• 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 requirement 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.
• Limiting 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 rates 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 when frozen or snow-covered soils prevent effective incorporation. The NM plan must limit 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 cannot 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 Standard will require more land or add costs:
• Nutrients cannot be applied within 8’ around an irrigation well making this prohibition consistent with NR 812 well code. The 2015-590 NM Standard clarifies that an irrigation well does not require a 50’ nutrient prohibition and incorporation of manure within 200' of the well.
• New options are 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.
• Late 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 on 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 guidelines and apply one of the following strategies: a split or delayed N application to apply a majority of crop N requirement after crop establishment, use a nitrification inhibitor with ammonium forms of N, or, use 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, consistent 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.
• Enables the Department 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 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). • Identifies a conflict of interest prohibition for Department-certified 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 an additional $19 million estimate for the cost of full implementation or $1.9 million annual cost for the next ten years. If these landowners are offered 70% cost-sharing, they would be responsible for paying 30% of the $10 cost per acre or about $2.7 million annually.
Cost Share Requirement Limits Impact
The State 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 69,000 farms (2014 Wisconsin Ag Statistics). Based on State cost-sharing provided in the 10 years from 2003-2012, the State provided $10-$13 million annually in cost share funds for practices, and it is likely that funding may decline.2 Annually, $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.
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.
2If recent history is any indicator, the State is less likely to increase spending and incur debt. In 2012, for example, the Department 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.
Department Impact Analysis
Under the State framework for managing farm runoff, the Department is responsible for implementation of performance standards promulgated by DNR. The 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 involves implementation of the 2015-590 NM Standard. Farmers
Implications for Recipients of Farmland Preservation Program (FPP) Tax Credits
The impacts from this rule on farmers participating in the FPP arise from the changes related to FPP implementation. In the case of the 13,500 farmers who collected $18 million in farmland preservation tax credits (based on 2015 payments for tax year 2014 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 Department’s proposed rule revision clarifies and limits 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 issues 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 Department must evaluate additional reporting or record-keeping requirements imposed on farmers with respect to nutrient management planning. The Department believes these impacts will not be significant. Among the chief reasons for this conclusion, the Department assumes that these obligations will not arise in most cases unless farmers are provided cost-sharing. For those farmers who must comply with nutrient management requirements related to nutrient application restrictions for winter spreading or other seasons, the Department provides funding to maintain NM planning software, SnapPlus, developed with the University of Wisconsin’s Soil Science Department. SnapPlus software includes planning tools that communicates with map data. SnapPlus brings 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 saves 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 Department 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 involves 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 permitting and federal cost-share programs. Many programs, from county manure storage permits to FPP, require farmers to have nutrient management plans 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 these required nutrient management plans.
The Department 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:
• Promotion 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 liabilities 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
