Iowa does not currently offer a separate source of funds for Animal Feeding Operation BMPs in response to a Notice of Discharge violation. However, Iowa does not preclude a producer from funding because of a Notice of Violation (NOV), except in the case where the NOV results in the requirement for an NPDES permit. Funding from State Revolving Funds and federal section 319 cannot be used for BMPs requiring an NPDES permit, but can be used for non-permitted BMPs. EQIP funds in Iowa are currently allocated such that counties with water quality livestock projects receive 40 percent of the eligible points when scoring for EQIP funding. The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship has a nutrient management program designed to offer financial assistance for livestock producers for manure management, but the program has not been funded in over 10 years.
Michigan:
Michigan does not require a separation distance between tillage activities and waterbodies. The state's rules regarding process wastewater only apply to permitted concentrated animal feeding operations, but discharges from smaller farms are generally prohibited as a violation of water quality standards.
Within permits that apply to municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), Michigan has similar performance standards for post-construction total suspended solids control and peak flow control in new development. It has a minimum treatment volume standard of one inch (or ½ inch if technically supported) where they must achieve an 80 percent total suspended solids reduction. It also has a channel protection criteria where the post-peak flow rate and volume must match the pre-peak flow rate and volume for all storms up to the 2-yr, 24-hr event. The peak flow control standard is more stringent than this rule because it also controls volume. Wisconsin is trying to control streambank erosion by controlling a greater number of smaller storms. Michigan has also identified some water bodies that are not required to meet the channel protection standard, similar to Wisconsin's approach. Michigan has an option to use low impact development to meet these two standards, which is very different from Wisconsin. However, unlike Wisconsin, Michigan is only implementing these performance standards on new development in municipalities that have an MS4 permit. Also, if the municipality had an ordinance in place prior to this rule that addressed water quality for new development even if the performance standard was not included, they are grandfathered in.
Michigan has a pass through grant (section 319 and Clean Michigan Initiative funds) that places a priority on projects that will restore impaired waters or achieve progress toward meeting TMDL load reductions. Michigan does not have a program similar to the rule's mechanism to fund NODs outside of a competitive grant process.
Minnesota:
Minnesota does not have a tillage setback requirement along all waterbodies in agricultural areas, but the state does require a 16.5 foot (one rod) grass strip along certain public drainage ditches as well as vegetated strips, restored wetlands, and other voluntary set-aside lands through federal, state and local programs. For process wastewater, Minnesota rules place a limit of less than 25 mg/l BOD5 (biological oxygen demand) that can be released to surface water and, if released to a leach field, the threshold is less than 200 mg/l BOD5.
For non-agricultural practices, Minnesota recently reissued construction permits that require infiltration and the need for additional BMPs when sites are located near s. 303 (d) or outstanding resource waters. Its permit generally is more prescriptive in terms of how to design a BMP for optimal control, but it is not usually presented as a performance standard which would provide more flexibility. Based on Minnesota's documentation, it appears to require BMPs that will achieve an 80 percent total suspended solids reduction and ones that will infiltrate the first half inch of runoff from impervious surfaces. Minnesota requires more BMPs, including temperature control, if the receiving water has special needs such as ORW/ERW waters or s. 303 (d) waters.
Minnesota provides funding for TMDLs through its Clean Water Legacy Act and section 319 of the federal Clean Water Act. The state does not have a funding mechanism to fund notices of discharge specifically, but is looking for ways to provide more financial support for runoff from feedlots. There is a state cost-share program which is used alone or in combination with federal cost share.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The rule's agricultural performance standards were developed with input from an advisory committee that met four times between December 2007 and February 2008. The following research results and methodologies were analyzed as part of the development of these standards.
Phosphorus Index:
The Wisconsin Buffer Initiative: A Report to the Natural Resources Board of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Dec. 22, 2005.
The following series of articles focused on the watershed targeting approach used in the Wisconsin Buffer Initiative report:
Diebel, M. W., J.T. Maxted, P. J. Nowak, and M. J. Vander Zanden. 2008. Landscape planning for agricultural nonpoint source pollution reduction I: A geographical allocation framework. Environmental Management 42 (5): 789-802.
Maxted, J. T., Diebel, M. W., and M. J. Vander Zanden. 2009. Landscape planning for agricultural nonpoint source pollution reduction II: Balancing watershed size, number of watersheds, and implementation effort. Environmental Management 43 (1): 60-68.
Diebel, M. W., J.T. Maxted, D. Robertson, S. Han, and M. J. Vander Zanden. 2009. Landscape planning for agricultural nonpoint source pollution reduction III: Assessing phosphorus and sediment reduction potential. Environmental Management 43 (1): 69-83.
The following studies of in-field runoff sediment and phosphorus concentrations provided some of the data that was used in building phosphorus index equations:
Panuska, J.C., K.G. Karthikeyan and P.S. Miller. 2008. Impact of surface roughness and crusting on particle size distribution of edge-of-field sediments. Geoderma 145: 315 – 324.
