developed a NM plan
.
The costs for soil testing and labor have increased
, and additional restrictions have been added to the 2015-590
NM
Standard that may require more land to apply manure
compared to
the 2005
-
590
NM
Standard.
T
he reasons for needing more land to apply manure are due to
the additional
spreading restrictions
listed below.
•
Prohibiting
nutrient applications within 50’ of all direct conduits to groundwater where only grazing and a limited amount of corn starter fertilizer may be applied.
This change was added to all direct conduits to groundwater, not just wells.
However the 2015
-590
NM Standard
deletes a 200’ incorporation requirem
ent for non-winter
nutrient
applications, allowing farmers to use less erosive tillage practices.
•
Prohibiting
applications of manure within 100’ of a non-community well
which includes
schools, restaurants, churches, and within 1000’ of a community well unless the manure is treated to
reduce
pathogen
content
.
Community wells cover approximately 30,000 acres of cropland. Non-community wells are not mapped and cropland acreage is estimated to be less than 7,000 acres.
•
Prohibiting
winter nutrient applications within 300’ of all direct conduits to groundwater, unless manure is directly deposited by gleaning or pasturing animals.
This setback increased 100’ from the 200’ setback in the 2005-590 Standard.
•
Prohibiting
liquid manure application in February or March on DNR Well Compensation Areas
,
or on
fields with
Silurian dolomite
bedrock
within 5’ of the surface.
DNR Well Compensation Areas cover about 6,000 acres of cropland and Silurian dolomite bedrock within 5’ of the surface covers 83,000 acres of cropland.
•
Limit
ing
manure
nitrogen (N)
applications in late summer or fall using
the
lower application rate of either the
current 2012 version of UW Pub.
A2809
or
2015-590 NM Standard
available N per acre
rate for the situation
on sites vulnerable to N leaching high permeability (P) soils, or rock (R) soils with < 20 inches to bedrock, or wet (W) soils with < 12 inches to apparent water table (PRW Soils).
N rates of 90 or 120 lbs. N per acre have not changed.
The r
ates depend on the crop, manure dry matter, and soil temperature.
Wisconsin P soils cover 1.3 million cropland acres, R soils cover 235,000 cropland acres, and W soils cover 1.5 million cropland acres.
•
Limiting
winter manure applications
w
hen frozen or snow-covered soils prevent effective incorporation
. T
he NM plan must l
imit
these applications
when slopes are > 6% and
if
fields have concentrated flow areas using 2 practices listed in
the winter application section of the 2015-
590
NM Standard
. These requirements do not apply to manure deposited through winter gleaning or pastoring. Farmers will need more
application
acreage if they choose these
practice options as either or both of the required practices for each field
: Apply manure in intermittent strips on no more than 50% of field; Reduce manure application rate to 3,500 gal.
,
or 30 lbs. P2O5, whichever is less; No manure application within 200 feet of all concentrated flow channels; Fall tillage is on the contour and slopes are lower than 6%.
Wisconsin has
3
.1 million cropland acres with slopes
greater than
6%
.
•
Prohibiting
manure applications to areas locally delineated by the Land Conservation Committee as areas contributing runoff to direct conduits to groundwater
,
unless manure is substantially buried within 24 hours of application.
This provision
now requires
incorporation to reduce the risk of runoff being intercepted by the conduit to groundwater in all seasons.
Therefore,
winter applications
are prohibited,
because the manure can
not
be effectively incorporated if the ground is frozen.
Farmers may
need more application acreage
if the field’s soil loss will be too high with the required manure incorporation
or if crops are no-tilled
.
A conservation plan
,
signed by the land operator
and approved by the county Land Conservation Committee
,
will be needed for designating winter spreading restrictions other than those specifically listed in this standard.
Not all the changes to the
2015-590 NM S
tandard will require more land
or add costs:
•
Nutrients
can
not
be applied within 8’ around
an
irrigation well
making this prohibition
consistent with
NR 812
well code.
The 2015-590 NM Standard
clarifi
es
that
an irrigation
well d
oes
not require a 50’ nutrient prohibition and incorporation of manure within 200' of the well.
