Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

•   a standard that requires implementation of best management practices designed to meet a load allocation specified in an approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).

Modifications are made to the agricultural performance standards addressing cropland soil erosion control, nutrient management and manure storage. The rule also changes the non-agricultural performance standards that address construction site erosion control, post-construction storm water management and developed urban areas. The subchapter addressing transportation performance standards is moved to the non-agricultural performance standards sections. The agricultural implementation and enforcement sections are modified to clarify cost-share eligibility and to better align with the department's stepped enforcement procedures. Some definitions are added and other definitions that are no longer used are deleted.

Chapter NR 153, Targeted Runoff Management And Notice Of Discharge Grant Programs

This existing rule contains policies and procedures for administering targeted runoff management grants to reduce both agricultural and urban nonpoint source pollution. Grants may be used to cost share the installation of best management practices as well as to support a variety of local administrative and planning functions. Projects are selected through a competitive scoring system and generally take two to three years to complete.

The revisions create four project categories for the targeted runoff management grant program instead of one category in the existing rule. The categories include large-scale/TMDL implementation, large-scale/non-TMDL control, small-scale/TMDL implementation and small-scale/ non-TMDL control projects. The rule will help the state make progress in meeting its obligation to address impaired waters by focused funding of projects addressing TMDLs.

To implement recent statutory changes to the grant program, the rule creates a mechanism outside the competitive TRM process to fund Notices of Discharge (NODs) issued under ch. NR 243. Other provisions allow the department more flexibility in allocating grant funds and ensure an equitable scoring system. Portions of ch. NR 153 are repealed and recreated to accommodate the newly created categories, to eliminate or add definitions, clarify and expand restrictions on cost sharing, require the establishment of a local ch. NR 151 implementation program as a grant condition and allow for additional safeguards in the application documents.

Chapter NR 155, Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement And Storm Water Management Grant Program

This existing rule contains policy and procedures for administering the urban nonpoint source and storm water management grant program authorized under s. 281.66, Stats. The department may make grants under this program to governmental units for practices to control both point and nonpoint sources of storm water runoff from existing urban areas, and to fund storm water management plans for developing urban areas and areas of urban redevelopment. The goal of this grant program is to achieve water quality standards, minimize flooding, protect groundwater, coordinate urban nonpoint source management activities with the municipal storm water discharge permit program and implement the non-agricultural nonpoint source performance standards under ch. NR 151. Grants to a governmental unit may be used to cost share the installation of best management practices as well as to support a variety of local administrative and planning functions. The department may also make grants to the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System to control urban storm water runoff from campuses in selected locations. Projects are selected through a competitive scoring system and generally take one to two years to complete.

The revisions to ch. NR 155 increase the department's management oversight and accountability of grants while at the same time increase flexibility in how the grants are used. The revisions limit on the amount of money a grantee may receive in a given grant year, increase the department's management oversight of grants by approving all contracts, regardless of cost, provide the department greater flexibility in awarding funds and allow for additional safeguards in the application documents.

The rule also allows the use of local assistance grants to pay for work done by competent in-house staff rather than hiring an outside consultant thus increasing local government's flexibility to control costs. The rule adds requirements that hired consultants be competent in storm water management, all outstanding grants be completed on schedule prior to a new grant award, a final report be submitted and that the department may deny a grant to an otherwise eligible project if there is a potential impact on hazardous sites in addition to historic sites, cultural resources or endangered resources. Other parts of ch. NR 155 are repealed and recreated to define terms, clarify concepts and merge similar sections, giving the department greater flexibility in awarding funds.

Comparison with federal regulations

The rule revisions are consistent with federal regulations that apply to control of nonpoint sources of pollution, animal feeding operations, nutrient management and storm water management. While federal regulations do not apply specifically to cropland practices or livestock operations that have only nonpoint source runoff, there are federal regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (point sources) that specify control of nutrients entering surface waters. Certain modifications also better align state grant funding priorities with those of the federal government regarding total maximum daily loads.

The rule's phosphorus index performance standard is based on national policy and guidelines on nutrient management issued by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in April, 1999. The national policy and guidelines suggested the use of one of three phosphorus risk assessment tools, the most comprehensive of which is the phosphorus index. Prior to the adoption of this national policy, states began developing phosphorus-based nutrient management guidelines or regulations. The tillage setback performance standard is based on the phosphorus index calculation that assumes no tillage to the edge of the bank. The performance standard specifying BMPs to meet the load requirements of approved TMDLs will help the state to control nonpoint source pollutants to achieve federally required and approved TMDLs. The control of process wastewater discharge is of sufficient concern that USDA has developed technical standards for management of process wastewater.

Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states

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 these rule revisions address. All four states use the phosphorus index in some form but none have proposed using it as a statewide performance standard as this rule does. The rule differs from the adjacent states' rules because it has more detail in its phosphorus index, is more quantitative and has more research to validate it. 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.

Illinois:

Illinois does not have a tillage setback requirement, but it does offer a property tax incentive for the construction of livestock waste management facilities including the development of vegetative filter strips. The filter strips must be in cropland that is surrounding a surface-water or groundwater conduit, must be part of a conservation plan, and must have a uniform ground cover. The minimum and maximum widths that are eligible for the tax reduction is determined by the slope. Illinois does not allow raw materials, by-products and products of livestock management facilities, including milkhouse waste, silage leachate, and other similar products to be discharged to waters of the state. In addition to tax incentives, Illinois relies on federal Clean Water Act section 319 funds from US EPA to fund nonpoint source projects in the state.

Illinois requires that permit applicants follow a series of technical standards that are in the Illinois Urban Manual for both construction and post-construction. If the developer uses the technical standards they are considered in compliance, unless an inspection indicates that the technical standard is not working adequately. The developer will then need to make changes to their construction site or storm water management plan.

Iowa:

Iowa requires that nutrient management plans for livestock operation of 500 or more animal units be based on the phosphorus index. The rule's version of the phosphorus index uses Iowa's “quasi-modeling" approach but the equations are based on Wisconsin research. Iowa does not require a separation distance between tillage activities and waterbodies. Iowa prohibits discharge to waters of the state, polluting waters of the state and discharge to road ditches.

Iowa does not have a performance standard approach to construction projects, but does require BMP implementation. There is no specific goal for post-construction other than to have a storm water management plan similar to the way Wisconsin's program was set up before ch. NR 151 was promulgated in 2002. The requirement on the municipality is to try to control runoff from new development. There are no specific goals.

Iowa is making an effort to coordinate the development of TMDLs with the implementation of water quality improvement plans based on TMDLs. There is not yet a separate funding source specifically for implementing TMDL plans, but there are several different funding sources currently used for watershed project implementation, including section 319 funds and three different sources of state-funded watershed implementation funds. There is also a state-funded lakes restoration fund which may be partly used for watershed restoration work. Wherever possible, watershed projects try to leverage EQIP and other federal sources of funds.

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 [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

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.