Panuska, J.C., K.G. Karthikeyan and J.M. Norman. 2008. Sediment and phosphorus losses in snowmelt and rainfall runoff from three corn management systems. Trans. ASABE 51: 95 – 105.
Panuska, J.C., K.G. Karthikeyan. 2009. Phosphorus and organic matter enrichment in snowmelt and rainfall runoff from agricultural fields. Geoderma XX: XX –XX (in review).
The following articles about the in-field runoff monitoring methods to collect the runoff phosphorus data that are used to validate the phosphorus index:
Bonilla, C.A., D.G. Kroll, J. M. Norman, D.C. Yoder, C.C. Molling. P.S. Miller, J.C. Panuska, J. B. Topel, P.L. Wakeman, and K.G. Karthikeyan. 2006. Instrumentation for measuring runoff, sediment, and chemical losses from agricultural fields. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:216-223.
Stunetebeck, T.D., M.J. Komiskey, D.W. Owens, and D.W. Hall. 2008. Methods of data collection, sample processing and data analysis for edge-of-field, stream gaging, subsurface tile, and meterological stations at Discovery Farms and Pioneer Farm in Wisconsin, 2001-7. U.S. Geological Survey Open File report 2008-1015. 51 p.
The following paper showed one year's worth of research that validated the Wisconsin phosphorus index.
Bundy, L. G., A. P. Mallarino, and L. W. Good. 2008. Field-Scale Tools for Reducing Nutrient Losses to Water Resources. Pp. 159-170 in Final Report: Gulf Hypoxia and Local Water Quality Concerns Workshop. September 26-28, 2005, Ames, Iowa. Sponsored by Iowa State University and EPA. Organized by the MRSHNC, Upper Mississippi River Sub-basin Hypoxia Nutrient Committee. St. Joseph, Michigan.
The following paper in press shows that simple runoff phosphorus loss models, like the Wisconsin phosphorus index can work well:
Vadas, P. A., L.W. Good, P.A. Moore Jr., and N. Widman. 2009. Estimating phosphorus loss in runoff from manure and phosphorus for a phosphorus loss quantification tool. Journal of Environmental Quality (in press).
The following document shows all the phosphorus index equations on the internet:
Good, L. W. and J. C. Panuska. 2008. Current calculations in the Wisconsin P Index. Available at:
http://wpindex.soils. wisc.edu .
The following models were used in the development of the Wisconsin phosphorus index:
RUSLE 2 (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equations, version 2), USDA-NRCS official RUSLE2 Program and Database and Training materials and User's Guides are available from
http://fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/RUSLE2_Index.htm The draft user's guide on this site is on the link labeled “RUSLE2 Technology."
Snap-Plus 1.129.1, 1/20/2009 Copyright 2003-2008 by University of Wisconsin Regents Software developed by P Kaarakka, L.W. Good, and J. Wolter in the Department of Soil Science, UW Madison. This a software program links models for nutrient management (SNAP), conservation assessment (RUSLE2) and the Wisconsin Phosphorus Index (PI) into one software program for multi-year nutrient and conservation planning. The most current version is available at
http://www.snapplus.net/ .
Process wastewater performance standard:
The rule's performance standard requires that livestock producers have no significant discharge of process wastewater to waters of the state. Sources of greatest concern include feed storage leachate and milk house waste. Process wastewater discharge is of sufficient concern that USDA has developed technical standards for its management. Environmental aspects of milking center waste water and feed storage leachate, including waste characteristics and water quality impacts, are included in:
Pollution Control Guide for Milking Center Wastewater Management. Springman, R.E., Payer, D.D and B.J. Holmes. 1994. University of Wisconsin-Extension, 44 pages.
“Silage Leachate Control". Wright, Peter, in Silage: Field to Feedbunk, Proceedings from the North American Conference, Hershey, Pennsylvania, February 11-13, 1997. Pages 173 – 186. NRAES, editor.
“Environmental Problems with Silage Effluent". Graves, R.E., and P.J. Vanderstappen. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Water Management Center Publication. 6 pages
“Base Flow Leachate Control." Wright, Peter and P.J. Vanderstappen. Paper No. 94-25 60, ASCE Meeting Presentation at the 1994 International Winter Meeting, Atlanta Ga., December 13 – 16, 1994. 7 pages.
The USDA technical standard for managing milk house waste and feed storage leachate discharges is: Waste Treatment (no. 629). USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. August, 2008. 22 pages.
Modifications to the non-agricultural performance standards were developed with input from a technical advisory committee that met four times between October 2007 and February 2008. Changes to the protective areas performance standard are based on the department's Guidance for the Establishment of Protective Areas for Wetlands in Runoff Management Rules, Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151 in the Waterway and Wetland Handbook, Ch.
10. Department staff gathered information from municipal engineers and conducted analyses under various scenarios using analytical models to provide information to the technical advisory committee including:
•
analysis showing the impact of redevelopment on total suspended solids loads, recommendations and estimated costs for control practices,
•
analysis of the infiltration performance standards modifications for different land uses.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small business
The department concluded that the revisions to chs.