•
New
options
a
re
now available
to control ephemeral erosion
, including contours, reduced tillage, adjusting the crop rotation, or implementing other practices to control ephemeral erosion
.
Existing options include using
contour strips, contour buffer strips, filter strips, > 30% crop residue after planting,
and establishing
fall cover crops.
•
L
ate
summer or fall commercial N fertilizer applications
are limited
on: areas within 1,000 feet of a community well; 5
feet
or less over bedrock; sites vulnerable to N leaching high permeability (P) soils, or rock (R) soils with < 20 inches to bedrock, or wet (W) soils with < 12 inches to apparent water table;
to rates
needed for establishment of fall seeded crops or to meet UWEX Pub. A2809 with a blended fertilizer.
The
fall
N rate was increased from 30 to 36 lbs. of N
per acre
to match common blended fertilizers
if other nutrients are needed
.
The 2015
-
590
NM Standard
is likely to decrease the amount of
N
fertilizer
that can be
applied in the fall
; but, the applications can be made in the spring
.
Wisconsin has approximately 1.8 million cropland acres with bedrock within 5’ of the surface.
•
An
additional
option
for use
o
n P soils, when commercial N is applied in the spring and summer
has been added
. These in-season applications must follow
the UWEX Pub. A2809 crop N rate guide
lines and apply one
of the following
strateg
ies
:
a
split or delayed N application to apply a majority of crop N requirement after crop establishment
,
u
se
a nitrification inhibitor with ammonium forms of N
, or, u
se slow and controlled release fertilizers for a majority of the crop N requirement applied near the time of planting.
•
More
options for mechanical applications of manure or organic by-products in the winter in the surface water quality management area (SWQMA)
within
1000’ of lakes/ponds or 300’ of rivers. A new option allows for no-till silage if nutrient applications are made within 7 days of planting. Nutrient applications in the spring, summer, and fall limit mechanical applications to 12,000 gals/acre of unincorporated liquid manure with 11% or less dry matter where subsurface drainage is present or within
the
SWQMA. This will be easier to implement with a single manure rate with more gallons per acre.
Other provisions in the rule
were adjusted to clarify processes or procedures for implementing
the nutrient management program
:
•
Clarifies that the alternative
related to
s.
NR 151.04
,
the phosphorus index
(PI)
,
is a nutrient management plan developed in accordance with the nutrient management provisions in 50.04(3)
and provides that in accordance with both
the 2005
-590 NM Standard
and 2015-590 NM Standard the alternative
to the PI is complying
with the soil test P management strategy.
•
Clarifies
the Farmland Preservation section requirements seeking
voluntary compliance with the rule changes to the maximum extent feasible
,
c
onsistent with
the Department’s
past approach
. Farmers
who wish to continue to participate in this program
may be required to comply with new and modified standards without
receiving
cost
-
sharing
.
•
Clarifies
that a cost
-
share grant may not be used to bring a permittee into compliance with standards under Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit under
chs
.
281
and
283
, Stats.
•
Clarifies
the changes from the 2005-590 NM Standard to the 2015-590 NM Standard increases the associated cost
sharing rates from $7 to $10 per acre per year due to additional costs associated with soil tests and new spreading restrictions.
•
Enable
s
the
D
epartment
to simplify the process for
cancelling
a
conservation engineer
’
s certification
if agreed to in writing
.
The rule also provides for a person with the appropriate level of NRCS job approval authority to certify in writing that the practice complies with this rule.
•
Requires
a
qualified NM planner to complete a NM checklist form, and provide reasonable documentation to substantiate each checklist response if requested by the
D
epartment or its agent.
•
Clarifies
a NM plan, and subsequent annual submissions
for local regulation means NM plans develop
ed
according to s.
ATCP 50.04(3)
.
Farmers
may be required to comply with new and modified standards without
receiving
cost
sharing
.
•
Clarifies
the standards for cost
sharing, specifically that a manure storage system’s capacity is based on the farm’s inability to comply with the NM plan. When the facility is emptied, the manure must be applied to non-frozen soil in compliance with a NM plan under s.
