This rule does not directly trigger changes in reporting, bookkeeping, or other procedures for non-farm businesses.
Business professionals will need to enhance 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 advisers 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 Department’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 Department’s analysis is included in the prior sections covering impacts on farmers and non-farm businesses.
Accommodation for Small Business
The Department has taken steps to identify compliance and reporting effects of this 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 the Wisconsin phosphorus index, and (4) feedback from members of advisory committees that included small business owners and organizations. The Department worked extensively with farm representatives and others to minimize adverse effects of this proposed rule on small business. The Department took the following actions: (1) worked with DNR to determine the scope of the Department rule revision, (2) conducted listening sessions that included farm and conservation groups, (3) held numerous public hearings throughout the state and held the record open afterward to 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 businesses. While DNR’s 2011 rule revision established the core requirements, the Department’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-sharing 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, consistent with the Department’s past approach. Farmers may be required to comply with new and modified standards without receiving cost-sharing.
• Enables the Department 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 Department, and provide reasonable documentation to substantiate each checklist response if requested by the Department 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. 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). 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.