NR 151,
153 and
155 will result in additional compliance requirements for small businesses, but the rules will not result in additional reporting requirements for small businesses. Rather than mandate specific design standards, the rules either establish new performance standards or revise existing performance standards.
Compliance requirements 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. A less stringent compliance schedule is not included for agricultural producers because compliance is contingent on cost sharing and in many cases, it can take years for a county or the state to provide cost share money to a producer.
Agricultural producers who are in compliance with the existing nutrient management performance standard may already be in compliance with the new phosphorus index and tillage setback performance standards. A phosphorus reduction strategy is included in NRCS nutrient management technical standard 590 (Sept. 5, 2005). A phosphorus index of 6 or less is specified in the PI strategy in Criteria C, 2 of the technical standard. The concept of streambank integrity, as proposed through a tillage setback performance standard, is an assumption of the phosphorus index calculation, which estimates phosphorus delivery to the stream via overland flow, but not from bank erosion or other means that soil, manure or fertilizer might enter the stream from farming operations. In circumstances where the phosphorus index has been determined to be insufficient to achieve water quality standards in areas where an approved total maximum daily load (TMDL) has been approved, a higher level of pollution control may be required. An owner or operator in this situation would be required to implement BMPs designed to meet the load allocation in the TMDL.
The rule revisions will not change the schedules for compliance and reporting requirements for non-agricultural businesses. These requirements are the same as those specified in ch.
NR 216. In determining whether non-agricultural small businesses can be exempted from the rules, the department concluded that because the requirements of ch.
NR 151, Subchapter III are based on federal requirements the state cannot exempt those businesses. Also, the impacts from certain small business construction activities can have as large a water quality impact as from large businesses.
In determining the compliance and reporting effects, the department 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, 4) compliance and reporting requirements under ch.
NR 216, Subchapter II, 5) agreement with the department of commerce to regulate storm water discharges from commercial building sites under one permit, and 6) feedback from members of advisory committees that included small business owners and organizations.
Small Business Impact (including how this rule will be enforced)
The overall effect on small businesses may be increased time, labor and money spent on BMPs or planning tools, but there will not be a significant economic impact on small business. However, for agricultural producers the proposed new agricultural performance standards and the revised existing agricultural performance standards are not enforceable unless 70 percent cost sharing is provided, or up to 90 percent for economic hardship cases. The rules will be enforced either through county ordinances, DNR stepped enforcement procedures or a combination of the two.
Small businesses in the construction industry will not see an effect from the changes to the construction performance standard, but may experience increased costs from the changes to some of the post-construction performance standards. Most of the businesses affected by the changes to the total suspended solids standard will be commercial and it is difficult to estimate how many of those would be classified as small businesses. The modifications to the infiltration and the protective area performance standards may add additional costs, but they are expected to be small. Businesses affected will be both large and small. The rule will be enforced through permits required under ch.
NR 216, or through local ordinances. For the non-agricultural performance standards, cost sharing is not required for compliance. However, the department may award grants for certain BMPs and planning activities.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
Pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:
Describe the type of small business that will be affected by the rule.
Agricultural producers (crops and livestock), business and associated professionals involved with construction (developers, engineers, contractors, others in the building profession, and small commercial establishments that meet the definition of small business).
Briefly explain the reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rule.
None.
Describe the type of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rule.
Familiarity with software such as SNAP Plus and RUSLE2 will be needed for the phosphorus index agricultural performance standard.
Small business regulatory coordinator
The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator for this rule may be contacted at
Julia.Riley@wisconsin.gov or by calling (608) 264-9244.
Environmental Analysis
The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
Proposed rule revision will result in an increased demand on agency staff devoting more time to training, education, grant oversight, enforcement and development of guidance and procedures. The department estimates that a total of 10.5 FTEs will be needed to implement all three rules.
State fiscal effect
Increase costs. Costs will not be absorbed within the agency's budget.
Local government fiscal effect
Increase costs.
Types of local governmental units affected
Towns, Villages, Cities, Counties.
Fund sources affected
GPR, SEG.
Long-range fiscal implications
State cost-share grants to fully implement the process wastewater performance standard would be $9.3 million or $930,000 annually if awarded over a 10-year period. However, this estimate is dependent upon the availability of cost-share funds to implement the standard.
Agency Contact Person
Carol Holden,
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Telephone: (608) 266-0140
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — General, Chs.
NR 100—, WPDES, Chs.
NR 200—, Water Regulation, Chs.
NR 300—, Water Supply, Chs.
NR 800—
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to Wisconsin Stats. ss.
30.12,
30.19,
227.11,
281.15,
281.41,
283.11,
283.31,
283.37,
283.39, and
283.49, the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to Chapters
NR 102,
103,
105,
106,
108,
110,
114,
200,
203,
205,
210,
214,
299,
328,
341, and
812, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to updating rules to accommodate new technologies and construction methods, require electronic submittals of wastewater permit documents, ensure consistency with federal water program regulations, fix typographical errors, and make minor modifications or clarifications to a variety of rules affecting the Bureau of Watershed Management.