ATCP 50.04(3)
.
•
Identifies
a conflict of inte
rest prohibition for Department-
certif
ied soil-
testing laboratories.
National Agricultural Statistics
(2012)
show Wisconsin has 9.1 million acres of cropland, not including pastures. Currently about
2.
9
million acres are implementing nutrient management plans which leaves
6.27
million acres
yet to have plans developed
.
The cost
share rates of $7 per acre increased to $10 per acre due to the additional costs and spreading restrictions.
If we multiply
6.27
million acres
yet to have a NM plan
by
an additional
$3 per acre
, it totals
a
n additional
$1
9
million estimate for the cost of
full
implementation
or $1.
9
million annual cost for the next ten years.
If these l
andowners
are
offered 70%
cost
-
sharing
, they would be
responsible for
paying
30% of the $10 cost per acre or
about $
2.
7
million
annually
.
C
ost
S
har
e
R
equirement
Limit
s
Impact
The S
tate
cost
-
share requirement
for agricultural producers vary depending on the type of operation and the performance standard, but the revisions to the rules will not change the existing compliance requirements for agricultural operations. Under state law, compliance with the performance standards is not required for existing nonpoint agricultural facilities and practices unless cost
sharing is made available for eligible costs.
Wisconsin
has
69
,
0
00 farms (201
4
Wisconsin Ag Statistics).
Based on S
tate cost
-
sharing provided in th
e 10 years from 2003-2012, the S
tate provide
d
$10-$13 million annually
in
cost
share
funds for
practices, and it
is
likely
that
funding may
decline
.
A
nnually
,
$2
to
$4 million
in the form of bond revenue
funds
are
to pay for hard, viewable,
practices such
as
manure storage and grassed waterways
.
$2.5 million
is available annually
for NM program implementation including farmer education, cost
-
share payments for plan development, and Producer-Led Watershed Protection Grant program.
If recent history is any indicator, the
S
tate is less likely to increase spending and incur debt. In 2012, for example, the
D
epartment and DNR each year provided counties about $10.8 million in cost
-
share funding, a reduction of nearly $8.0 million from the amount provided in 2002 when there were fewer performance standards
.
Nutrient management alone had an estimated
cost of $6.5 million per year
assuming full
, voluntary statewide compliance with this nutrient management rule. Actual costs in the short term will be lower because some farmers will not comply voluntarily and
cannot be forced to comply without
cost
sharing
. The current shortage of cost
-
share dollars effectively limits
total
enforcement
. However
,
noncompliance will drive up soil-test phosphorus levels over time, and that will increase long-term compliance costs.
Many farmers will actually save money by complying with this rule, and benefits will generally increase over time.
A farmer can prepare
their
own nutrient management plan, if the farmer is qualified as a nutrient management planner. However, this rule may increase demand for professional nutrient management planning services. Farmers who comply with a nutrient management plan prepared or approved by a qualified nutrient management planner, other than the farmer, are presumed to comply with the nutrient management standards in this rule. The nutrient management planner is responsible for ensuring that the plan complies with the nutrient management standards.
D
epartment
Impact Analysis
Under
the
S
tate framework for managing farm runoff, t
he D
epartment
is respo
nsible for implementation of performance
standards
promulgated by DNR
.
T
he 2005 and the 2015-590 NM Standard state that the alternative to the WI phosphorus index strategy is the soil test phosphorus strategy. This section of the 590 NM Standard remains unchanged.
In the end,
the
key focus
of
ch.
ATCP 50
rule revisions
involve
s
implementation of
the
2015-590 NM S
tandard
.
Farmers
Imp
lications for
Recipients of
F
armland Preservation
P
rogram
(FPP)
T
ax
C
redits
The impacts
from this rule
on
farmers
participating in the FPP
arise from the
changes
related to
FPP
implementation.
