Cost Sharing Required
The Department has not changed the requirement for cost-sharing when a landowner is required to install conservation practices. 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. This rule 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.
• 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.
• A NM plan, and subsequent annual submissions for local regulation means NM plans develop according to s. ATCP 50.04(3). Farmers may be required to comply with new and modified standards without receiving cost sharing. • 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). County Soil and Water Conservation Programs
Farmland Preservation; Conservation Standards
The impacts from this rule on farmers participating in the farmland preservation program (FFP) 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.
• 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.
• This rule ensures that a farmer’s eligibility is in part based on meeting state conservation standards that mirror DNR performance standards and prohibitions. This rule 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. Grants for Conservation Practices
The Department’s proposed rule revision 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. Soil and Water Professionals
Under s. 92.18, Stats., the Department is directed to establish, to the extent possible, requirements for certification in conformance with the federal engineering approval system. This rule includes a more flexible and responsive framework for certifying engineering practitioners that better matches the federal system, and ultimately ensures maximum capacity for design and installation of farm and other conservation practices. The Department’s proposed rule revision 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. Nutrient Management Planners
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. Professionals with the knowledge and skill to use SnapPlus, a computer program critical to calculating the phosphorus index, are in a special position to capture new business. The rule also impacts planners requiring 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. The Department’s proposed rule revision:
• 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 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. • 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.
County and Local Ordinances
In Wisconsin, the 590 Standard uses 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 storage or livestock siting; the Department cost share or Farmland Preservation; DNR cost share; USDA cost share; or voluntary reasons. The Department’s proposed rule revision clarifies that 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. Standards for Cost Shared Practices
In addition to updating technical standards incorporated into this subchapter, this rule:
• 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.
• 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). Standards Incorporated by Reference
Pursuant to s. 227.21, Stats., the Department has requested permission from the Attorney General to incorporate the following standards by reference in this rule: • NRCS technical guide standards and related documentation.
• ASCE and other private sector-developed engineering practice standards.
• State agency (DNR, DOT) erosion control standards for construction sites and storm water management.
• UW-Extension publications including fertilizer recommendations, milking center waste water management, rotational grazing, and soil and manure testing.
• NRCS standards for determining soil erosion (RUSLE 2, WEPS).
Copies of these standards will be on file with the Department and the Legislative Reference Bureau. The Department has discontinued the practice of including key documents as appendices and will utilize its website to indicate where documents may be obtained.
Land and Water Conservation Board
The Land and Water Conservation Board has reviewed this rule as required by s. 92.04(3)(a), Stats. Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed Federal statutes and Regulations
NRCS has adopted standards for conservation practices cost shared by NRCS. Current Department rules incorporate many NRCS standards by reference. In most cases, the standards apply only to conservation practices cost shared with Department funds. But in some cases (such as nutrient management), Department rules incorporate the NRCS standards as mandatory pollution-control standards. Enforcement of these mandatory standards is generally contingent on cost-sharing (there are limited exceptions).
While NRCS sets national standards, standards vary, to some extent, between states. NRCS coordinates its Wisconsin standard-setting process with the Department, DNR, counties, and others. For purposes of Wisconsin’s soil and water conservation program, the Department may incorporate NRCS standards as written or may modify the standards as appropriate.
NRCS certifies engineering practitioners who design, install, or approve conservation engineering practices cost-shared by NRCS. The Department certifies practitioners who perform similar functions under the Department’s rules. The Department’s proposed rule revision 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.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers a number of federal programs that offer voluntary conservation incentives to farmers. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a key program offering cost-sharing for conservation improvements, including nutrient management plans, manure storage improvements and other conservation practices. As a result of confidentiality requirements, federal cost-sharing provided to landowners through this and other NRCS cost share programs cannot be publicly disclosed. Without accurate historical data about past use of NRCS cost-sharing to implement state conservation standards, it is difficult to account for the role these funds may play in the future.
Comparison with Rule in Adjacent States
This comparison examines how surrounding states are addressing issues related to agricultural runoff and nutrient management planning and regulation and its relationship with farmland preservation activities. In general, the adjacent states do not use statewide performance standards specifically designed to address polluted runoff from agricultural sources. However, these states have various regulations and procedures in place to address many of the polluted runoff sources that this rule revision addresses. All four states use the NRCS 590 Nutrient Management Standard to steer their implementation of agricultural nutrient management, but none use it to the extent of Wisconsin’s nonpoint program. All four states use the phosphorus index in some form but none use it in the same manner as NR 151 provides. For example, nutrient management strategies in Michigan are implemented as part of the state’s Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). Wisconsin’s approach differs from the programs in adjacent states in that it has more detail in its state nutrient management standard and applies to more small and medium size farming operations than in other states. Also, in Wisconsin, pursuant to s. 281.16, Stats., cost-sharing must be made available to existing agricultural operations before the State may require compliance with the standards. Cost sharing is often tied to compliance responsibilities in adjacent states, but there are instances where farmers must meet standards other than the phosphorus index as part of regulatory programs. Illinois