In
the case of the 1
3
,
500
farmers
who c
ollect
ed
$
18
million in
farmland preser
vation tax credit
s
(based on 201
5
payments for tax year 201
4
claims), they may be required to comply with new and modified standards without
receiving
cost
sharing.
Identifying
impacts with precision is complicated by a number of factors
,
including the
changes in program participants over time, the compliance status of new participants, and
the
range of options to achieve compliance.
The D
epartment’s
proposed
rule revision
clarifies and
limit
s
impacts on this group by providing
time for program participants to comply with
the new performance standards,
using
performance
schedules. In addition, the proposed rule
clarifies that certificates of compliance issued to
farmers
complying with standards can be modified if some land is sold
. Certificates
of compliance are
rendered void if
all
the land is
under new ownership
or a
county land conservation committee issue
s
a notice of noncompliance if a landowner no longer complies.
Conversely, a county land conservation committee can withdraw a notice of noncompliance if the landowner is again found in compliance with standards.
Also
,
farmers may receive cost
sharing to install conservation practices necessary to maintain their eligibility for tax credits. Last
,
but not least, farmers who feel the compliance burdens are too great may decide to stop collecting a tax credit rather than implement standards.
Recordkeeping and New Skills Required
In considering impacts, the D
epartment must evaluate
additional reporting or record-keeping requirements
imposed
on farmers
with respect
to
nutrient management
planning
.
T
he D
epartment believes these
impacts will not be significant
. Among
the
chief re
asons for this conclusion, the D
epartment assumes that
these obligations will
not arise
in most cases
unles
s
farmers are provided cost
-
sharing.
For those farmers who must comply with nutrient management requirements related to nutrient application restrictions for winter s
preading or other seasons, the D
epartment provides funding to maintain NM planning software
,
S
nap
Plus
,
developed with the University of Wisconsin’s Soil Science Department.
S
nap
Plus
software includes planning tools that
communicates with
map
data
.
S
nap
Plus
bring
s
field features that may restrict nutrient applications and other provisions in the 2015-590 NM Standard
into the farmer’s database to show the planner where application timing or rates may need to be adjusted in order to comply with the 2015-590 NM Standard
. This software save
s the
planner’s time and
the
farmer’s money in planning and updating costs.
For those farmers who
must
comply with
nutrient management requirements
related to the phosphorus index
(PI)
,
the
D
epartment
clarified that a nutrient management plan developed in accordance with the nutrient management provisions in 50.04(3)
and provides that in accordance with both the 2005-590 NM Standard and 2015-590 NM Standard the alternative to the PI is complying with the soil test P management strategy.
Farmers claiming FPP tax credits must keep records to document compliance with the DNR performance standards adopted in 2002. For FPP participants, additional recordkeeping created by this rule should be minimal. For example, since farmers must keep records related to nutrient management plans, farmers should be able to readily incorporate requirements relating
to
the 2015-590 NM Standard into their systems.
The increased requirements for nutrient management planning
are
slight in comparison
with
the responsibilities imposed on farmers in 2002 when the nutrient management standards
were first
adopted
for cropland
,
or in
comparison to
2005 when the standard was modified to include
the
phosphorus component.
By its nature, the business of farming requires that farmers be skilled at managing changes triggered by the need to incorporate new technologies, respond to growing conditions, or modify production methods. In the case of nutrient management, farmers may need to build their skills with computers to take advantage of NM planning tools.
Whether the challenge
involve
s
recordkeeping or new skills,
the demands of this rule
should
be
viewed in
the
larger context of the many programs in which farmers participate.
Farmers need to make changes to meet other program requirements including
state and local permit
ting
and
federal cost
-
share programs.
Many programs
,
from county manure storage permits
to
FPP
,
require farmers
to
have nutrient management plan
s for their cropland. For farmers
in these programs,
it is a small step
, and in some cases easier to implement the 2015-590 NM Standard provisions into
the
se required
nutrient management
plan
s
.
The
D
epartment believes that recordkeeping and other
increased
responsibilities
are offset by
a
number of factors including
the
rule provisions that minimize burdens
,
and the following potential benefits from implementation of the 2011 DNR standards
through the 2015-590 NM Standard
:
•
Promot
ion
of
more efficient use of nutrients and cost-savings on fertilizer
through nutrient management planning
.
•
The
implementation of
conservation practices that provide protection against environmental and other
landowner
liabilit
ies
created by runoff events or groundwater contamination.
•
The protection of
water quality, particularly for
:
drinking water wells
, Silurian dolomite features, DNR well compensation areas, additional winter spreading prohibition areas from drinking water wells, and soils vulnerable to N leaching
.
Non-Farm Businesses
This rule has the following impacts on non-farm businesses, a considerable number of which qualify as “small businesses.”
Nutrient Management Planners and Crop Consultants
This rule will marginally
increase the
demand for professional nutrient management planners
to develop
nutrient management plans.
Nutrient management planners who prepare plans for others must be qualified to do so.
They must understand and follow record keeping requirements related to
soil types, soil tests, crop nutrient requirements including University of Wisconsin recommendations, nutrient applications, nutrient contents of manure, nutrient application scheduling
,
and other matters
related to nutrient management.
Planners holding certain professional credentials are presumed to be qualified.
Professional
s with the
knowledge and skill to use
S
nap
Plus
, a computer program critical to calculating
the
phosphorus index
, are in
a
special position to capture
new
business
.
The rule also
impacts
planners
by
requiring
a
qualified NM planner to complete a NM checklist form, provided by the
D
epartment, and provide reasonable documentation to substantiate each checklist response if requested by the
D
epartment or its agent.
Farm Supply and Farm Service Organizations
This rule will
marginally
increase the demand for
entities
that
provide
services to farmers. Farm supply and farm service organizations may provide nutrient management planning services, crop consulting,
fertilizer sales,
conservation compliance and other services. They may also sponsor
the
D
epartment
-approved training courses for farmers
who wish to develop their own nutrient management plans
.
This rule will
not necessarily
change
demand for manure hauling services.
This rule
is not likely to have a measurable impact
on
the
sales of agricultural fertilizers,
since it will not
likely
create an
increase
in
sales to
those
farmers
who must
manage nutrients more carefully. Persons selling agricultural bulk fertilizer to farmers must record the name and address of the nutrient management planner (if any) who prepared the farmer’s nutrient management plan. This rule does not prohibit the sale of fertilizer to a farmer who lacks a nutrient management plan.
Soil Testing Laboratories
This rule will
moderately
increase demand for soil testing. Nutrient management plans must be based on soil tests conducted by certified laboratories
. The
D
epartment
certif
ies
soil testing
laboratories
and
may audit laboratories to ensure accurate testing.
This rule adds a conflict of interest provision for the purposes of compliance with
50.04 (3)
. A
Department-
certified
,
privately owned laboratory shall not perform soil test analysis on cropland
managed or owned by
a person managing or having a
substantial financial
interest in the laboratory
.
Construction Contractors
This rule does not substantially
change demand for construction practices other than
continuing
the requirement to maintain grassed waterways in areas of reoccurring gullies. Nor does the rule
alter construction standards
or recordkeeping requirements.
Conservation
Engineering Practitioners
This rule
does not substantially
change
demand for agricultural
(conservation)
engineers and engineering practitioners
.
Under this rule, as under prior rules,
conservation
engineering practitioners must be certified by
the
D
epartment
. This rule
revision
simplifies
the cancelling of a
certification
in certain situations
without a
D
epartment
order if the practitioner submits a written acknowledgement voluntarily agreeing to the cancellation
.
The rule c
larifies the standards for cost
-
sharing, specifically that a manure storage system’s capacity is based on the farm’s inability to comply with the NM plan
. W
hen the facility is emptied, the manure must be applied to non-frozen soil in compliance with a NM plan under s.
ATCP 50.04(3)
.
Recordkeeping and New Skills Required
for Non-Farm Businesses
This rule does not
directly trigger
change
s
in
reporting, bookkeeping
,
or other procedures for non-farm businesses.
Busines
s professionals will need to en
hance
their
skills to
help farmers implement the
2011
DNR standards; however,
these professionals
will likely
take these actions for reasons other than this rule. Engineers and nutrient management planners must keep pace
with the
latest
technical standards to meet the needs of customers.
Certain professionals such as engineers and certified crop
advise
rs
are required to update their skills to retain
their
registration or certification.
Reporting, Bookkeeping
,
and other Procedures
To the extent that this rule requires reporting, bookkeeping
,
or other procedures, the
D
epartment’s analysis is included in the prior sections covering impacts on farmers and non-farm businesses.
Professional Skills Required
To the extent that this rule requires changes in professional skills,
the
D
epartment’s analysis is included in the prior sections covering impacts on farmers and non-farm businesses
.
Accommodation for Small Business
T
he
D
epartment
ha
s
taken steps to identify
complian
ce and reporting effects of th
is
rule change.
This
final rule draft
considered
:
(
1) the existing performance standards and prohibitions in
ch.
NR 151
,
(
2) the requirements of NRCS technical standard 590 needed to meet the nutrient management performance standard,
(
3) assumptions contained in t
he Wisconsin
p
hosphorus
i
ndex, and (4
) feedback from members of advisory committees that included small business owners and organizations.
T
he
D
epartment
worked extensively with farm representatives and
others
to minimize a
dverse effects
of this proposed rule
on small business
.
T
he
D
epartment
took the following actions: (1) worked with DNR to determine the scope of
the
D
epartment
rule revision, (2) conducted listening sessions that included farm
and
conservation
groups, (3) h
eld numerous public
hearings throughout the state
and held the record open afterward t
o
receive written comments
, (4) distributed
simplified information materials
to the public
, and
(5)
reviewed the rule to identify opportunities to
minimize impacts and
accommodate small business
es
.
While DNR’s
2011
rule revision est
ablished the core requirements
,
the
D
epartment
’s proposed rule provides accommodations to small businesses
. These
accommodations
minimize the impact on farms and other businesses, both small and large.
In general,
this rule:
•
Clarifies
the
changes from the 2005-590 NM Standard to the 2015-590 NM Standard and
increases
the associated cost
-
s
haring
rates from $7 to $10 per acre per year
due to additional costs associated with soil tests and new spreading restrictions
.
•
Clarifies that the alternative
related to
s.
NR 151.04
,
the phosphorus index
(PI)
,
is a nutrient management plan developed in accordance with the nutrient management provisions in
ATCP
50.04(3)
and provides that in accordance with both the 2005-590 NM
•
Standard and 2015-590 NM Standard the alternative to the PI is complying with the soil test P management strategy.
•
Clarifies
the Farmland Preservation section requirements seeking
voluntary compliance with the rule changes to the maximum extent feasible
,
c
onsistent
with
the
Department’s
past approach
.
Farmers
may be required to comply with new and modified standards without
receiving
cost
-
sharing
.
•
Enable
s
the
D
epartment
to simplifying the process for
cancelling
a
conservation engineer
’
s
certification
if agreed to in writing
.
The rule also provides for a person with the appropriate level of NRCS job approval authority to certify in writing that the practice complies with this rule.
•
Requires
a qualified NM planner to complete a NM checklist form, provided by the
D
epartment, and provide reasonable documentation to substantiate each checklist response if requested by the
D
epartment or its agent.
•
Clarifies
a NM plan, and subsequent annual submissions for local regulation means NM plans developed according to s.
ATCP 50.04(3)
.
Farmers
may be required to comply with new and modified standards without
receiving
cost
-
sharing
.
•
Clarifies
the standards for cost
-
sharing, specifically that a manure storage system’s capacity is based on the farm’s inability to comply with
the NM plan
. W
hen the facility is emptied, the manure must be applied to non-frozen soil in compliance with a NM plan under s.
ATCP 50.04(3)
.
Conclusion
This rule will
have no more than a moderate impact on farmers, including “small businesses.” The limited scope of the rule changes, combined with the cost
share mandate, account for the reduced impact.
Other businesses may slightly benefit from these rule changes.
